The Oscars have a new stage on YouTube. The audience may have other plans.

• The Oscars are a huge TV event.
• They're also a declining event — like just about everything else on TV.
• So moving them to YouTube isn't a bad idea. But it may not be enough to attract more eyeballs.

Hollywood may be embattled. But it's still capable of putting out a compelling narrative: On Wednesday morning, news broke that Netflix has won (for now) the right to buy Warner Bros. studio and HBO.

A few hours later, news broke that YouTube is going to be the new host of the Oscars.

Even the dullest of us can understand this storyline: In a single day, three of old media's most treasured assets have been acquired by digital usurpers — internet services that used to be dismissed by media giants, and are now giants themselves.

If Netflix does end up walking away with most of Warner Bros., that's a big, structural change. A purely digital outlet will control a movie studio that (still) puts movies into movie theaters, as well as the most prestigious premium TV service.

And while I'm still processing this one, I think moving the Oscars from ABC — in 2029, when the five-year deal kicks in — is going to be more symbolic than tectonic. That is: If you are someone who liked watching the Oscars on ABC, you'll just watch it on YouTube.

It's possible that YouTube version of the Oscars could look and feel radically different. But I doubt it, because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — the people who actually run the Oscars and produce the show — will still be running the Oscars and producing the show. And my hunch is YouTube has already promised the Academy that the 2029 Oscars will look and feel just like the 2026 Oscars.

The Oscars on YouTube don't necessarily mean a bigger audience

Which brings us to the next question: Will moving the Oscars from a TV channel to an internet service bring any more eyeballs to the Oscars? Because right now, the Oscars seem like a product in permanent decline: In 1998, when "Titanic" was a megahit and most people treated the internet as a novelty, viewership peaked at 57 million US viewers. It has been steadily eroding since then, and now brings in less than half of that — which means Hollywood's biggest night brings in considerably fewer eyeballs than an average NFL game.

Every year, there is lots of hand-wringing and debate about why that's the case: Moviegoing itself is in decline; the awards often feature movies that people who do go to movies have never heard of; the show itself isn't nearly as interesting as it could be.

But there really shouldn't be any debate at all: TV is less popular because of the internet. So everything on TV — with the sole exception of the NFL — is less popular.

So while moving the Oscars from a broadcast TV network to the internet, and making the Oscars available worldwide, for free, will certainly increase the potential audience, I'm not sure that many more people will find it compelling.

Yes, it's cool to see stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Timothée Chalamet — the two leading contenders for the 2026 Best Actor award — sitting in the Dolby Theatre. But even if that happens, there's a very good chance that you won't have seen the movies they've been nominated for. So whether the show is on TV or an app, are you going to tune in — especially when you can already see Leonardo DiCaprio and Timothée Chalamet on Instagram and TikTok, 24/7?

If the Academy wants bigger audiences, YouTube is a fine place to look. They just might not like what they find.