Embed from Getty Images
After splitting into two companies over the summer, Warner Bros. Discovery is now up for sale, with three primary contenders submitting bids: the newly-merged Paramount Skydance, Netflix, and Comcast. Netflix has arguably done more than any other company to hasten the demise of theatrical film releases, as they’re notorious for putting their movies in theaters for only the minimum required by the Academy to be considered for Best Picture, which they’ve never won and are hungry for. Case in point: Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein had a limited theater-only run for two weeks before being able to stream. Del Toro’s fellow director and longtime friend James Cameron is now gearing up for the December 19 release of Avatar: Fire and Ash. In a new interview on Matt Belloni’s The Town podcast, Cameron was candid with his thoughts on Netflix’s playbook: “It’s horrific.”
Cameron: I think Paramount’s the best choice. Netflix would be a disaster. Sorry, Ted, but geez. Sarandos has gone on the record saying theatrical films are dead. “Theatrical is dead. Quote, unquote.”
Belloni: He’s now promising theaters if he buys Warner Bros.
Cameron: [laughs] It’s sucker bait. “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.
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.
Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos recently stated that he believed the traditional moviegoing experience was “an outmoded idea” and that Netflix was actually “saving Hollywood.” The balls on this guy.
It’s no secret, Netflix poses a very real and growing threat to the theatrical experience — not because it’s succeeding, but because it’s redefining success in a way that sidelines theaters entirely. What’s worse is the way Netflix operates like a tech company pretending to care about cinema. It finances prestige projects and awards contenders every year, just long enough to meet Oscar eligibility requirements, then yanks them from theaters and buries them soon afterward.
The industry is scared of Netflix, especially studio heads who believe the streamer’s fervent denial of theatrical rollouts will put them out of business soon. Why would these same producers, distributors, directors — all Oscar voters — go out of their way to vote for the enemy? That’s part of the reason why Netflix has yet to win Best Picture.
And yes, filmmakers are complicit as well. Powerful directors like Greta Gerwig and Guillermo del Toro jumping ship to Netflix aren’t just career moves — they can also be seen as statements, intentional or not, that the theater model isn’t worth fighting for. It signals to studios and audiences alike that the big screen has lost its relevance.
Since 2015, Netflix has tried very hard to win Best Picture, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Oscar loser: “Roma,” “The Irishman,” “Mank,” “Trial of the Chicago 7,” “The Power of the Dog,” “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “Emilia Perez.”
This year, Netflix will again be part of the race, with titles such as “Frankenstein,” “Train Dreams,” and “Jay Kelly” vying for awards. Yet each of these films received the same brief 2-3 week rollout — some even less — on no more than 400 screens, if that. And now the streamer expects Oscar voters to celebrate them.
Is this the great blight of our times? Hardly. And is it rich for the auteur of 3+ hour, intermission-less films to preach about seeing them in theaters? Indubitably. But Cameron isn’t wrong, either. Netflix has broken the system. They so obviously pay lip service to the Academy’s rules, all while undercutting the business model of the whole filmmaking venture. And then they want to win the top prize from the industry?! I’d say the clear solution would be for the Academy to make their eligibility requirements more robust, along the lines of the 2,000 theaters for at least a month that Cameron suggests. But then that puts us moviegoers in a tight spot, because tickets are way too expensive these days! I used to go see everything at the theater. Now, I’m super selective on how I spend moviegoing money, especially if I already know I can stream a certain flick in two weeks! Plus like Martin Scorsese, I’m less tolerant of audience members who cannot shut off their phones — being on silent isn’t enough, the light of the screens is disruptive — but that’s another story…
Photos credit: Lionel Urman / Panoramic/Avalon and Getty
So then extend the theater release by a month depending how well it does in the theater. It’s not that serious.
The real threat to filmmaking is Ai and the possibility of not using actors or even hiring a crew. Focus on that James.
Exactly! Has he weighed in on the AI topic at all? I’m sure they relied on it heavily with the CGI ridden Avatar.
I don’t know if it’s good or bad but I don’t go to movie theaters anymore unless my kids want to go. The movies I like are not about the visuals, and there are some great stories that are series or mini series. With G. Del Toro as notable exception the movies that has visuals worth, of a theater are not interesting to me. I can’t watch superhero movies anymore, the formulas are predictable and boring. And don’t get me started on Avatar. Back then the first movie was fun to watch with a very obvious Pocahontas-by-disney lift, but state of the art visuals. I couldn’t finish the trailer for the second one.
My preference has always been to watch movies in the comfort of my home. When I need a break from the movie, I hit pause and then come back to watch. For me it has always been about being able to assimilate and accommodate what I am watching. Sometimes, I need to pause to assimilate what I just watched before moving forth with the movie. It all depends on the movie I am watching and how much action or inaction is happening. For folks who enjoy shared experiences and watching an audience reaction, I get it. I also agree there should be a more broader showing of movies before they are snatched from theaters to be considered for awards. The cost to see a movie in theaters is very high. The last movie I saw in theaters and paid for was Bruce Steinsteen and was stunned at the cost. Enjoyed the movie though. Another factor is the number of people who have been in the seats you are sitting in and the cleanliness factor of the theater seats, for a germaphobe like myself, the movie determines what I am willing to put up with to see it in a theater.
I remember nomadland was available only in streaming media because movie theaters were shut down during the pandemic. It won 2021 best picture. Best actress and best director. I watched it on netflix.
Nomadland was released on Hulu, but it also had an IMAX and theater release to coincide.
It does tickle me that Netflix has not won a BP Oscar. I am deeply concerned about the fate of Warners and the future of both theatrical and physical movie releases. Everything is bad!
The last movie I saw before the pandemic in the theaters was Avengers Endgame. Sinners was the first movie post pandemic that I went to see in the theaters. I’m not as eager to go to the movies anymore and I have gotten more selective. If I know I can wait until it comes to HBO then I will do that. I grew up with going to the $1 movie theater heater and when the matinee didn’t cost an arm and a leg. I’ve grown tired of the superhero movies and all the reboots. Plus I don’t want to sit and watch a 3 hour movie unless I’m at home and I can pause it for a bathroom break.
They need to learn how to acclimate. They provided a convenience to people during covid and people don’t want to return to the previous times. I’m someone that likes to go to movies by myself because I don’t like people talking to me when I’m trying to watch it.
I don’t like movie snacks, and there’s very few movies that I see that require the big screen experience. Those that do, superhero movies, movies like Dune, I’ll shell out to go and see them in theaters. Or, movies like Sinners where people were spoiling it left and right I’m glad I saw in theaters right when it came out. Otherwise it really is too expensive. I took my niece to see Wicked For Good this past weekend and with tickets and the combo meal for her it was $70. That’s a lot of money spent for something that I could probably watch on Christmas Day at home?
James Cameron has the power to get movie studios to change distribution rules/fees so that theatres can get and show smaller films (and also not lose money). He should stop complaining and do something.
I desperately want to see A Sentimental Value in the theatre right now but it’s nowhere near me. Instead yesterday there were 36 showings of Wicked at one theatre. People will go see these Oscar-contention films, but they have to be there to be seen.
I’m confused. Oscars and other prizes are for the writing, producing and acting of movies, as well as other categories. This idea that movies are solely the ones presented in theatres is just wrong.
If it’s a really good movie with good writing and excelent acting why can’t they compete?
I can’t stand 3 hours + movies. Plus, what’s produced nowadays by Hollywood is pretty bad or too long. And stop with the relentless “do-overs” of movies from the past. Start writing new stories, use the imagination and creativity.
James Cameron is a multimillionaire. We are in an extreme cost of living crisis – people are sick of shelling out $20 a person to go to theaters. This is pretty tone deaf from him.
All I can say is that James Cameron must have led a very charmed life if this issue is what he calls “horrific.” I don’t want to nitpick his word use too much, but he is known as a writer as well as director.
Well, that’s it. I can see his point of view & pretty much agree, but it just isn’t ‘horrific’. Horrific is living in trump’s USA.
This is reminiscent of the thinking that went on when music was moving to a streaming based platform and away from people purchasing hard media like CDs and cassettes. As the technology changes, the industry needs to adapt. Nowadays one can purchase a large sized flat screen TV for a couple of hundred dollars and set up great surround sound at home. You can gather with your friends, turn down the lights and have whatever food and beverages you want at prices that don’t have to break the bank. You can pause the movie at your own convenience and you don’t have to pay an arm and a leg to have a close version to the theater experience in the comfort of your own home. Here in NYC it can cost upwards of $70 per person for a movie ticket and popcorn & soda combo. That’s $140 for two people to go see a film in the theater. Sometimes it’s nice to have a night out and spend the extra cash for the theater experience, but often it’s just as much, if not more, fun to watch a film at home comfortably.
James Cameron needs to realize this is not going to change, unless the companies start offering movie tickets for a much cheaper price – which is not likely to happen. He needs to adapt because the Netflix model is here to stay. He needs to be more worried about AI taking over his job than people watching movies on streaming platforms at home.
Kim, there’s people that are dying
Many Oscar contenders are barely released or are only released in arthouse types of cinemas and are hard for people to see in theaters. But that’s okay because its supposed to make the movies seem more creative than a widespread release.
Do I wish Netflix released some of their movies in theaters for longer periods of time? Yes. But I also feel like Sarandos is a capitalist. If the Netflix movies that are in theaters do really well and bring in a lot of money, they may start scheduling longer theater runs or re-releasing movies in theaters etc. But right now it seems they’ve made a calculation that these limited runs and the streaming numbers justify their investment.
“Many Oscar contenders are barely released or are only released in arthouse types of cinemas and are hard for people to see in theaters.”
That’s correct and has been so even before Netflix exists. Mostly
it’s people live in or near the big cities get the chance to see art house movies and/or foreign language movies in the movies theaters, others have to wait for many months to rent the VHS/DVD after it’s available (if the studio even bother to release the VHS/DVD.) So I’m glad more of these types of films get streaming release in shorter time after their theater debut.
There are many films being made & released yearly, and theater OWNERS will only agree to show movies that they “presume” would make them money. Steaming service let film makers get more and broader audience to see their works, and if your films are really good and streaming numbers are there, theater owners will show you movies & your following projects.
Cameron hasn’t made a movie I’ve enjoyed since the first Terminator. I haven’t bothered to watch anything he’s made since Titanic. Going to the movies isn’t cheap and CGI isn’t my thing.
Also, he can quit it with the Guillermo del Toro slander.
Cameron is an ass and always has been. That will be my standard comment for any story written about him.
Since our theatres introduced VIP theatres my husband and I go to movies way more often. I also pay for a CineClub ($10’ish per month or a discounted annual fee). I get a free ticket each month plus discounted ticket prices (2 per showing), plus food BOGO deals and all food/drinks have discounts (20% off). Advanced ticket sales for the bigger new releases. All leather reclining seats (VIP and regular). In seat service and full bar options and a lounge. There is also a points card that I collect points (on movies, shopping etc). Unless we’re taking our g-kids with us we only go to VIP showings (adults only 19yrs +).
It works for me because it is the only way I can focus on a movie all the way thru. At home I am too distracted.
Most people don’t regularly go to theaters anymore because seeing a movie in the cinema is expensive AF. We went and saw Wicked: For Good over the weekend (LOVED it). It was almost $40, JUST FOR THE TICKETS. We typically go to Alamo Drafthouse so with booze and food, a visit to the movie is well over $100. I know that the decision to eat and drink is on us but $40 for two movie tickets alone is a lot of money.
These guys just hit it big in the late 80’s/90’s when the film industry was very different. People went to see movies with “bankable” stars. But in this post-Covid world, no one is going to the movies for Glen Powell, or Sydney Sweeney, or Michael B. Jordan, etc. They’ll go if a movie has broad enough appeal to justify shelling out so much money for 2 hours, but otherwise, I think most people are just fine with waiting until something comes out on streaming, regardless who’s starring in it.
I tend to agree that the days of seeing movies in theaters are behind us.
It’s like people forget that Netflix’s business model is streaming! Of course they aren’t going to release most movies in theaters – it defeats the whole purpose of their business model. That being said, Netflix is desperate for some major Oscar glory; so if they need to release their bigger films in the theaters for two or three months to be eligible, they will!! People really need to get over themselves when it comes to this debate. Especially since most people aren’t that interested in going to movies anymore. I prefer Jodi Foster’s take on the whole thing, lol.