Charlie Keil

And the primary difference between TV and movies is that TV has a much more kind of

let's say, porous format to it.

You can have a show that lasts four episodes.

It can be a miniseries.

You can have something that goes on for 22.

Movies are, by and large, single shot in a theater, as you say, but not necessarily just in a theater.

But they're no more than two hours, three hours sometimes.

And that's it.

So the format differences are still pretty entrenched.

And there have been some instances recently of movies

Oh, where does this fit?

So I'll give you a good example.

Bridget Jones, the most recent Bridget Jones film, Universal, I would say in its not universal wisdom, decided to release the film theatrically in the international market where it made a lot of money and then just released it on Peacock for the purposes of, I think it was Peacock, sorry, but a streamer for the purposes of bringing viewership in for, I think it was Valentine's Day.

The film probably would have made a fair amount of money in the domestic box office.

But the reason I mention all this is by virtue of doing that, it invalidated it for any Oscar nominations and then it had to be nominated for the Emmys because it only got released non-theatrically.

Whereas it would have been, you know, relevant for, let's say, a BAFTA.

Well...

Yeah, but I don't think that really holds because back in the day, like back in the 1950s, all of Hollywood was up in arms about TV, right?

TV was going to kill the movie.

Yeah, but that was at least still within the same format.