Recent deals between Warner Bros, Netflix and Paramount have ignited a debate about the future of Hollywood. As many major studios turn to partnerships with streaming services, it is apparent that Hollywood is reshaping itself in accordance with audience habits and economic pressures.
Historically, mergers and acquisitions are not uncommon in the movie industry. For the last 50 years, movie studios have changed and shifted ownership multiple times. Take, for example, Columbia Pictures, which was founded in 1924, then bought by Coca-Cola in 1982, only to be bought seven years later by Sony.
As such, the Netflix merger is not entirely surprising. Warner Bros. has had a tremendous year with highly profitable releases such as “Sinners,” “F1: The Movie,” “One Battle After Another” and “Superman.” Netflix needs these blockbuster I.P. movies to put on its streaming service, and Warner Bros. very simply wants cash.
With Netflix being synonymous with streaming services, many are afraid that the merger will mark the end of moviegoing, as more movies are only released on streaming services. “I have always loved the shared experience of seeing a movie in the theaters, especially when it’s a big release. It made seeing a movie an event you had to make time for or set aside time to see,” said teacher Brent Keemle. “It’s sad that theaters are in decline, but I kind of think the decline of theaters has been connected to a decline in the quality of movies.”
Like Keemle, many are additionally afraid of the drop in quality of movies that can occur from the merger. In the past, studio mergers have led to reduced output. The Disney-Fox merger in 2019 largely cut many movies and shows under the Fox label. This ultimately affects the diversity of the content produced, leading to a drop in quality. “ My concern is that this isn’t going to make new movies suddenly be made in large quantities; it’s about the business of who controls what rights and the access of who can view what,” says English teacher Kevin Gaffney.
Fans like Gaffney are concerned that streaming services will put in less effort.“I think, at least initially, whoever gets Warner Bros is going to prioritize access to the WB intellectual property in their service more than creating new content for WB in their particular Netflix/Paramount/Amazon style,” Gaffney continued.
The other part of this dilemma is Paramount’s hostile bid. Just a few days after the Netflix deal, Paramount announced a hostile bid, or a tender offer, where the company promised to buy Warner Brothers stock at an elevated price. When a company buys enough of these stocks, it can start making changes and exert influence over decisions. Other notable examples of hostile takeovers include Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury.
Ultimately, both parties’ argument hinges on whether or not the merger will be categorized as monopolizing. Paramount argues that the Netflix acquisition would not adhere to the standards of the European Commission, U.K’s Competition and Markets Authority. Similarly, concerns are raised regarding the foreign wealth funds backing the Paramount bid.
For movie fans, both merger propositions pose a similar issue, “I’m always concerned about any kind of monopoly forming, and this merger could reduce the current five major studios (Disney, Universal, WB, Paramount and Sony) to four. Then, in a few years, another merger would lead to three, and on and on. If the guiding principle of capitalism is that competition breeds innovation, this potential elimination of competition should concern anyone who wants quality, varied viewing material,” expressed Gaffney.
The center of the debate is not just who owns what studio, but it is instead about what happens to the art of movies. Film has always existed at the intersection of commerce and creativity, yet its power comes from the experience it creates for fans. When mergers prioritize market dominance over originality, the danger created is not simply fewer movies, but also fewer meaningful movies. Hollywood is roughly 115 years old and has survived many technological shifts, but its survival hinges on the public remembering that movies are more than revenue streams. Movies are works of art that are worth saving.
