Steven Speilberg Vs. Netflix

Good point. I just looked at Roma's Wiki page and it does indeed say Netflix was the USA distributor of Roma. Netflix was not listed as the producer. In my book Roma is an indie film. I think it should have qualified for Oscar nomination, as it did.

I much rather see movies like Roma getting funding so they can be made, then Spielberg's own entertainment film Reader Player One.

Honestly I think I lost what we are even talking about but I will say Gilroy and Saulnier had very good and successful movies and that's why they got more movies.

I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.

you mean the director of box office bombs roman j israel esq and green room ? both those movies bombed. Those directors need to work harder to get their next movies greenlit. But with netflix throwing money at them...they get to make their movies easily.

Ironpony is right. Most movies are made using other people's money and that's still no guarantee that the movie will "get good" as a result - if anything, the more common stereotype is that individual artists have to compromise their creativity in order to fit their producer's demands for commercially viable (and artistically mediocre) product. Netflix's hands-off approach is essentially a gamble that will either pay off big or not, but in the grand scheme of things it's not all that different to major studios in that it does bank on accessible content to help finance its bigger risks.

Ironpony - I would think it's got something to do with the rule that a film can only be eligible for Oscars if it plays in commercial theatres for a minimum amount of time (I think it's about two weeks), which is something that I don't think gets offered to actual TV movies very often (if at all). I remember reading somewhere that part of Spielberg's proposal was to extend the minimum theatrical run needed to qualify to four weeks, but I don't have a source on hand for that.