Oscars snub Apple TV+ movies, and Apple no longer cares

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV

The nominees for the 97th Academy Awards have been announced and Apple TV+ is not going to take home another Best Picture Oscar, or anything else -- because it didn't try.

A woman in a red coat and beret stands beside a boy in a gray suit, outside brick buildings. She holds a brown suitcase.
"Blitz" was the only Apple production to even make it as far as the Oscars shortlist



Nobody can ever take away from Apple that it was the first-ever streamer to win a Best Picture Oscar for "CODA." It's not going to repeat that in 2025, but unlike Netflix, Apple truly didn't try very hard this time.

That's clear not from the lack of nominations, but from the Oscars shortlist -- and before that, from Apple's own PR attempts. Every year studios mount campaigns known as "For Your Consideration," trying to get the Academy's voters to at least watch key films, and Apple pushed four titles.

Those were the feature films "Blitz," and "Fly Me to the Moon," plus documentaries "Bread and Roses," and "The Last of the Sea Women".

"Blitz" made it through to the shortlist in three categories. The Academy announced in December 2024 that "Blitz" was in contention for original score, original song, and sound.

So Apple didn't ignore the Oscars, but separately it did take steps that meant its films were not eligible. At the same time, the Academy took steps over its eligibility criteria that just happen to favor theatrical films instead of those made by streamers.

Among the latest version of the eligibility rules, the key parts are that films must start with a one-week theatrical release in one of six specified US cities. They must then also have an expanded run of seven days (not necessarily consecutively) in 10 of the top 50 US markets, no more than 45 days after the original run.

It's not certain whether all of Apple's 2024 film productions were ever intended to get a qualifying theatrical release, but one definitely was. "Wolfs" was guaranteed a wide release, to the extent that its stars George Clooney and Brad Pitt took salary cuts to make it happen -- and it didn't.

"Wolfs" had a run of about a week and, according to Clooney, in just a few hundred theaters. Consequently, Apple effectively chose to shut it out of Oscar contention, as it seems to be doing with most of its films.

Netflix is a different story



Netflix, on the other hand, is unabashed about going for Oscar glory. Its "For Your Consideration" site, for instance, pushed 23 films across categories from animation to documentary.

It paid off, too, as Netflix has gained 18 nominations for the 97th Academy Awards.

Netflix is very different to Apple, though. Where Apple either makes films or goes to lengths to acquire global rights, Netflix does many more distribution deals.

So for instance, it's nominated for the Best Animated Feature Film for "Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl," but that UK film was an Aardman Animation production shown by the BBC. Netflix solely has distribution rights for outside the UK.

Nonetheless, Netflix is in with a shot for the coveted Best Picture Oscar with French film "Emilia Perez." That one film took 13 nominations, giving Netflix the honor of distributing the most-nominated non-English language movies in the history of the Oscars.

Why Netflix keeps trying for Oscar glory and Apple doesn't



A French film is not likely to win the Best Picture award, not when it's up against "Wicked," "Dune: Part Two," and "A Complete Unknown," amongst others. So it's likely that Netflix will keep on trying for the next Oscars to be held in 2026.

It's possible that Apple might have another go, too. During 2025, it's releasing the motor racing film "F1," starring Brad Pitt, and that's being seen as a test for whether Apple ever does theatrical releases again.

Yet even if it does, Apple might not pursue Oscars any more. Promoting a movie as a Best Picture candidate is a surprisingly costly business.

In 2019, it was estimated that between events, screenings, and advertising, a studio could spend between $20 million and $30 million for Oscar consideration and marketing specifically for the award.

If you lose then that's pretty much money down the drain, but if you win, it pays off -- for traditional movies, not necessarily for streamers. Being able to put a "Best Picture Winner" label on a Blu-ray box, for instance, will forever get that film higher sales and rentals than it would have otherwise.

Streamers don't have boxes to put stickers on. They can profit by attracting more subscribers, but they have to keep promoting their wins, which means they have to keep paying out.

Apple has its Best Picture Oscar, it has the bragging rights of being the first streamer to get one. That's great, it will always have that.

But it also has a budget. Given how it's been scaling down its theatrical windows, it looks like it's re-evaluated how it wants to spend that.



Read on AppleInsider

lolliver

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    here's the problem with Apple TV's product. it's more expensive PBS woke twaddle.
    charlesngrandact73danoxSpitbathjibappleinsideruserWesley Hilliardronnlolliverright_said_fred
     2Likes 15Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 17
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,299member
    here's the problem with Apple TV's product. it's more expensive PBS woke twaddle.
    5 posts in six years. Thank you for that! And after this one, may I suggest even longer breaks between posts?
    danoxjibappleinsideruserronnlolliverSpitbathmuthuk_vanalingammbenz1962mattinozspheric
     16Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 17
    Why put all that money into a rigged award system when you can put all that money into making great movies and TV?

    I can tell you how many movies I’ve watched because they won an Oscar… ZERO.

    I can’t tell you how many movies I’ve seen that I enjoyed just by stumbling across them in a streaming service because there’s too many.

    The Oscars are a waste of good money and are nothing more than a tax dodge.
    jiblolliverSpitbathwatto_cobratiredskillsargonaut
     3Likes 3Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 17
    Apple has a big enough library now that they don't need to try and make people think oh keep our service that doesn't have a lot on it, we've won Oscars! Like don't get me wrong they'll probably push for awards for an eventual Ted Lasso revival. But I suspect over the next while they'll probably be focused more on putting out stuff that pulls in viewers and doesn't cost nearly as much as the stuff they've been making.

    Giving a show an insane budget can lead to crazy good stuff, but it's not a for sure thing. Foundation got it's budget scrapped in part because the show is good but not great. It looks amazing but if anything a lot of the crazy visuals end up dragging the plot down because it feels like it's moving so slow because you're needing to spend time in all these insane sets to justify the cost.

    And a show like Constellation always had this feel like the budget was way more than the show deserved.

    Either way it's still one of the best streaming services you can get but one of the nice things about it is that it generally has good content when they put up a new show. But it certainly doesn't have the overwhelming amount of stuff that something like Netflix has.
    ronnmacguiSpitbathwatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 17
    Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.  
    ronnlollivermacguiSpitbathwatto_cobraentropyskkqd1337argonaut
     5Likes 3Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 17
    Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.  
    I worked in three different art-house cinemas when I was in my 20's and I can tell you that people DO care. From around November or December when buzz starts circulating around certain films, business would start picking up, we'd hire more staff, and lines at the box office would be fairly constant. When January rolled around and the Golden Globes and other award ceremonies start handing out prizes, things would start to get even busier. By the time the Oscars are handed out we would be in full-swing award season mode, films that left theaters earlier in the year would come back for another run (even if they are already available to watch at home), the long lines at the box office started wrapping down the block and around the corner, every show sells out 7 days a week, and this would go on for another three months until all the summer blockbusters (that don't typically win awards) are released.

    If these awards were truly bogus and had zero effect on anybody, they wouldn't continue doing it. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that millions of other people agree with you.





    ronnsphericwatto_cobratmaycharlesn
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 17
    The Oscars are over. No one cares anymore.

    Everything is bought, and everyone knows it.
    edited January 23
    Wesley Hilliardlollivermacguironnwatto_cobraSpitbathkkqd1337argonaut
     4Likes 4Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 17
    Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.  
    That’s not true. Awards affects a lot of people on the industry. And I don’t mean the highest-paid actors. I mean the crew that work behind the scenes that makes everything work. The custom designers, the visual effects artists, the makeup artists, hair stylists, etc. An Academy Award win (or just nomination) can affect the careers of those greatly. Being able to say you are an Academy Award winning/nominated hair stylist can open doors that would normally be very difficult to open.

    As for the movie going public: There is a notable “Oscar Bump” that occurs when a film is nominated. The movie going public — having read that a film has been nominated — will go out of their way to watch those nominated films. This is partially noticeable in lower-budget and independent films that didn’t have a large marketing budget during the initial release. 

    The Oscar Bump doesn’t mean quite as much in the age of streaming, but it’s still present 
    edited January 23
    Spitbathsphericwatto_cobratmay
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 17
    here's the problem with Apple TV's product. it's more expensive PBS woke twaddle.
    sure, twaddle., if you say so. Or, maybe, it's not just horses that are slow. 
    watto_cobratmay
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 17
    Apart from what it means to the people in the business, the Oscars give vicarious pleasure to movie buffs, sometimes even validating their choices.

    While I would never use "the movie won an Oscar" as an argument when debating the merits of a movie, I admit I myself was happy when the Coen Brothers finally won the Oscar for best Direction for "No Country for Old Men" and when Nolan won it for "Oppenheimer". 

    edited January 24
    sphericwatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 17
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,349member
    Spitbath said:
    Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.  
    I worked in three different art-house cinemas when I was in my 20's and I can tell you that people DO care. From around November or December when buzz starts circulating around certain films, business would start picking up, we'd hire more staff, and lines at the box office would be fairly constant. When January rolled around and the Golden Globes and other award ceremonies start handing out prizes, things would start to get even busier. By the time the Oscars are handed out we would be in full-swing award season mode, films that left theaters earlier in the year would come back for another run (even if they are already available to watch at home), the long lines at the box office started wrapping down the block and around the corner, every show sells out 7 days a week, and this would go on for another three months until all the summer blockbusters (that don't typically win awards) are released.

    If these awards were truly bogus and had zero effect on anybody, they wouldn't continue doing it. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that millions of other people agree with you.





    Not this century I guess? I reckon it became a runningjoke about 2008. 

    I recognise that it important to the industry, but each year it seems more and more inward looking, and like many people, don’t bother watching it anymore.
    edited January 24
    Spitbathargonaut
     1Like 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 17
    Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.  
    “Nobody” is too inclusive. People in the industry care, particularly agents, who can ask for better pay/percentage deals for the clients on the basis of their award track record. Same for financing new projects for producers/directors/writers who’ve won Oscars. 

    Do they mean much for the rest of us?  Can’t say I see how, except as they make it more likely we’ll get to see talent who’ve won one or more making new films.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 17
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,325member
    Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.  
    Kind of like the JD Power awards. Of course the Hollywood types love a pat on the back for their efforts, but the true award is making a thoughtful piece of art that is endearing and original. 
    edited January 24
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 17
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,299member
    Competing for an Oscar is a VERY expensive business--millions and millions of dollars get spent promoting a single film "For Your Consideration" to Academy voters. This in itself disproves the "It doesn't matter, no one cares" posts above. I can assure you that the studios, which are VERY focused on the bottom line these days, aren't spending that kind of money in hopes of a pat on the back and 2 minutes of screen time if they win. 

    That said, it would appear that Apple has decided that the expense of a theatrical run combined with the costs of an Oscar promo campaign aren't worth it for Apple. But I still can't believe that Tim chose to trash the good will Apple has in the Hollywood community by screwing over George Clooney and Brad Pitt with this decision. Both A-listers had agreed to do Wolfs for reduced compensation because it was A) an Apple project and Hollywood likes working with Apple and B) Apple had guaranteed them a theatrical release in return for taking haircuts on their normal pay. The promise of a theatrical run was the key that got the deal done. And then Apple reneges on that promise to them after the movie is made. YIKES. I mean, that just takes massive cojones, and not the admirable kind. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when Apple broke THAT news to the agents for Clooney and Pitt. The air had to be thick with F-bombs. And it makes Apple seem like an untrustworthy partner for creatives.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 17
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,669member
    I’d rather get another season of Time Bandits than an Oscar winning movie
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 17
    Or maybe they just realise they didn't make any good films this year?  I watched a big chunk of the Apple TV movies released recently, and I'd only consider Blitz to be close to good enough to justify a nomination.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 17
    I would presume there is strong evidence that awards attract money/investment. 

    So to say ‘nobody cares’ about awards is (I assume) demonstrably untrue. 

    However, the awards ultimately need to change to adapt to streaming platforms, they can’t continue to force the ‘theatrical release’ agenda. If they don’t adapt they will eventually become less and less relevant. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.