Charlie Keil

So I think that there's a way in which the Oscars think this could deliver the show to more people in a more immediate fashion.

And they're also talking about it being an important global step for them.

And it may be just more seamless because YouTube is an international carrier as opposed to with ABC.

It has to be made a deal with each region because ABC doesn't exist in anywhere but really the US.

That's exactly what the A stands for.

And then from YouTube's point of view, well, the future is for big number delivery, the future is live events.

So you want to be getting yourself, you want to bag the ones that make a difference, that get a lot of press.

And the Oscars is probably the most prominent non-sport live event there still is.

So for YouTube, it's well worth it.

Well, I'm inclined to say, unfortunately, for all of those broadcast TV aficionados, your tense is wrong.

The grip has been loosened already.

I just don't think that network TV has much claim to any importance anymore.

I mean, it's yes, the Super Bowl is still on.

network but you know this is the slow and probably much more rapid march towards seeing the way in which almost nothing will be on network tv exclusively or primarily

I mean, it's kind of the age old existential question.

Can film survive as a separate format slash medium?

And I think the answer for the time being is yes.

I don't think the shift of this award show to YouTube is not the death knell for movies.

I think it's a sign that the Academy recognizes it needs to reach more people in a more effective way.

But there's still this, however long it'll last, there's still this allure of the movies that is different than TV.