So it seems to be a little bit less that James Cameron says Netflix shouldn't be eligible for Oscars and more that he's saying the Oscars should be eligible only to wide scale theater releases.
> When asked to elaborate on whether Netflix should be allowed to have its films vie for Oscars, Cameron said he doesn’t believe they should—unless they change their release strategy.
> Belloni: You don’t think they should be allowed to compete for Oscars?
> Cameron: They should be allowed to compete if they put the movie out for a meaningful release in 2,000 theaters for a month.
That lets out a lot of Best Picture winners. Last year's winner, Anora, appeared in only 253 theaters before the Oscars. The 2020 winner Nomadland appeared in 1200. 2016's Moonlight appeared in 1,564 theaters.
Avatar is one of the last movies I've seen in a theatre, in 2010. I've since seen it again at home, and that was a better experience. There's nothing magical about theatres; any movie involves the things the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gives awards for, no matter how it's released.
That's a bit ironic: Avatar was best known for its 3D effects, which you generally can't see at home.
That may not outweigh the rest of the problems with theaters: the price of tickets, the cost of concessions, the noise, the inconvenient times, not being able to pause, etc. But if there was one movie that benefitted specifically from being seen in a theater, it was Avatar.
I had to take off the glasses during any scene with movement because of how nauseatingly blurry and dim the experience was with them on. Coraline is still the only Real3D experience I remember fondly.
I did see it in 3D originally, and that didn't outweigh the rest. I've seen a couple of movies in 3D, and while it's an interesting novelty, I doubt it could ever be essential to the experience. I don't think Avatar benefitted much from it.
There's a theater in my area with the 64 channel audio setup and it's AMAZING and I can't reproduce anything close at home. Furiosa was so good there. But in the main I agree with your point.
It's hard for me to respect the intrinsic superiority of a format whose main value-add is exclusivity, rather than fair market competition based on merits.
If theatres pivoted to competing first on format rather than exclusive access to recent releases, and managed to do well in that regime, I'm sure Netflix and other new media would be more than happy to indulge. Seems unlikely, though, doesn't it? The demand exists but I would be surprised if it was a quarter the size.
It‘s also hard to respect a format whose main value-add is quantity over quality, but that‘s Netflix‘s strategy. And will continue to be Netflix‘s strategy if they get WB.
If the award is already being given based on perceived quality, that would be handled by the existing rules. Low quality movies don't tend to win Oscars in the first place so that's hardly an argument for changing the rules to preclude Netflix releases.
> "We’ll put the movie out for a week or 10 days. We’ll qualify for Oscar consideration.” See, I think that’s fundamentally rotten to the core. A movie should be made as a movie for theatrical, and the Academy Awards mean nothing to me if they don’t mean theatrical. I think they’ve been co-opted, and I think it’s horrific.
From the same guy who allowed Avatar to be released 12 years later so it could retake the top spot from Avengers Endgame. (to be fair, that movie had a small rerelease itself to gain that top spot)
How is that related to thinking the Oscars should be reserved for theatrical movie releases and not allow token releases where almost no one can actually see it theatrically just to qualify?
> “Kids and preteens,” a recent National Research Group report concluded, “have been the driving force behind many of the biggest theatrical success stories of the past three years.”
> The kids and preteens in the youngest generation have grown up with the ability to watch any movie on any device anytime and anywhere they desire. As it turns out, the place they really want to watch movies is the theater.
I'm a holder of the Alamo Drafthouse pass and attend, bare minimum, twice a month, often more. $20/seat per month to see one movie per day. Then it's just an alternative to going to a restaurant.
Properly controlled lighting, no ambient noises from your home or neighbors, everyone watching is required to not pull their damn phone out (on penalty of being banned), surround sound and sound treatment (the vast majority of home setups do no have adequate sound systems)...it's no contest. Watching movies at home is not comparable.
Most theaters don’t serve meals the way Alamo does, but the rest is still true: proper darkness, much better sound, huge bright screen, no distractions, no interruptions.
There was a time where people would go to the theater and then text, chat etc. In my experience that is rare now because those types of people just don’t go to the theater anymore. It’s expensive and less convenient than watching at home. Generally speaking, I have found that the people in a movie theater today really want to be there, and are well behaved.
Kids and preteens don't care about the experience being better in one environment vs another. That age group has less patience than older age groups, all they want to do is to see the movie NOW. They don't want to go to the theater, they want instant gratification. If a movie also released on streaming they'd be watching it before you could get them in the car for a trip to the theater.
There seem to be different types of awards for different types of video already.
Like the oscars seem to pertain to films, and the emmys pertain to television.
Why shouldn't there be additional categories of awards? let the oscars be for "big screen films" and have an additional "streaming video" awards. Maybe "oscars online" or some other name.
I would say that he have a point if movie theaters came back as the blue colar entertainment of choice. But greed studios, financing over expensive and mediocre movies like the ones James Cameron does this days killed the cinema as an viable middle lower class option, killing small street theaters in favor of over expensive multiplex rooms, so fuck James Cameron and his opinion about what Netflix should or should not be eligible.
So it seems to be a little bit less that James Cameron says Netflix shouldn't be eligible for Oscars and more that he's saying the Oscars should be eligible only to wide scale theater releases.
> When asked to elaborate on whether Netflix should be allowed to have its films vie for Oscars, Cameron said he doesn’t believe they should—unless they change their release strategy.
> Belloni: You don’t think they should be allowed to compete for Oscars?
> Cameron: They should be allowed to compete if they put the movie out for a meaningful release in 2,000 theaters for a month.
That lets out a lot of Best Picture winners. Last year's winner, Anora, appeared in only 253 theaters before the Oscars. The 2020 winner Nomadland appeared in 1200. 2016's Moonlight appeared in 1,564 theaters.
Avatar is one of the last movies I've seen in a theatre, in 2010. I've since seen it again at home, and that was a better experience. There's nothing magical about theatres; any movie involves the things the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gives awards for, no matter how it's released.
That's a bit ironic: Avatar was best known for its 3D effects, which you generally can't see at home.
That may not outweigh the rest of the problems with theaters: the price of tickets, the cost of concessions, the noise, the inconvenient times, not being able to pause, etc. But if there was one movie that benefitted specifically from being seen in a theater, it was Avatar.
I had to take off the glasses during any scene with movement because of how nauseatingly blurry and dim the experience was with them on. Coraline is still the only Real3D experience I remember fondly.
I did see it in 3D originally, and that didn't outweigh the rest. I've seen a couple of movies in 3D, and while it's an interesting novelty, I doubt it could ever be essential to the experience. I don't think Avatar benefitted much from it.
[dead]
There's a theater in my area with the 64 channel audio setup and it's AMAZING and I can't reproduce anything close at home. Furiosa was so good there. But in the main I agree with your point.
It's hard for me to respect the intrinsic superiority of a format whose main value-add is exclusivity, rather than fair market competition based on merits.
If theatres pivoted to competing first on format rather than exclusive access to recent releases, and managed to do well in that regime, I'm sure Netflix and other new media would be more than happy to indulge. Seems unlikely, though, doesn't it? The demand exists but I would be surprised if it was a quarter the size.
It‘s also hard to respect a format whose main value-add is quantity over quality, but that‘s Netflix‘s strategy. And will continue to be Netflix‘s strategy if they get WB.
If the award is already being given based on perceived quality, that would be handled by the existing rules. Low quality movies don't tend to win Oscars in the first place so that's hardly an argument for changing the rules to preclude Netflix releases.
> "We’ll put the movie out for a week or 10 days. We’ll qualify for Oscar consideration.” See, I think that’s fundamentally rotten to the core. A movie should be made as a movie for theatrical, and the Academy Awards mean nothing to me if they don’t mean theatrical. I think they’ve been co-opted, and I think it’s horrific.
From the same guy who allowed Avatar to be released 12 years later so it could retake the top spot from Avengers Endgame. (to be fair, that movie had a small rerelease itself to gain that top spot)
This all aligns perfectly; he thinks movies should be seen in the theater, and he got his movie back into theaters so people could see it there.
I’ve seen a bunch of old movies in theaters and it’s great. I wish more movies had 2nd or 3rd runs in theaters.
How is that related to thinking the Oscars should be reserved for theatrical movie releases and not allow token releases where almost no one can actually see it theatrically just to qualify?
I hate to say it but I think he is swimming against the tide.
Maybe, maybe not.
> “Kids and preteens,” a recent National Research Group report concluded, “have been the driving force behind many of the biggest theatrical success stories of the past three years.”
> The kids and preteens in the youngest generation have grown up with the ability to watch any movie on any device anytime and anywhere they desire. As it turns out, the place they really want to watch movies is the theater.
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/wicked-zootopia-pg-movies...
It really is better seeing a movie in the theater. And I hope the next generation are coming back around to that.
I'm a holder of the Alamo Drafthouse pass and attend, bare minimum, twice a month, often more. $20/seat per month to see one movie per day. Then it's just an alternative to going to a restaurant.
Properly controlled lighting, no ambient noises from your home or neighbors, everyone watching is required to not pull their damn phone out (on penalty of being banned), surround sound and sound treatment (the vast majority of home setups do no have adequate sound systems)...it's no contest. Watching movies at home is not comparable.
Okay, but would you concede that that is not an average theatre-going experience for most of us, most places in the world.
Most theaters don’t serve meals the way Alamo does, but the rest is still true: proper darkness, much better sound, huge bright screen, no distractions, no interruptions.
There was a time where people would go to the theater and then text, chat etc. In my experience that is rare now because those types of people just don’t go to the theater anymore. It’s expensive and less convenient than watching at home. Generally speaking, I have found that the people in a movie theater today really want to be there, and are well behaved.
Actually hate it that they turned movies into a restaurant experience.
I don't particularly enjoy hearing other people eat. Although I suppose most movies are not exactly cerebral enough that you have to concentrate.
Kids and preteens don't care about the experience being better in one environment vs another. That age group has less patience than older age groups, all they want to do is to see the movie NOW. They don't want to go to the theater, they want instant gratification. If a movie also released on streaming they'd be watching it before you could get them in the car for a trip to the theater.
Yes. It's called "entrenched interest". People cling to what they know --- even if it means continuing to fight a battle that has already been lost.
Kinda like current US policy rejecting cheap, renewable energy in favor of more expensive fossil fuels.
I am sure James Cameron loves the millions he gets from the BD sales and streaming rights.
Or developers who fight against AI agents.
There seem to be different types of awards for different types of video already.
Like the oscars seem to pertain to films, and the emmys pertain to television.
Why shouldn't there be additional categories of awards? let the oscars be for "big screen films" and have an additional "streaming video" awards. Maybe "oscars online" or some other name.
Some more on the competing Warner Bros. bids https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/business/media/warner-dis...
That purchase was literally the premise of this article.
Sorry, got me, headline reaction; edited.
I would say that he have a point if movie theaters came back as the blue colar entertainment of choice. But greed studios, financing over expensive and mediocre movies like the ones James Cameron does this days killed the cinema as an viable middle lower class option, killing small street theaters in favor of over expensive multiplex rooms, so fuck James Cameron and his opinion about what Netflix should or should not be eligible.