Netflix and the future of the shared screen

Netflix’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros signals the world’s cultural departure from legacy entertainment media. This deal is more than a trivial business transaction, it represents Netflix outstripping its competitors. When a modern streaming platform considers purchasing a century-old legacy studio, it shocks the wider industry. If Netflix is successful, the deal could discourage people from experiencing films together, preferring a solitary stream. Netflix already distances viewers from each other. This will be exacerbated if their deal passes. Overall, Netflix’s deal can stifle competition and reduce the traditional, shared, cinematic experience to a binge session. Netflix is one corporation amongst a handful that are controlling entertainment media. But its power could only become greater.

On 5 December 2025, Netflix announced a roughly $72 billion deal to buy Warner Bros.’ studio and streaming businesses, valuing the company at around $82.7 billion. If successful, the acquisition would fold Warner’s historic studios, HBO, and HBO Max. Then, these companies would be integrated as a part of Netflix, a dominant streaming company. The industry's reaction was swift. A consumer class-action lawsuit was filed alleging reduced competition; warnings from Hollywood unions about job losses and fierce opposition from cinema owners, fearful of fewer cinematic releases in the future. 

Within days, Paramount intervened with a hostile counter-bid reportedly worth over $100 billion, partially funded by Saudi, Abu Dhabi, and Qatari sovereign wealth funds. Paramount has pitched itself as the more “theatrical-friendly” option — promising more than 30 cinema releases a year if it wins control of Warner Bros. But Paramount’s intervention could disrupt an unstable media landscape further: the global box office revenue in 2024 remained significantly lower than pre-pandemic averages. This poor performance has compounded with low UK cinema admissions in 2024, which were roughly 22% compared to pre-pandemic levels. As a result, commentators do not expect a full recovery of the entertainment media industry this decade. 

Cinema United, which represents more than 30,000 screens in the United States and another 26,000 across the globe, has called the Netflix deal an “unprecedented threat”. They warned that if Warner Bros. titles repeatedly bypass cinemas, a significant share of the (American) box office could evaporate. Writers’, actors’, and directors’ guilds echo this concern. They argue that the merger of Netflix and Warner Bros. reduces both the number of buyers and the range of films that get made. 

The anxiety caused by Netflix’s proposal reinforces the narrative of Hollywood’s slow decline. Riskier, mid-budget dramas have been squeezed out in favour of sequels and franchise “guaranteed successes”. Streaming once promised variety; instead, it often delivers recycled tropes at industrial speed. This explains why a typical “Netflix original” has become unadventurous; a shorthand for glossy, algorithm-friendly, shows assembled from familiar parts. This model ignores genuinely bold work the platform has funded (such as Stranger Things). Companies, such as Netflix, prioritising  ‘safe’ media reflects a real anxiety within industry. If Netflix absorbs a culture-defining studio in to its formulaic algorithm, entertainment media could cease ever being bold. Netflix’s deal raises the risk that films may prioritise profit over creativity. But the loss is not only economic, it is social too. 

Sociologist Ray Oldenburg described cinemas, cafés, and pubs as “third places”; spaces that are neither home nor work, where people gather and share experiences outside the logic of productivity. The cinema, despite being much quieter than a pub, fits this definition. Cinemas bring strangers together in the same room, at the same time, asking for sustained attention — in a way home viewing rarely does. That shared attention matters. Films watched collectively linger longer, spark conversation, and become part of a wider cultural memory — not just content consumed and forgotten. Cinema culture extends beyond the screening, spilling into debates, reviews, social media, and everyday language that forms cultural references. Now, most media consumption is oriented around private streams. But, if anything can be delivered to your room with a simple click, the streaming model disincentives cinematic viewing. All a spectator needs to do is stay home, stay subscribed, and keep consuming.  

Yet, access to third places is linked to better mental health and lower isolation, particularly among young people. But these places are disappearing fast. Lack of funding has led to the closure of youth clubs, libraries, and arts venues across the UK. Nearly a third of independent cinemas in the country say they could shut within five years, without substantial investment. When the lights go dark in an independent cinema, for the last time, a  town loses a venue that animates culture. But Netflix’s leadership has done little to address the fears of businesses or viewers. At the Time100 Summit, CEO Ted Sarandos described going to the movies as an “outdated concept”, arguing that most audiences now prefer to watch at home. Conveniently, many Netflix originals receive only brief, carefully timed theatrical runs (often just long enough to qualify for the Oscars), before becoming an in-app title only. 

More broadly, Netflix has reshaped how we consume stories. By normalising binge-watch culture, Netflix has conditioned people to prefer streaming over cinematic viewing. But, the criticisms leveled at Netflix do not detract from streaming: the concerns are about maintaining a balance between streaming and cinematic viewing. Moreover, there are positives to streaming:  It has expanded access for disabled viewers, global audiences, and anyone priced out of regular cinema trips. In addition, streaming services have supported projects, which legacy studios would not otherwise consider, and has provided international filmmakers with a global platform. But the erosion of cinemas denies people shared cultural spaces, as well as the related experiences. 

When studios commit to cinema releases, people still show up. The vampire drama Sinners offers a recent example. It grossed more than $300 million worldwide — a rare achievement for a genre-bending horror release. Screenings sold out, with special showings staged even in towns without permanent cinemas. Also, Disney’s Zootopia 2 has broken records by being the first Parental Guidance film to approach the billion-dollar mark. While Paramount’s rival bid presents itself as an antidote, the mega-conglomerate poses a risk to entertainment media similar to Netflix. In addition, many industry stakeholders have expressed concern about Paramount because of its controversial political ties to the Trump Administration. So, the prospect of concentrating cultural power in Paramount does not allay industry fears, particularly as financial spreadsheets favour streaming. It would appear to replace one concentration of power with another. The deeper problem is that both bids – by Netflix and Paramount – treat culture as a commodity, rather than an experience. The Netflix–Warner Bros. deal may yet be blocked by regulators or derailed by the counter-bid, but the fate of the entertainment media industry is being decided in a bidding war that warrants concern. It feels like a final curtain call on cinema.