Made-for-TV movies have their own competition and awards, like the Emmy awards.
I don't see how this will make Cannes less relevant. It doesn't make Cannes less relevant that it doesn't award daytime soaps or commercials or whatever. Focus on a specific niche - cinematic movies - arguably will help it stay relevant, as long as cinemas exists.
(Whether cinemas will continue to exist is a different question. I suspect Netflix is a much larger threat to traditional flow TV than to cinemas.)
In any case, Cannes is not "forcing" anybody to do anything. They are just clarifying what kind of movies can be considered for the festival.
That's exactly the nonsense we're talking about here.
Distribution channel doesn't mean anything. There are strong correlations between being able to put on a show and production values, but it's not causative.
Define a movie by its actual qualities. Runtime, dialogue(?), even picture format... But forget about distribution. Lots of people have cinemas in their houses now. Where they don't have to pay £30 to be surrounded by sweaty strangers and sit on uncomfortable and dirty seats. Plus snacks and transport.
If you don't like going to the cinema, why do you care about Cannes at all? It is a film festival which celebrate cinema and the associated mystique and glamour. Nobody is preventing you from watching whatever you want in your home cinema.
Again, I think you need to separate the building from the art.
That's not saying other forms of entertainment cannot have value, just that Cannes is about a certain form.
Conflating "form" with distribution as if the latter affects the first.
No, I'll give you a chance... But how do you think they review these things? It used to be DVD screeners but (ironically, here) Cannes set up an online VOD service for screeners. How do you assess something that has to be available via cinemas, on computer via a wonky streaming service?
This rule is simple (and classic French) protectionism of a distribution channel that is failing to compete.
I think it was David Lynch who said "If you haven't see my movies in a cinema, then you haven't seen my movies".
You may not care for this difference, but why does it anger you so that others do?
They were backed via Kickstarter and promised backers a "pre-release" download. Because they wanted to be eligible for an Academy Award nomination they ended up releasing the movie in LA (and New York I think?) for the minimum run necessary and then waited another couple of months for the official release as digital download.
Because of the Academy Award rules they held back the "pre-release" downloads until just before the release of the digital download version. They angered a lot of backers by saying it was still technically a pre-release because the digital download hadn't been available yet although the film had already been in cinemas and available for private screenings for months at that point.
It's a good example for bad communication. Especially when upset backers were basically told the "pre-release" would happen at the last possible moment to combat file sharing, but that's another tangent.
Let the dinausores die please.
Governments are an extreme example of any other bureaucracy. They always find a way to spend every dollar they're collecting and usually more than that too.
The problem with socialism is, you eventually run out of other people's money.
"You're losing money on every order?!"
"Sure but we make it up in volume!"
Taxes?? This is what the Cannes festival decided, not your government.
> Netflix provides way better content than the french industry.
Then watch Netflix? Your government is not stopping you.
Btw: in GER it's ~17.50€ per month per household and the "agency" collecting this money is already talking about raising this to ~20€ in a few years...
Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitragsservice_von_ARD,_ZDF...
You could argue that french studios also get tax breaks, but those don't actually fund movies, they just increase profits for movies that are profitable.
As for the regulations I agree that they are too strict for the digital age but not releasing in the theaters is a pretty bad solution IMO.
If you look at the US market, both providers have significant amounts of content, which, it can be argued, provides a better viewing experience. The trend seems to be going away from traditional cinemas to streaming services. If this is the case Cannes may have just made itself irrelevant to this growing part of the market.
Quality of product are not determined by the amount of money wasted. Sure the base quality is almost here, but it's why we have sooooo many bad movies but 1% of them are good.
When you get a movie (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Dynamite) for $ 6,000 that make 40 million, done in 27 days. Hollywood studio should stop scratching their balls.
Force streaming services to release in French theaters, force customers to pay someone else to watch the movie, and subject the streaming services to draconian french regulations on when they can stream that movie.
So as Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming services take off, cannes will become less and less relevant as more and more movies are funded and produced by streaming services until cannes is that old french indy festival that was replaced with a more modern and movie viewer friendly festival.