7 Burning Questions About the Oscars’ Big Move to YouTube — From Mid-Speech Ads to a Comment Section From Hell?

The Academy has announced its most radical reinvention in a century: starting in 2029, the Oscars will stream exclusively on YouTube through 2033. While the official narrative celebrates liberation from broadcast constraints and global accessibility, the devil is in the details nobody’s talking about yet.

Yes, the Academy promises an unprecedented celebration of cinema, free from the tyranny of the three-hour broadcast window. But between the triumphant press releases and the think pieces about creative freedom, some practical questions remain unanswered.

Related Stories

'It: Welcome to Derry,' 'The Odyssey' and '3 Body Problem': Jovan Adepo's Globetrotting Year of Scares, Science and Sea-Faring Epics

How will advertising work?

The ceremony may be free to watch, but YouTube is not a public service. Its business model is built on advertising, and the Oscars represents premium inventory. It is unclear whether viewers should expect pre-roll ads before the ceremony, mid-roll interruptions during the broadcast, or algorithmically placed breaks determined in real time. The Academy has promised that winners will no longer be played off mid-speech by an orchestral, but that assurance means little if any acceptance speech can still be interrupted by a targeted ad (and, frankly, some speeches could use an act of the advertising gods).

Should we expect Mr. Beast (and various other influencers) presenting best international feature?

YouTube has its own constellation of stars, many with subscriber counts that trump traditional Hollywood celebrities. Will the Academy maintain its tradition of industry veterans and A-list presenters, or will we see people like Logan Paul handing out statuettes?

The new partnership makes much of reaching “new generations of filmmakers,” which in platform-speak often means courting influencer culture. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, but it represents a fundamental shift in what the Oscars ceremony signifies.

On the other hand, numerous industry figures Variety spoke with were enthusiastic that the Oscars would be affiliated with a truly “neutral” distributor. In the past, studios quietly eye-rolled at convenient synergies that arose with ABC as the Academy’s broadcast partner. This year, for instance, saw Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler present the Oscar for best visual effects. A month later, their live-action “Snow White” from Walt Disney Pictures hit theaters.

Who will actually produce this thing?

The linear Oscars lives and dies by veteran producers who understood the rhythms of live television, the art of the cutaway, and how to navigate disaster. YouTube content, for all its creativity, operates under different rules and aesthetics.

Will the Academy hire experienced TV producers to maintain production quality, or will they embrace YouTube’s native format and sensibilities? The latter could mean anything from split-screen reactions to real-time polling to production choices that would never fly on ABC. The potential for chaos — intentional or otherwise — is enormous.

Do we remember the Steven Soderbergh-produced pandemic ceremony where best actor was presented last? Let’s hope some ideas never make it off the white board.

Will the auteurs revolt?

Yes, the YouTube deal puts the Academy squarely in line with the younger, global-facing audience it needs. But don’t forget that the Oscars are meant to celebrate the best of the best in what Hollywood still considers its highest art form: feature films made for movie theaters. The proximity of these auspices living next to an ASMR interview with Cardi B and pirated footage of teen boys freaking out over Chicken Jockey in “A Minecraft Movie” might not sit well with A-list directors and producers fighting for the soul of cinema. If this news came at any other time — way from the dizzying acquisition drama around Warner Bros. and Netflix — we’d probably see open letters or press junket shade from auteur filmmakers (yeah, we’re thinking the exact names you are). Don’t expect the road to 2029 to be paved with unanimous praise over this new union.

Can the Oscars be six hours long now?

This Variety column celebrating this move puts forward the idea that Oscars should stop asking “How do we make it shorter?” and start asking “How do we make it better?” Fair enough. But YouTube’s lack of broadcast constraints cuts both ways.

Without the hard stop of broadcast television, what prevents the ceremony from expanding to fill whatever time the Academy desires? Will we get a tight, well-paced three-to-four-hour show, or will we drift into six-hour endurance tests because nobody has to worry about affiliates cutting away for local news?

The assumption that removing time constraints automatically improves quality ignores decades of evidence that limitations often force discipline.

And just because you don’t have to cut off acceptance speeches shouldn’t mean winners should just talk for as long as they’d like (*cough cough* Adrien Brody).

What happens to local affiliates and traditional broadcast access?

ABC’s broadcast network spans hundreds of local affiliates across the country. Many households, particularly older viewers and those in rural areas, still rely on over-the-air television. For them, “just watch it on YouTube” isn’t an option (or at least not a convenient one).

Will the Academy arrange sub-licensing deals so traditional broadcasters can still carry the show? Will they even care? The celebration of global digital access conveniently sidesteps the question of Americans who may be left behind in this streaming future.

Will the comment section be moderated, or are we about to witness our own version of digital hell?

Have these people ever read YouTube comments?

Live streaming the Oscars means live comments — hundreds of thousands of them, scrolling past in real-time. YouTube’s moderation tools exist, but they’re imperfect at best. The Oscars already generates intense online discourse, hot takes and controversy. Now imagine all of that happening simultaneously in an unmoderated (or poorly moderated) feed visible alongside the actual ceremony.

We should look to YouTube’s partnership with the NFL as a recent example for how it will work, which had its comment section open for watchers.

Political speeches, diversity discussions, controversial wins — all of it will generate instant, unfiltered reactions that could range from thoughtful commentary to absolute toxicity. The Academy could lose control of its public image and message because “DorkyBoy69” said, “this show is 6-7 at best.”