SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
netflix
Why There Will Be Almost No Movie Theaters in 5 Years
The race for Warner Bros. by both Netflix and Paramount is just the latest evidence that monopolies will commodify art into oblivion—and a film-loving public will pay the price.
Dec 23, 2025
Whether Netflix or Paramount wins the battle of mega-corporations to merge with the fabled Warner Bros. movie studio, the economics of the film industry no longer support the production of enough feature films for most movie theaters to still be viable businesses. Within a few years, the theatrical feature film will be all but dead with devastating cultural, social, political, and economic impact.
I'm a former senior vice president at MGM/UA (now owned by Amazon) and have been in the room of a major studio at greenlight meetings which decided which films were economically profitable enough (and creatively commercial enough) to go into production.
At these greenlight meetings, senior studio management would analyze spreadsheets projecting the likely production and marketing costs of a proposed film compared to the likely stream of revenues from various sequential windows—theatrical/home video/pay TV/first run free TV/syndicated TV/likelihood of sequels, both in the US and around the world.
Largely because of Netflix, those windows have cratered. There used to be an average three- to four-month window between theatrical release and release for viewing at home, and then multi-month windows between streaming, home video, pay tv, and free tv. Now, if Netflix even allows a theatrical release, they only give it as little as 3 weeks before they start to stream a theatrical film like the recent George Clooney/Adam Sandler/Noah Baumbach film "Jay Kelly," which started streaming just 17 days after it opened in theaters and sold almost no tickets.
A large portion of the public rightly figures that there's no point in rushing out to theater to see a new feature for $15 or more a ticket plus parking and popcorn when they can see it at home in a few weeks. Most theatrical films no longer pencil out.
While there were recently six major studios (plus mini majors), after Warner Bros. is sold (following other recent anti-competitive mergers like Disney buying Fox) there will only be four left.
With the collapsed distribution windows, it's no longer feasible for those four studios to produce enough theatrical features to keep movie theaters in business. In 2015, over 100 films received a major theatrical release with inflation-adjusted box office revenues of over $15 billion while in 2024 they crashed to only 62 films with box office revenues of about $8.6 billion. Over 5,000 movie theaters have already closed their doors in the last couple of years.
And the types of theatrical films being greenlit have been mostly reduced to either $100-$200 million blockbuster action films (many of them sequels which earn less than their predecessors) and under $20 million horror films, as well as some children's films. Dramas and comedies have almost disappeared from the majors' theatrical release schedules except during the fall awards season when a small number of adult films are released in the hopes of being nominated for an Oscar.
“The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theatres from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents in small towns in the United States and around the world,” said Cinema United president Michael O’Leary in a statement. “Netflix’s stated business model does not support theatrical exhibition.”
When he's not giving bullshit public relations statements, Netflix head honcho Ted Sarandos agrees, stating last year that movie theaters are "outdated."
Art is now called "content" and is treated as an asset class to be bought and sold by mega-corporations like they're real estate towers or meme coins. Roughly 2-hour dramas in 3 acts have been inspiring communal audiences for about 2500 years since the Greeks but they're about to largely disappear from theaters, to the detriment of the entire culture. This is ushering in an age with little originality or surprise and general cultural stagnation. The sale of Warner Bros. will only accelerate this trend.
As James Cameron, director of "Titanic" and "Avatar" recently said, it will be a "disaster."
Mainstream Oscar-winning directors of the recent past like Sidney Pollack ("Tootsie," "The Way We Were," Out of Africa"), Sidney Lumet ("Network," "Serpico," "Dog Day Afternoon"), Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Wag the Dog," "Good Morning Vietnam") or Alan Pakula ("All The President's Men," "Sophie's Choice") probably couldn't get arrested if they were coming up now. While studio execs may feel cool hanging around with Marty Scorsese, it's unlikely that "Taxi Driver" would be greenlit today.
(The recent tragic murder of Rob and Michelle Reiner brings to mind other examples. Reiner's classics like "When Harry Met Sally" or "A Few Good Men" probably wouldn't get greenlit today, although as a horror film, "Misery," based on a Stephen King novel, might sneak through today if it were dumbed down enough.)
The sale of Warner Bros. to either Netflix or Paramount violates Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which provides that a merger is unlawful if its effect may be to substantially lessen competition. Factors include market concentration, foreclosure of rivals, lower wages for employees, the loss of potential competition, incentives to reduce quality or output , and the likelihood of higher prices to consumers for streaming services. We can't count on the Trump administration to bring a solid antitrust claim. But state Attorney Generals have the legal right to sue to block anti-competitive mergers. California Attorney General Rob Bonta should coordinate with other state Attorney Generals to bring such a suit. The Hollywood community should be pressuring Bonta to do so.
Fifteen years ago, Warner Bros. CEO Jeff Bewkes infamously dismissed Netflix as the pipsqueak "Albanian Army." Well, now the Albanian Army has demolished the metaphoric equivalents of the US, Britain, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world.
We need a new Normandy invasion to take it back.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Trump Vow to Intervene, Kushner Linked to Paramount's Hostile Bid for Warner Bros.
"The correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner," said one antitrust advocate.
Dec 08, 2025
Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a hostile bid to take over Warner Bros. Discovery shortly after US President Donald Trump publicly expressed skepticism of Netflix's proposed deal to acquire parts of the media company—and pledged to intervene in the federal review process.
"It is a big market share, there’s no question about it," Trump said late Sunday of Netflix's proposed $83 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) film studio and streaming business.
"I’ll be involved in that decision," the president added.
Hours after Trump's comments, Paramount CEO David Ellison—the son of billionaire GOP megadonor and close Trump ally Larry Ellison—announced the hostile bid to buy WBD, attempting to subvert the Netflix deal by taking an all-cash, $30-per-share offer directly to Warner Bros. shareholders.
Observers expressed alarm over the seeming coordination between the president and Paramount's chief executive as the fight over Warner Bros. escalates. Trump reportedly favored Paramount to win the bidding war for WBD, which owns CNN, HBO Max, and other major assets.
Axios reported Monday that "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing."
"Affinity Partners was not mentioned in Paramount's press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid," Axios noted, "nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar."
Ellison was reportedly at the White House last week urging the Trump administration to block Netflix's bid for WBD.
Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Ellison said that "we've had great conversations with the president about" Paramount—which controls CBS News thanks to a merger that the Trump administration approved—potentially becoming the owner of CNN, a frequent target of Trump's vitriol.
CNBC: Do you think the president embraces the idea of you being the owner of CNN given his criticism for that network?
DAVID ELLISON: Ah -- we've had great conversations with the president about this but I don't want to speak for him in any way, shape, or form pic.twitter.com/FdwBzfP3eO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 8, 2025
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to Ellison's remarks that "the correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner."
"The president inserting himself in the deal is obviously problematic, regardless of the parties involved," said Hegde. "If Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, who Trump called a great person, finds a way to appease him, that is also not good!"
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed similar concerns about Trump's potential corruption of the regulatory process. The proposed Netflix deal is expected to face a review by the US Justice Department's Antitrust Division, where top officials were recently ousted for "insubordination" amid criticism of agency leaders' corporate-friendly approach to merger enforcement.
"Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals?" Warren asked after Trump pledged to insert himself into the Netflix-WBD review process.
"It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts," added Warren, who called the Netflix-WBD deal "an anti-monopoly nightmare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn of ‘Catastrophic’ Threat If Netflix Acquires Warner Bros.
"The threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself," warned actress Jane Fonda.
Dec 05, 2025
Netflix announced a deal Friday to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s film studio and streaming business for $83 billion, a merger that—if approved by the Trump administration—would create a media behemoth that critics say threatens industry competition, higher costs for consumers, the rights of entertainment workers, and democracy.
Netflix, the largest streaming company in the world, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), owner of the third-largest streaming platform HBO Max, unveiled the proposed agreement after a closely watched bidding war that included Paramount Skydance, the company that the Trump administration reportedly favored to acquire WBD. Paramount is owned by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison—a close ally of President Donald Trump.
David Ellison reportedly met with Trump administration officials on Thursday to "press his case" against Netflix's pending acquisition of WBD. An unnamed senior official told CNBC on Friday that the Trump administration is treating the Netflix-WBD deal with "heavy skepticism."
While some expressed relief that Paramount appears—at least for now—to have lost the bid for Warner Bros., antitrust advocates argued such a view overlooks the much broader and more serious threat of corporate consolidation.
"Does anyone think Netflix won’t do what Trump wants to get their deal through?" asked Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project. "The threat to democracy isn’t the Ellisons, it’s media consolidation."
The American Prospect's David Dayen expressed a similar sentiment, writing on social media: "Keeping WBD out of Paramount's hands is good. Putting it in Netflix's is still unlawful consolidation though. This is the #1 streamer merging with #3. State enforcers should speak up."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend."
In a newsletter post following news of the merger agreement, Stoller argued the Netflix-WBD deal is plainly illegal under the Clayton Antitrust Act and "a recipe for monopolization."
"The ideal scenario now is a trial that puts the secrets of Hollywood executives and financiers on display, and crushes the financiers who think mergers are the only move in business," Stoller wrote. "Then Hollywood can get back to the business of making good TV shows and movies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that "this deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare."
"A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market," said Warren. "It could force you into higher prices, fewer choices over what and how you watch, and may put American workers at risk."
"Under Donald Trump, the antitrust review process has also become a cesspool of political favoritism and corruption," the senator continued. "The Justice Department must enforce our nation’s anti-monopoly laws fairly and transparently—not use the Warner Bros. deal review to invite influence-peddling and bribery."
Ahead of the announcement, major figures in the entertainment industry sounded alarm over the possibility of a Netflix takeover of WBD. In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, a group of film producers warned that Neflix would "effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace" if it acquired WBD.
The Writers’ Guild of America, which represents film and TV writers, has said it would oppose WBD merging with any "major studio or streamer," warning it "would be a disaster for writers, for consumers, and for competition."
"Merger after merger in the media industry has harmed workers, diminished competition and free speech, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars better invested in organic growth," the union said in a recent statement.
Jane Fonda, the renowned actress and activist, wrote Thursday that "the threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself."
"Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world," Fonda wrote. "It will mean fewer jobs, fewer opportunities to sell work, fewer creative risks, fewer news sources, and far less diversity in the stories Americans get to hear."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular