Charlie Keil

I mean, when television came along, it was a competitor, a direct competitor with moviemaking.

And everyone said, you know, we've got to stay away from TV.

Well, that didn't last very long.

They sold their libraries to the television industry.

Um, stations, not necessarily the networks, but then the networks too, uh, you know, stars who were past their prime started appearing on television shows instead of starting movies.

Cause there weren't as many movies being made, et cetera, et cetera.

The point being the main competition was television.

And yet where did the Oscars appear on television?

So I don't think just because the Oscars are shifting to YouTube, it means they're throwing in the towel.

Again, I would just say it's a financial decision.

If the movies die, and there's a good chance they could, although people have been saying they were going to for a very long time and it has never happened.

I don't think it's because the Oscars have ended up on YouTube.

It might be.

I mean, a lot of people are saying the one thing this gives the Oscars, and this could be a double edged sword, is a lot of latitude in terms of the production.

YouTube does not have live programming infrastructure for production.

So they've got three years to ramp up, but chances are they're going to give the Oscar side of it a lot of say in how the show is put together, produced, et cetera.

And the only thing is the Oscars have never shown a lot of self-restraint when it comes to length.

So we could look at a much longer Oscar show if they're given enough rope.

Yeah, yeah.

The Oscars Unleashed, kind of like Golden Globes 2.0.