William Gallagher
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.
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.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Wesley Hilliard
Oliver Haslam
Marko Zivkovic
Amber Neely
17 Comments
here's the problem with Apple TV's product. it's more expensive PBS woke twaddle.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody cares about these awards, they are completely bogus and have zero effect on anybody.