Author: Chris Snelgrove Published
Since 2019, Netflix movies have been receiving Oscar consideration, despite the fact that almost all of them are streaming. To gain attention, streamers often release these films in theaters within the minimum number of days required by the academy.
Avatar Director James Cameron recently said that Netflix films should not receive Oscar consideration unless they play in at least 2,000 theaters for at least a month, but his plan would be a complete disaster because it would prevent many non-Netflix films from competing with bigger, better-funded films.
Put down the challenge
Cameron backs down from his white-hot views Matthew Belloni’s Town podcast, declaring “If the Oscars don’t mean drama, then they mean nothing to me.” Cameron said the Oscars “are being co-opted and I think it’s horrible,” and he went on to outline what he believed was a fair compromise for Netflix if it wanted its movies to be eligible for Academy Awards. “If they have this movie meaningfully playing in 2,000 theaters for a month, they should be allowed to compete.”
At first glance, this sounds like a good idea, especially for those who enjoy going to the theatre. The theater industry has taken a huge hit in recent years, with Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos publicly stating that “theater is dead,” as James Cameron pointed out in his podcast. Many believe that the service and other streaming services are responsible for declining box office revenue, so it seems fair to demand that Netflix films have a strong theatrical presence if they want to compete with other films for the Academy Awards.
punish the indies
However, if Cameron’s idea becomes an actual requirement for the academy, it must apply to all Movies, not just Netflix movies. This means that any movie that wants to win an Oscar must play in at least 2,000 theaters for at least a month. In short, this would prevent the vast majority of independent films (which typically play shorter films in fewer theaters) from winning Oscars.
Plus, regardless of whether Netflix is actually to blame, the fact remains that fewer people are going to the movies now than before. Heck, October’s box office receipts were Hollywood’s lowest ever three decades. When a movie (even a good one) doesn’t do well, it’s pulled from theaters, making it increasingly difficult to sustain a theatrical run for at least a month.
perfect storm
This set off a perfect storm that revealed how Cameron’s plan would actually mess up many smaller films. Historically, some of these smaller films have really impressed Oscar voters: Former Best Picture winner moonlightFor example, the film opened in more than 1,500 theaters, well below Cameron’s 2,000 theater mark. Another Best Picture winner, Twelve years a slavewill be disqualified by Cameron because it “only” played in just over 1,100 theaters during its run.
Under Cameron’s system, the films most likely to win Academy Awards would be well-funded films, such as (not surprisingly) his own Avatar movie. Plus, we already live in a world where almost every movie is a sequel, prequel, or remake. Are we real Want to make matters worse and ensure that major franchises (like, God help us, the Marvel Cinematic Universe) can compete for Hollywood’s greatest awards?
I’m a lifelong James Cameron fan and I sincerely think he’s one of the most visionary directors in Hollywood, but his Oscar proposal is completely madman. This would punish a smaller filmmaker and simply elevate his own films while targeting a company rich enough to satisfy any theater requirement. While it’s not perfect, it’s much simpler to keep the current Academy system, where any good movie (yes, even from a major streaming service) can compete for titles like Best Picture.
