Great points, Dana! I totally agree on the importance of diverse cultures and approaches to storytelling.
This debate is bringing some interesting perspectives and suggestions. The emphasis seems to have shifted away from the original premise of Oscar eligibility denied to Netflix products, and more to the economics and opportunities that have changed because of streaming. The short approach: the Academy gets to decide the rules for their "club". The problem: their club influence has a major impact on so many people excluded from that club.
The general discussion, then, has to consider all streamers, not just Netflix. From there, one also has to wind back and see how YouTube probably got this whole snowball rolling way back when - giving individuals a money-making platform outside the establishment system. Yes, sure, it also opened the flood gates for piracy, but that's a different debate. The opportunities for independents have expanded, and the traditional system is late to the game and now grapples to control something (which is really not theirs to control) with their out-of-date rules and perceived supremacy.
The tip of this iceberg first popped up in the 2018 Cannes/Netflix controversy. Netflix evolved.
What no-one seems to express is the value decline of the Oscars. Awards and accolades are important, for sure. And having an "oscar winner" subtitle still seems holds weight - within the system. But the Hollywood system needs to evolve, and the Academy needs to address the biased, irresponsible approach to voting that's been revealed in places like The Hollywood Reporter interviews with anonymous voters. The insincerity is gobsmackingly unprofessional and makes me question the validity of those members, the process and the institution. The Academy has had a horrendous couple of years: backpeddling their announcements on awards and categories, their hostless presentation or hosts that don't understood what the event itself is about, the "invasion" of politics. After this year's ceremony and this ensuing debate, I'm taking a major step back in my reverence of the Academy as a pinnacle institution.
It is possible to evolve within the mainstream. BAFTA was "the poor cousin" to the Academy on the world stage, but after a makeover that re-positioned their award show earlier in the season, and adding a platform for the gaming industry, they demonstrate that they are acknowledging a broad spectrum of storytelling.
This Gordian Knot of intertwined economics/opportunity with art/storytelling is not new, but there is a plethora of new ways for artists to get eyeballs on their work. Flexibility is essential in creativity, and that includes the structures that support it towards thriving. And this is the major sticking point in this debate: system exclusivity and limitations vs. artist opportunity and audience connection.
Congrats on your second feature, Dana. I hope it finds an audience \o/
Dang, that looks priddy! I bin sittin' and grinnin' for the whole 2 minutes 'n' 4 seconds of trailer. An' all them ol' familya faces. Mm-mmm. I'ma get me a ticket faw shaw!!
Quick afterthought on Avengers: Infinity War ... I thought it was quite often visually stunning; they took us to many different locations; the colors and contrasts exuded atmosphere and mood; with so many book-to-screen characters and environments to bring together, I never felt there was a misstep in color/character pairings. A visual feast in many ways!
I am not a colorist (my focus is writing), so my views my not be relevant here ... Still, I appreciate the range of creative options and the different approaches to creating visual world character. So, it was interesting to read this alternative to the referenced video.
I really need to add in a shout out for Ang Lee's "Hulk", though - described in this article as "wildly unpopular". There are many people who agree that it is underrated, and there is much to appreciate about it. A quick google search yields a plethora of praise.
Some fans of the comic book character Hulk claimed disappointment at minimal action scenes. However, a minute-for-minute comparison with the subsequent reboot shows that there is actually more action in Ang Lee's version. The reboot is officially part of the MCU, yet the only carry-over seems to be William Hurt as General/Secretary Ross, with everyone accepting Mark Ruffolo's Banner/Bane as the standard. This suggests that the reboot is not even so popular with its creators.
Regarding mimicking comic book visual effects on screen, personally I liked the multiple panels/shots use in Ang Lee's Hulk, which were interesting storytelling choices that gave me layers to appreciate. Similarly, Kenneth Brannagh's Thor specifically and sparingly used Dutch angles, color palettes and framing to pay homage to the original format, but also to give a stripped back Shakespearean telling of this God of Thunder. If anyone wants more insight to Sir Ken's decisions, I recommend watching the film with his commentary. He's a delight to listen to.
Overall: while it's immensely satisfying to recognize and connect with creative choices being made in someone's version of (particularly) a popular story/character; it's important to be open to different ideas, which might not be the choices we would have made but could have merit in the context they are presented - and we just haven't considered that context properly yet.
There is big difference in saying something is "bad/wrong" rather than "it didn't work for me" or "it didn't work because ...", or even "I see what they're going for, but what if they tried xxxxx instead ..."
While I haven't read the screenplay, I'm fairly confident that Shane Black's writing translates reliably from page to screen, so KISS KISS BANG BANG needs to be high on this list. ZOMBIELAND for sure deserves acclaim. IN BRUGES is brilliantly funny.
And I query THE GRADUATE listed as a comedy.
Great article. I just signed up for the course. I'll let you know how it goes .. =)