Since the first televised Academy Awards ceremony in 1953, the Oscars have been a fixture of network television. For decades, the ritual was simple: on a Sunday night, American families could sit down, turn on their television, and watch Hollywood celebrate itself. Beginning with the 1999 ceremony, that ritual became even more standardized, with ABC locking the show into a familiar broadcast rhythm that would remain largely unchanged for thirty years. Now, in the most drastic shift to the ceremony’s format since the move to color television, it has been announced that in 2029 (the year after the Oscars’ 100th ceremony), the broadcast will leave network television entirely and move to YouTube.
On paper, the idea sounds almost sacrilegious. The Oscars, long associated with prestige, tradition, and a certain kind of untouchable glamour, are abandoning network TV for a digital platform known for vlogs, influencers, and brain rot. And yet, when you look closely, the move represents not a rejection of the Oscars’ history, but an attempt to finally escape the constraints that have increasingly harmed it, especially in recent years.
One of the most exciting aspects of the transition is the freedom it grants the Academy to structure the broadcast. For years, the Oscars have been subject to network expectations: rigid runtimes, ad breaks that interrupt momentum, and the recent cutting of categories to keep the show under three hours. Moving to YouTube removes those limitations. The Academy will no longer have to sacrifice below-the-line artists in the name of pacing, nor will winners feel pressured to shorten their speeches for fear of being played off or getting scolded. Cinematographers, editors, sound designers, and visual effects artists, whose work fundamentally shapes the movies we love, can be honored without apology, just as acting and directing winners can speak without the shadow of a commercial break looming overhead, even if they go on for five minutes and thirty-six seconds.
Additionally, a joint statement by Academy CEO Bill Kramer and president Lynette Howell Taylor referenced “our year-round Academy programming.” This hopefully promises broadcasts of the Scientific and Technical Awards, the Governors Awards, and the Student Academy Awards. The Governors Awards typically showcase speeches from cinematic legends that the average person has not been able to watch, such as Tom Cruise receiving his honorary Oscar earlier this year. Broadcasts of the Scientific and Technical Awards and the Student Academy Awards may not reach the same viewership as the main ceremony. Still, they will give great opportunities to showcase those being honored across a global audience. Both groups, the people inventing technologies that change the way we make films and students making their first films, will significantly benefit from the exposure.
Perhaps most significantly, the move to YouTube makes the Oscars meaningfully global in a way they have never been before. YouTube is available worldwide, free from cable subscriptions, regional blackout restrictions, or delayed international broadcasts. For viewers who cannot access ABC or network television at all, YouTube provides immediate, equal access. At a time when more audiences are abandoning standard TV altogether, the Academy’s decision feels less like a random decision and more like a necessary adaptation to modern viewing and streaming cultures.
This is especially true for younger audiences. For many people under 30, network television is not just inconvenient but irrelevant. Watching live events happens on phones, laptops, and tablets, not living room TVs anymore. In my own experience, one of the biggest barriers to getting people to watch the Oscars has always been accessibility. The average college student does not have cable, but they do have YouTube. If the Academy genuinely wants to re-engage younger viewers and spur the next wave of support for the industry’s future, the solution isn’t to scold them for disengaging—it’s to meet them where they already are.
Of course, there are valid concerns. YouTube still carries cultural baggage, and for some, the platform’s association with casual, algorithm-driven content threatens the perceived prestige of the ceremony. There is no denying that something is lost when the Oscars leave the controlled, formal environment of network television. The glitz and glamour may feel slightly diminished; the event may no longer feel quite as untouchable, and I’m sure everyone is already bracing themselves for the cringe-inducing ad placements and “sponsored by” announcements. But would these be any more cringe than some of the mind-boggling decisions ABC has made over the years to regain an audience that made it clear long ago they’re no longer watching?
But prestige alone cannot sustain relevance. The Oscars have spent the past decade grappling with declining viewership and cultural marginalization, often clinging to tradition while audiences quietly drift away. Not to mention, social media has made access to celebrities greater than ever before, whereas before, the only way to see celebrities was by watching television events such as the Oscars. By making the ceremonies more accessible to everyday people, they can regain that audience and even reach a new one.
I love the Oscars. I love what they represent at their best: a celebration of film as an art form. If moving to YouTube means more people around the world can participate in that celebration, then the trade-off is worth it. The Oscars don’t lose their meaning by being seen by more people. If anything, they finally have the chance to regain their place in modern culture.
So, what do you think of this news? What do you think will be the future for the Academy Awards? Please let us know in the comments section below and on our X account.
You can follow Aaron and hear more of her thoughts on the Oscars & Film on X @AaronDanielle
