Is It TV? Is It a Movie? Does Anyone Care?

by

This season’s top-notch TV program, Rebel Ridge, snatched an Emmy for Outstanding TV Movie, but unfortunately, many viewers tuning into the telecast this coming Sunday won’t get to hear about it. Winning the Emmy in its category at the Creative Arts Emmys since 2020, this critically acclaimed thriller directed by Jeremy Saulnier has been recognized for its exceptional work in various categories such as sound, cinematography, and casting. Although this achievement is noteworthy, it’s important to mention that the Creative Arts ceremony, held a week before the main Emmys show, didn’t air live. Instead, it will be compressed and broadcast on FXX and Hulu this Saturday evening.

12 years ago, I was glued to my TV screen as Claire Danes and Bryan Cranston announced the most anticipated awards of the Emmys season for a TV movie, “Behind the Candelabra.” Back then, these prestigious awards were given for “Outstanding Miniseries or Movie.” Steven Soderbergh’s masterpiece, with Michael Douglas in the iconic role of Liberace, was the clear favorite. It wasn’t hard to guess that the win would go their way. After all, they were Oscar winners and A-list stars, representing an exceptional TV movie HBO had heavily promoted. That night was just another in a long line of big wins for HBO’s TV movies, which had dominated at the Emmys for the past 20 years, amassing 65 major awards. “Behind the Candelabra” might have been one of their more star-studded productions, but HBO had consistently demonstrated the TV movie as a reliable path to prestigious acclaim and Emmy victories, with films like “Don King: Only in America,” “Recount,” and “Temple Grandin.

Despite the victory at hand, it was clear that changes were afoot. The fact that “Behind the Candelabra” was being produced as a TV movie instead of a theatrical release indicated a transformation in the film industry. Director Steven Soderbergh was surprised when Warner Bros. declined to provide a $5 million budget for him to create a Liberace biopic featuring stars like Douglas and Damon, as they deemed it too challenging to promote. (Soderbergh himself interpreted this as “too gay.”) On the other hand, television was growing increasingly interested in limited series, thanks to the popularity of shows such as “Downton Abbey” and “American Horror Story.”

The following year, a new category for “Outstanding TV Movie” was established to distinguish it from Miniseries (renamed “Outstanding Limited Series or Anthology”). This move marked the beginning of a decade-long shift during which the TV movie became an overlooked aspect in Emmy discussions and has been largely absent from the main telecast since 2019. In the acting categories that combine performances from both limited series and TV movies, only one actor from a movie (Daniel Radcliffe in “Weird: The Al Yankovic Story”) has been nominated over the past four years.

The gradual decline of the Outstanding TV Movie category, with recent winners like “Dolly Parton’s Christmas on the Square” and “Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers,” may seem insignificant or even doomed in today’s context. Originating from a bygone era, its purpose was once clearer. However, there’s a certain ambiguity in our contemporary perspective of what counts as a TV Movie. In an age where excellent content often goes unnoticed, the adaptability offered by the category’s vague definition could be a means to rejuvenate it and make it significant again. Perhaps we can find a way to reignite interest in TV Movies.

The TV Movie category can be traced back to the first Emmy Awards held in 1949, although its name has evolved over the years. Originally titled “Best Film Made for Television,” it was only introduced that year and then disappeared until 1966. During this time, the broadcast networks like NBC Saturday Night at the Movies or The Wonderful World of Disney were airing movies initially released in theaters. When these networks started producing their own movies with lower budgets and production values, the category re-emerged. Notable TV movies from this era include Brian’s Song, starring Billy Dee Williams, Cicely Tyson in The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, Sally Field’s breakthrough performance in Sybil, and the topical Roe vs. Wade.

At times, a TV movie could be so exceptional that it would eventually be shown in cinemas, like Steven Spielberg’s debut film, “Duel,” which premiered on television in 1971 but later graced theater screens due to its impressive quality. This film has been highly regarded by cinema enthusiasts since then, primarily because many viewers believe it’s too high-quality for a TV movie (a perspective that still exists today regarding the perceived quality of such productions). However, it wasn’t until the early 1990s and the rise of HBO that made-for-TV movies truly began to excel artistically. Filmmakers were then able to break free from the restrictions of network TV: no need to adhere to two-hour time slots, no planning narratives around commercial breaks, more flexibility with content and language, and larger budgets to attract top-tier talent.

In those days, as a proud pioneer working for HBO Films, I found myself at the helm from 1996 to 2008, and prior to that, I was already producing films since 1986. During this tenure, our mission was clear – we aimed to create content that stood apart, unique pieces that you wouldn’t find anywhere else.

But what truly set us apart wasn’t just the quality of our productions; it was our relentless marketing efforts. We didn’t shy away from promoting our movies; instead, we embraced it. It was an integral part of every project from the very beginning. HBO’s strength back then lay in its marketing prowess, and when it came to our films, we certainly made sure they shone brightly among the rest.

Over time, the Emmy Awards started paying closer attention, and in 1993, HBO’s corporate satire titled “Barbarians at the Gate,” featuring James Garner as a corrupt tobacco executive, garnered nine nominations – more than double the number of nominations for the Outstanding Drama Series winner that year, namely “Northern Exposure.” In 1994, “And the Band Played On,” a wide-ranging drama about the early AIDS crisis, received 14 nominations, surpassed only by the record-breaking 27 nominations for “NYPD Blue” that year.

During the time period from 1993 to 2010, HBO dominated the Emmy Awards for Made for TV Movies, taking home 16 out of 18 trophies. This success led to a significant improvement in production quality across all channels, especially at cable networks such as Showtime, TNT, and Lifetime. As Callender explains, these films were intended to be watched multiple times, setting them apart from network movies that were only shown once and possibly never again. To meet this expectation, the overall quality of the movies produced had to elevate – even in aspects as basic as sound mixing.

In my perspective, elevating the production quality led to a surge of interest. On Saturday nights, you’d often find myself engrossed in culturally significant and even monocultural moments like watching “Temple Grandin”, “Game Change”, or “Grey Gardens”. Fred Berger, a respected producer who kickstarted his career with the HBO TV movie “Taking Chance”, described these as extraordinary occasions. Indeed, they were events not to be missed.

Compare that to the list of 2025 TV Movie Emmy nominees. Besides the show Rebel Ridge, the other four candidates were nominated as well.

From my perspective, here’s a rephrased take on some recent productions:
– In the fan’s viewpoint, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy, the fourth installment of the popular franchise (film), which was a $140 million blockbuster overseas but went straight to Peacock in the U.S.
– From a fan’s perspective, The Gorge, an Apple TV+ collaboration with Skydance, featuring Anya Taylor-Joy and Miles Teller, reportedly costing up to $100 million and rumored to be Apple’s biggest film launch ever, despite having minimal cultural influence.
– In my eyes, Nonnas, a Netflix movie starring Vince Vaughn and four seasoned actresses who deserve more recognition. Initially slated for the 2024 Toronto Film Festival, Netflix secured its worldwide distribution rights for a $20 million fee.
– As a fan, Mountainhead, an HBO-produced TV movie with a fast-track production and familiar talent (such as Jesse Armstrong from Succession) was met with mixed reviews.
These productions stand in stark contrast to the prestigious nominations of yesteryears. The Outstanding Made for TV Movie category once celebrated heavyweight producers like Oliver Stone and Barbra Streisand, directors such as Mike Nichols and John Frankenheimer, and performances like Raul Julia’s in The Burning Season, Alfre Woodard’s in Miss Evers’ Boys, and Angelina Jolie’s in Gia. These films were the embodiment of prestigious television long before shows like The Sopranos and Breaking Bad redefined the term for ongoing series.

The reasons for the decline of TV movies could be attributed to several factors in today’s television landscape:

1. The increased competition and high standards set by Peak TV, attracting big movie stars to series instead of films.
2. Ryan Murphy’s revival of limited series popularity.
3. Ricky Gervais’ marketing of the final episode of Extras as a film.
4. Harvey Weinstein’s precedent that flawed festival products could still be nominated for Emmys after being aired on TV, like Grace of Monaco with Nicole Kidman.
5. The growing perception that television has become an acceptable alternative to theaters for films that aren’t bought for cinematic distribution at film festivals, making it difficult to distinguish a TV movie from a traditional movie.

However, it’s worth noting that, while not unexpected, it seems fair to consider Netflix as a potential culprit in this situation.

A seasoned HBO insider contends that streaming services, particularly Netflix, are the primary cause of this situation, specifically due to their practice of releasing movies directly on their platform without a theater release. In 2016, Netflix made its first foray into the TV Movie category with a nomination for “A Very Murray Christmas,” which was more akin to a glitzy Christmas special than a traditional movie, despite having Oscar winner Sofia Coppola directing it and a loose narrative structure. The film that won that year, “Sherlock: The Abominable Bride,” was even less of a conventional movie, being the third episode of the TV series “Sherlock” that the Academy allowed to compete as a film. Encouraged by this, Netflix started submitting individual episodes of its “Black Mirror” anthology series as standalone films and won the TV Movie category for three consecutive years from 2017 to 2019. Eventually, the Academy ruled that anthology series must compete against other limited series after this streak, presumably due to the blurring lines between movies and television shows in the streaming era.

The problem with Netflix repeatedly manipulating the system is outweighed by the fact that streaming movies have effectively blurred the lines between television and cinema. Legally, a Netflix feature film is distinguished by its eligibility for Oscars, which it achieves by screening in a theater in New York or Los Angeles for at least two weeks. However, practically speaking, most Netflix films only play in theaters they’ve rented (or own, like New York’s Paris Theater), keeping all box-office earnings. These four-walled ticket sales and revenue don’t contribute to box-office data, so if a Netflix original fails or succeeds in limited release, it avoids negative attention during Oscar campaigns.

Instead of following the two-week theater release tradition, movies on Netflix like “Rebel Ridge” premiere directly on the streaming platform. However, the cinematic grandeur of Saulnier’s film left critics wishing it had been in theaters. The Ringer’s Adam Nayman lamented, “It’s regrettable that a movie as well-made and entertaining as ‘Rebel Ridge’ is bypassing theaters for a streaming service.” He also mused, “Imagine a filmmaker creating a film appealing to the masses without an audience?

If traditional methods of determining eligibility and initial screenings aren’t clear-cut ways to distinguish a TV movie from a feature film, then how do we classify them? Aesthetics can be somewhat subjective and often described as “I know it when I see it,” but it’s true that some TV movies can appear too cinematic for the television category. This applies to productions like Rebel Ridge and even recent nominee Prey, a Dan Trachtenberg-directed Predator spinoff released directly on Hulu. It received high praise for its stunning visuals, leading 20th Century Studios to announce that they will release the sequel, Predator: Badlands, in theaters.

It’s not like TV series haven’t been delivering visually for some time now. If you look at this year’s Emmy nominations, from shows like “Severance” to “The Penguin” to “The Bear”, you’ll find they are rich in visual achievement. As film producer Braxton Pope of “The Card Counter” notes, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to argue that visual art is more cinematic than some cable programming, especially when the latter has started incorporating many film techniques into its storytelling.

As a movie enthusiast, I must admit, it’s disheartening – if not inevitable – that money plays such a significant role in the world of TV shows and movies. Streaming giants like Netflix and Apple TV+ have burst onto the scene with war chests deep enough to disrupt the traditional price structure of producing and acquiring television films.

An HBO insider I spoke with put it this way: “Previously, an HBO film produced in-house would cost a specific amount.” However, as streamers began snatching up anything they could get their hands on, costs skyrocketed. This led to the production of movies becoming exorbitantly expensive. The question then becomes, are we getting value for this investment? Should we instead be investing that money in a series?

The convergence of streaming services unveiling new content and traditional networks like HBO pulling back has led us to a confusing juncture, where even the president of the Television Academy struggles to define what constitutes a TV movie. As Maury McIntyre, president of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, explains, “The issue is whether these movies are intended for theaters or television. They may not receive the same level of appreciation or attention. And it leaves Television Academy members wondering, should we be paying attention to this content or not?

It seems that one might anticipate the TV Academy would provide some direction on this matter, but instead, they’ve chosen to stay out of it, which can be quite disheartening for industry professionals. As an HBO insider explains, “The TV Academy didn’t seem particularly eager to address the issue. They haven’t enforced rules like they did with Black Mirror, nor have they delved into what exactly it all means. Yes, Netflix is producing movies, but what’s the motivation behind it? I’m not saying it’s simple, as the boundaries are unclear. However, I believe that perhaps they were intimidated by streaming services and didn’t know how to handle it effectively. And there isn’t a clear-cut solution.

Given the Academy’s lack of concern for intervening, there arises a question: How should the Television Movie category be handled? Its current state appears disorderly and unfortunately lacks taste, leading to an industrial apathy I often encounter when talking with industry professionals. The Academy seems uninterested, viewers seem indifferent, critics focus on quality but overlook whether the films are truly TV movies or just movies that strayed from their intended theatrical route.

The potential breakthrough might originate from the Oscars rather than the Emmys. For years, there’s been quiet speculation that the Motion Picture Academy may tighten the eligibility criteria for Oscar consideration, which could potentially influence executives like Ted Sarandos from Netflix to prioritize submitting only their top films for Oscar contention and save some of their worthy but less competitive movies for a more promising Emmys competition. While independent filmmakers might initially resist the idea of vying for Emmy awards instead of Oscars, it’s important to remember that award shows are primarily designed to highlight excellent work, draw attention to it, and ultimately help more people discover it. Given the current flood of movies, a reimagined and revitalized concept of the TV movie could play a crucial role in guiding audiences towards high-quality films and filmmakers.

As a film critic looking back on the previous year, I find it fascinating to see how the streaming giant, Netflix, churned out an impressive 137 narrative features last year – if we narrow that down to English-language films, there were still 54 movies to choose from. However, only three of these made it to the prestigious Oscar nominations list. Movies like “Maria” (with one nod) and “The Piano Lesson” were certainly put forward for consideration, but smaller productions such as Richard Linklater’s “Hit Man” and Azazel Jacobs’s “His Three Daughters” seemed to be either too niche or lacked the necessary campaigning efforts to secure an Oscar nomination.

If the eligibility requirements for Oscars were more stringent, perhaps Netflix would have been motivated to pitch films like “Hit Man” and “His Three Daughters” for Emmy contention instead. This could potentially lead to a more diverse recognition of their impressive content across various platforms.

Berger mentions that he has created some movies for streaming, which he believes would have been quite successful if they had been eligible for Emmy awards. He specifically points out the film “Encounter,” which he co-produced with director Michael Pearce. This movie was shown in various festivals in 2021 and then had a brief theatrical release before premiering on Amazon Prime. Berger suggests that if they had capitalized on the Emmy discussion, “Encounter” could have had a much bigger cultural impact.

If the Emmy awards were to reinstate a strong focus on promoting films again, I believe we’d see a significant increase in high-quality television movies, making the category more challenging. This would also apply to many excellent streaming films that aim for Academy Awards; however, it should be noted that only a few of these have a realistic chance of winning.

Independent filmmakers often find themselves grappling with the choice between showcasing their movies in theaters or streaming platforms, a dilemma that boils down to delivering an immersive audience experience versus widening the reach of their content. Do you value the enhanced viewing experience offered by cinema, or aim for maximum exposure of your film?

Smaller-scale films emerging from festivals like Sundance or Toronto typically have limited theatrical showings followed by streaming availability. While they could potentially attract a substantial viewership with appropriate promotion, they might get lost amidst the vast sea of content otherwise. However, one effective method for drawing attention to quality small films is through an awards campaign. The revived and competitive Emmys race for Outstanding TV Movie could serve as a valuable platform for these films to shine.

According to Callender, it’s important that we continue producing serious dramas for television because doing so allows these productions to reach a wider audience who might find it difficult to access them in a traditional theater setting. He explains that TV shows, even those with limited budgets or niche themes, can still create an atmosphere of excitement, much like movies do. The groundbreaking work HBO did in the ’90s was to make television feel as exciting and eventful as movies. There’s no lack of high-quality films and filmmakers today. It’s now up to broadcasters, streaming platforms, and even award shows like the Emmys to ensure these productions regain their significance.

Read More

2025-09-12 17:59