The White House abusing anti trust powers to force the sale to a more ideologically aligned buyer group (that also happens to include his son in law…) is incredibly bleak and also seems like the most likely outcome
It’s sad that in all the coverage of the deal in non political outlets, the fact that the white house will influence the deal for ideological reasons is a given. Just sliding into authoritarianism.
A lot of Trump's abuses are hard to fit into a sound bite but I think some form of "the Trump administration blocked this corporate deal to force the sale to go instead to a company run by his son-in-law" can be understood by the average voter as corrupt.
I don't have much of a view on the pros and cons of the proposed mergers, but on films competing with vertical video I do have a couple:
1. The one place where I regularly successfully commit to spending 2-3 hours continuously watching a film, never checking my phone or being distracted with some other digital media, is the physical cinema. I'm sure I'm not alone in this - it takes a real effort to focus fully on even a compelling film without that physical location & social pressure to do so. I think there's a risk that something more would be lost if cinemas do become a "cultural hubs in big cities" only thing, especially once future generations grow up without having regularly watched films (properly).
2. In most non-US countries I'd expect it to be much harder to replicate the quality of the audio-visual experience at home due to lower wages and greater cost of space. This might mean that (non super-niche) cinemas survive much longer in Europe than in the US. A good quality cinema room in the south-east of England is the sort of thing you hear about professional sportsmen getting installed, not decently well off two earner families.
I totally sympathize with #1, but it relates back to a general take I'm having when it comes to being distracted by digital media.
Just don't be distracted! Put your phone in another room when you're trying to watch a movie or read a book. When you're partner gets up and goes to the bathroom at dinner, look around at the dining room, scrolling through twitter is stupid. This is how humans did things for a long long time and I'm confident we can still do it if we set our mind to it.
Depending on the theater, the apparent viewing size of a 75 inch TV is pretty comparable to a theater screen. The sound from the TV is pretty bad, but sound bars give some improvement. And you can install a big screen, projector, and actual Dolby Atmos at home, though it’s expensive.
Wait is this not what the ideal at home sound system is anymore? I currently just have two (quite nice) stereo speakers but have been thinking about adding surround.
Soundbar is the most anybody does now, pretty much. I'm currently running 3.0 and thinking about adding a sub, but that's way, way, way beyond the standard now.
When I was 20, I had good enough hearing to notice the quality of a $800 speaker, but could only afford a $100 speaker. Now that I'm 30, my hearing is worse and I can only hear the difference of a $200 speaker even though I can finally afford a $800 one. When I'm 40 I think my wallet will be at $1500 and my ears will be at $100. Sad times.
I’ve given up streaming for going to movie theaters and I couldn’t be happier. I don’t even feel like I’ve become disconnected from the culture because it’s become so fragmented there was no hope there anyway.
You miss three important things about the culture at Netflix, Matt:
1. Netflix is run by strategy consultants (ex-McKinseyites I believe. Their culture is that of strategy memos. It's very alien to anyone from the culture of Hollywood.
2. They are entirely data-driven, rather than deal-driven. A normal producer will pull together a source (e.g., IP or author), a production team, and a financial backer and get contracts in place based on the desire to work together. Netflix is far more analytical, which means less risk-taking. If it hasn't been made before, it won't show up in the data and won't get made.
3. They run a shop that is very intense. If you work for them you will be in the 10% that align and can cut it and become a superstar. If you are in the 90% they will pay you well for a few years to learn all they can from you and then cut you loose. They are very up-front about all this. Hollywood is not known for stability, but this is a new flavor of instability.
The common thread is that culturally although Netflix gets stuff made because they listen to the data and are the 800 pound gorilla, art is art and even though Hollywood has always been a business, the culture at Netflix is so strategically optimized that true creativity may be stifled.
From an antitrust perspective it may be the case that consolidation under Netflix would prevent a lot of good things from ever getting made in favor of an assembly line of sameness.
On the other hand, Ellison, Kushner, and the Saudis would probably more proactively make things that should never get made!
I believe that 2 is true, which might make it less fun from the perspective of actually working there (i.e. Who doesn't want to work with his buddies as opposed to whatever the data nerds are saying?)
However, the good thing about Netflix is that it TAKES RISKS, which means that it can create some really great series that wouldn't be possible otherwise (i.e. Squid Game).
In the end, art has always been in a love-hate relationship with business, and business is always changing.
I hope that if the Netflix deal goes through, then Netflix mantain a separation of the two brands: One a high-volume brand with a wide range in quality (Netflix proper), and the other a low-volume high-quality brand (HBO).
I think this is a good take. Netflix wants to be the everything company. If you want slop, here's slop. If you want prestige, well, click on our HBO tile and check out our prestige television.
I don’t think this works in practice. I dropped Netflix several years ago (occasionally re upping just long enough to watch a new season of the Great British Bake Off) and have not missed it at all. When I look for anything watchable and am instead presented with endless slop, your service is a slophouse.
The switch from granular 5-star ratings to thumbs up / thumbs down was the beginning of the end. “This was not, unlike certain other films, worthless garbage, but I do not consider it high enough quality to rise above average” is a meaningful rating signal, dammit.
"I dropped Netflix several years ago (occasionally re upping just long enough to watch a new season of the Great British Bake Off) and have not missed it at all."
I don't understand how this could be anything but true? As in, if you subscribe to Paramount+ for a bit, watch some shows and then cancel the service, are you saddened in someway by having cut the service that you aren't by Netflix?
It's also baffling to me that they took so long to give an option to turn off the autoplay feature of their menus to the point major directors were publicly complaining about it.
That was the thinking behind MAX but there was insufficient slop to allow HBO to retreat into its own niche, so quality seemed diluted. This could work better with Netflix.
Does Netflix take risks? Or did they just luck out by having less direct HQ oversight of their Korean division? It's not even the only East Asian death game show on their platform.
“However, the good thing about Netflix is that it TAKES RISKS, which means that it can create some really great series that wouldn't be possible otherwise (i.e. Squid Game).”
What about Squid Games makes us think it’s some sort of design rather than something that accidentally escaped the slop factory (kinda like Casablanca and the studio movie system)?
I’d say that Netflix’s quality hit rate seems actually quite low, and they are famous for terminating shows at the whiff of them not being successful enough.
Your comment implies much of Hollywood hasn't long been dominated by the pursuit of profits. But it has! And complaints that "true creativity may be stifled" are as old as the movie business itself.
From talking to people who have worked for Netflix, they are focused a lot more on creating a pipeline of easy-to-produce content and trying to skirt around union rules for behind-the-scenes staff than actually making quality narratives, which is a bad sign if you liked the type of "well-produced entertainment for adults" HBO was known for.
Had to double check 1. because Netflix is pretty famously NOT a big consulting user and yes ... none of the ELT comes from consulting. If anything Netflix or Reed specifically is / was trying to replicate the internal competitive dynamics of Bridgewater whereby they have this incredible "talent density" and probably not incorrectly believe they're far better run than any consulting shop.
I remember listening to a podcast interview with a Netflix person years back and your third point rings true. I’m sure it’s unpleasant to work under other types of uncertainty in the entertainment industry, but having to swallow a whole new flavor of it might be tough for HBO type creators.
>> If it hasn't been made before, it won't show up in the data and won't get made.
This is my biggest issue with them. Everything they make is derivative, whereas HBO actually takes risks.
(Edit: another commenter mentioned that Netflix does take risks in the international shows, which I agree with, but seems a consequence of being a truly global company).
Does Stranger Things fit that mold? My impression of it was that the idea was moderately original (as far as traditional horror can be) even though the production was all very detailed 80s homage.
I'm pretty much where Matt is on this: I'm basically fine with Netflix doing this deal if that's how it shakes out. But what are the odds this is what transpires? I really doubt Trump will allow a political ally of his to lose. And yes, it indeed sucks that this last sentence plausibly describes the state of US business culture in 2025.
I also want to comment on this:
>...if you’re just trying to do propaganda on behalf of the Trump administration, you could just buy CNN<
Which is what's going to happen, right? CNN's days as a trusted provider of news are numbered. Netflix doesn't want that part, and so, even if Paramount's bid loses out to Netflix, the CNN portion, I predict, will indeed fall into the hands of a MAGA-friendly plutocrat.
1. I barely go to the movies anymore because the costs are outrageous. $25 a ticket and then $25 for a popcorn and coke (that’s costs them less than a dollar). Yes home entertainment systems are better, but the movie theatre experience would still be valuable if it were more reasonably priced.
2. I’ve alway thought it was a shame that streaming services compete on differentiated content libraries. Music streaming works much better - all the big platforms have 99% of songs, and they compete on price, quality and features.
Where are people spending that much? In my neck of the woods, a not exactly cheap part of the country, I pay for tickets what I did as a kid, adjusting for inflation. For popcorn, sneak in a candy bar instead or something.
If the issue is lack of demand, I don't think they'd be killing theaters with high prices.
When you lose the casual consumer and your audience is a small number of people obsessed with film, making the theater much nicer and charging way more is the correct strategy. And that's where theaters have gone the last few years.
Again, I'll say, I've never seen a ticket go for that much, even in a high-priced metro area. I think theaters are largely going in the opposite direction to snag repeat-viewers. Subscription services, after the Moviepass fiasco have popped up at most chains. They're a pretty good deal, and save money if you go at least once or twice a month, and you save on popcorn.
I don't think the fact that theaters are going for repeat customers really contradicts the idea they're chasing a shrinking audience of people who like theaters. But I'm glad your tickets are more reasonable than mine
I checked Flix Brewhouse (fancy reclining chair-and-food theater) for Avatar on Friday night and the ticket is $18 online or $16 in person. Seems reasonable adjusted for inflation and quality improvements like the nicer chair.
Hot food and a drink menu is also an improvement over an oversized tub of popcorn.
Agree. If consumer welfare is going to be the standard, what would be good for consumers is if the Library of Congress created a universal streaming library of all the movies and TV shows. Consumers don't benefit from the endless copyright extensions or corporate strategies that make it hard to access things.
I’d love data on whether movies are in fact much more expensive these days (which is a feeling I share as well) or if I just anchored on prices from my youth without adjusting for inflation, when going to the movies and getting some popcorn or candy felt like something my family would do as the splurge outing for the week instead of going to Applebees or mini golf.
I've paid less than that at major chain theaters in midtown Manhattan. How are you paying $25 a ticket? That's how much I pay for a monthly AMC subscription that gives me multiple free tickets a week.
I'm frustrated with the coverage of this debate, which tends to define "choice" in terms of how the merger will affect creativity. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised because the coverage comes from people in the creativity business. Yes, a Netflix-HBO merger would reduce competition in Hollywood and probably stifle some creativity. But I think most ordinary people (consumers) would gladly forgo a little creativity in exchange for paying for one less service. For most people, more streaming services is a false choice. They’re not choosing between the different shows on different services. They’re choosing between the *services themselves.* Media critics may have access to all the creativity across all the services. But most families pick the one (or maybe two) that suits them best and stick with it. Netflix is by far the most popular streaming service. I’m confident that most families would prefer having HBO’s content available through their existing Netflix subscription—even if it cost a small premium and even if the programming became less distinct moving forward. My complete thoughts at: https://foundhistory.org/netflix-and-hbo/
Antitrust enforcement is a bandwidth issue for the DOJ and FTC. There is plenty of anticompetitive behavior in the healthcare industry and a strong case could be made that the behavior is illegal. I don’t know all the details, but Netflix buying HBO doesn’t strike me as bad for the consumer.
The Paramount bid doesn’t seem like a legitimate market transaction but an attempt at Trump gaining control—WBD has 5x the market cap of PSKY, shouldn’t they be the acquirers if there’s going to be a merger? So you kind of have to hope Netflix wins if that’s the alternative.
I still can’t believe Democrats didn’t even try to stop the Twitter takeover because they were too busy going after the Roomba acquisition and then affirmatively handed TikTok to Trump. If there’s a next Democratic administration they need to put a lot of thought into reversing the Trumpist media takeover which is surely worth way more points on the margin than any amount of moderation will get you.
With Netflix you have a group of executives who don’t have any taste and despise the theatrical movie going experience. How many Netflix movies are forever movies? The Irishman and Marriage Story. Is there anymore? Warner alone released two this year in OBAA and Sinners. Ten years down the road we will see the most important studio in Hollywood releasing a few tentpole films a year in theaters and the rest will be slop for streaming.
With Paramount you have a group of executives who don’t have any taste (unless you only like Mission Impossible) and a right wing / foreign takeover of media properties. At least the theatrical experience will be saved? But at what cost to society.
I feel like I’m a little skeptical that this deal goes through and movie theaters are all Thanos snapped away replaced and demolished.
It seems like the likelier outcome is a smaller number of theaters, bad but not cataclysmic, possibly owned by the major studios conglomerates.
I went to see zootopia 2 at Disney springs and then went to dinner after and probably spent like over 200 dollars all told. What is AMC providing here?
inevitable increase in monthly subscription fees forthcoming! Nowadays having 5-6 streaming service subscriptions could easily mirror the price you'd pay for traditional cable. No escaping corporate greed but consumers clearly will pay the money.
I have given up. It is all so much to juggle that I don't watch much of anything anymore. I go to the movies a few times a year and go to a bar to see big sports matchups. I read a lot more books these days. I worry about this because traditionally TV and movies have big exports for the US. My kids tell me that other countries are muscling in on that
I use a paper-sized HD antenna next to a window for TV. It works for watching important events (football, news events, etc).
My parents grew up watching TV from an antenna. I grew up with satellite or cable (depending on living in the country or in town). Now I watch TV from an antenna!
It was also obvious from a consumer perspective that a lot of these studio/network-specific streaming options were going to fail or underperform expectations. Who wants to pay more for CNN+? How much content do Paramount and NBC actually put out individually to make a sustained monthly subscription worth it to the consumer?
Everyone is talking about affordability today, but I don't think anyone believes that either of these mergers is going to result in lower streaming prices. And outside of housing, it feels like we have managed to optimize "consumer welfare" all the way into an economy that everyone hates.
We are not going back to the Netflix era of 2010-2017 anyway, when Netflix seemingly had all the best, binge-able content for $10 a month. That was a product of ZIRP VC investment and other studios undervaluing their content libraries.
Well, even if Netflix will cost more once it has HBO’s content, it probably won’t cost as much as a Netflix subscription plus an HBO subscription do together now.
The streaming landscape is a lot more fragmented than you make out in this piece. You totally omitted Hulu and Prime Video. Apple TV doesn't have huge market share but they have a disproportionate amount of the very best original content, like Severance and Foundation. And there are any number of smaller niche services like Mubi and Tubi
Apple somehow manages to produce some of the best and the worst “high touch” shows. Eg Severance vs Invasion. Wtf happened to Invasion? I’m still mad about that sucking so hard.
It is a nice to read a positive spin these days, but I think this misses the mark. While I hear you about discovering great cinema via video in the 90s, I just think the Streaming universe is different these days because of phones. It is much easier for me to actually watch movies in a theatre than at home because I have to be free of distractions there. At home on my couch I'm either reaching for my phone or falling asleep on the couch. Netflix knows this about all of us, and makes much more passive entertainment then what Warner Movies at least churned out.
Yeah, when streaming executives are complaining to the creators of animated comedies that their plots are too complicated for people who are scrolling on their phones at the same time, we're going to get less complicated plots moving forward.
This is definitely an issue to at least acknowledge. Less complicated plots and characters verbally describing visual plot points for distracted audiences are both things I’ve heard streaming services ask creators to do.
The White House abusing anti trust powers to force the sale to a more ideologically aligned buyer group (that also happens to include his son in law…) is incredibly bleak and also seems like the most likely outcome
It’s sad that in all the coverage of the deal in non political outlets, the fact that the white house will influence the deal for ideological reasons is a given. Just sliding into authoritarianism.
A lot of Trump's abuses are hard to fit into a sound bite but I think some form of "the Trump administration blocked this corporate deal to force the sale to go instead to a company run by his son-in-law" can be understood by the average voter as corrupt.
You say that but the history of this stuff is that it’s a huge white elephant.
I suspect that the ideological part isn't the most important factor. This deal is foremost about money
Yeah, I mean for me the really bleak part of this is Trump making clear that he's gonna get paid either way.
I don't have much of a view on the pros and cons of the proposed mergers, but on films competing with vertical video I do have a couple:
1. The one place where I regularly successfully commit to spending 2-3 hours continuously watching a film, never checking my phone or being distracted with some other digital media, is the physical cinema. I'm sure I'm not alone in this - it takes a real effort to focus fully on even a compelling film without that physical location & social pressure to do so. I think there's a risk that something more would be lost if cinemas do become a "cultural hubs in big cities" only thing, especially once future generations grow up without having regularly watched films (properly).
2. In most non-US countries I'd expect it to be much harder to replicate the quality of the audio-visual experience at home due to lower wages and greater cost of space. This might mean that (non super-niche) cinemas survive much longer in Europe than in the US. A good quality cinema room in the south-east of England is the sort of thing you hear about professional sportsmen getting installed, not decently well off two earner families.
I totally sympathize with #1, but it relates back to a general take I'm having when it comes to being distracted by digital media.
Just don't be distracted! Put your phone in another room when you're trying to watch a movie or read a book. When you're partner gets up and goes to the bathroom at dinner, look around at the dining room, scrolling through twitter is stupid. This is how humans did things for a long long time and I'm confident we can still do it if we set our mind to it.
the other place where 1 applies (for me) is on long haul flights
I find myself catching up on the popular canon of movies that I’ve never seen before on flights.
Depending on the theater, the apparent viewing size of a 75 inch TV is pretty comparable to a theater screen. The sound from the TV is pretty bad, but sound bars give some improvement. And you can install a big screen, projector, and actual Dolby Atmos at home, though it’s expensive.
You could rock it like the 90s and 2000s and get some speakers and a surround receiver.
Wait is this not what the ideal at home sound system is anymore? I currently just have two (quite nice) stereo speakers but have been thinking about adding surround.
Soundbar is the most anybody does now, pretty much. I'm currently running 3.0 and thinking about adding a sub, but that's way, way, way beyond the standard now.
Dolby Atmos for movies at least.
When I was 20, I had good enough hearing to notice the quality of a $800 speaker, but could only afford a $100 speaker. Now that I'm 30, my hearing is worse and I can only hear the difference of a $200 speaker even though I can finally afford a $800 one. When I'm 40 I think my wallet will be at $1500 and my ears will be at $100. Sad times.
I’ve given up streaming for going to movie theaters and I couldn’t be happier. I don’t even feel like I’ve become disconnected from the culture because it’s become so fragmented there was no hope there anyway.
You miss three important things about the culture at Netflix, Matt:
1. Netflix is run by strategy consultants (ex-McKinseyites I believe. Their culture is that of strategy memos. It's very alien to anyone from the culture of Hollywood.
2. They are entirely data-driven, rather than deal-driven. A normal producer will pull together a source (e.g., IP or author), a production team, and a financial backer and get contracts in place based on the desire to work together. Netflix is far more analytical, which means less risk-taking. If it hasn't been made before, it won't show up in the data and won't get made.
3. They run a shop that is very intense. If you work for them you will be in the 10% that align and can cut it and become a superstar. If you are in the 90% they will pay you well for a few years to learn all they can from you and then cut you loose. They are very up-front about all this. Hollywood is not known for stability, but this is a new flavor of instability.
The common thread is that culturally although Netflix gets stuff made because they listen to the data and are the 800 pound gorilla, art is art and even though Hollywood has always been a business, the culture at Netflix is so strategically optimized that true creativity may be stifled.
From an antitrust perspective it may be the case that consolidation under Netflix would prevent a lot of good things from ever getting made in favor of an assembly line of sameness.
On the other hand, Ellison, Kushner, and the Saudis would probably more proactively make things that should never get made!
I'm torn.
I believe that 2 is true, which might make it less fun from the perspective of actually working there (i.e. Who doesn't want to work with his buddies as opposed to whatever the data nerds are saying?)
However, the good thing about Netflix is that it TAKES RISKS, which means that it can create some really great series that wouldn't be possible otherwise (i.e. Squid Game).
In the end, art has always been in a love-hate relationship with business, and business is always changing.
I hope that if the Netflix deal goes through, then Netflix mantain a separation of the two brands: One a high-volume brand with a wide range in quality (Netflix proper), and the other a low-volume high-quality brand (HBO).
I think this is a good take. Netflix wants to be the everything company. If you want slop, here's slop. If you want prestige, well, click on our HBO tile and check out our prestige television.
I don’t think this works in practice. I dropped Netflix several years ago (occasionally re upping just long enough to watch a new season of the Great British Bake Off) and have not missed it at all. When I look for anything watchable and am instead presented with endless slop, your service is a slophouse.
The switch from granular 5-star ratings to thumbs up / thumbs down was the beginning of the end. “This was not, unlike certain other films, worthless garbage, but I do not consider it high enough quality to rise above average” is a meaningful rating signal, dammit.
Adolescence was excellent.
So good that it is now one of the main policy engines for the UK.
Star ratings don’t work, actually
"I dropped Netflix several years ago (occasionally re upping just long enough to watch a new season of the Great British Bake Off) and have not missed it at all."
I don't understand how this could be anything but true? As in, if you subscribe to Paramount+ for a bit, watch some shows and then cancel the service, are you saddened in someway by having cut the service that you aren't by Netflix?
It's also baffling to me that they took so long to give an option to turn off the autoplay feature of their menus to the point major directors were publicly complaining about it.
That was the thinking behind MAX but there was insufficient slop to allow HBO to retreat into its own niche, so quality seemed diluted. This could work better with Netflix.
Does Netflix take risks? Or did they just luck out by having less direct HQ oversight of their Korean division? It's not even the only East Asian death game show on their platform.
“However, the good thing about Netflix is that it TAKES RISKS, which means that it can create some really great series that wouldn't be possible otherwise (i.e. Squid Game).”
What about Squid Games makes us think it’s some sort of design rather than something that accidentally escaped the slop factory (kinda like Casablanca and the studio movie system)?
I’d say that Netflix’s quality hit rate seems actually quite low, and they are famous for terminating shows at the whiff of them not being successful enough.
Your comment implies much of Hollywood hasn't long been dominated by the pursuit of profits. But it has! And complaints that "true creativity may be stifled" are as old as the movie business itself.
As a movie buff, the Netflix option seems quite bad, but Ellison is such a stooge, that it says something how this seems like a better option.
From talking to people who have worked for Netflix, they are focused a lot more on creating a pipeline of easy-to-produce content and trying to skirt around union rules for behind-the-scenes staff than actually making quality narratives, which is a bad sign if you liked the type of "well-produced entertainment for adults" HBO was known for.
Had to double check 1. because Netflix is pretty famously NOT a big consulting user and yes ... none of the ELT comes from consulting. If anything Netflix or Reed specifically is / was trying to replicate the internal competitive dynamics of Bridgewater whereby they have this incredible "talent density" and probably not incorrectly believe they're far better run than any consulting shop.
Relevant culture memo from them, which was all the rage a few years ago: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/culture-1798664/1798664
Update from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/business/media/netflix-corporate-culture.html
I remember listening to a podcast interview with a Netflix person years back and your third point rings true. I’m sure it’s unpleasant to work under other types of uncertainty in the entertainment industry, but having to swallow a whole new flavor of it might be tough for HBO type creators.
>> If it hasn't been made before, it won't show up in the data and won't get made.
This is my biggest issue with them. Everything they make is derivative, whereas HBO actually takes risks.
(Edit: another commenter mentioned that Netflix does take risks in the international shows, which I agree with, but seems a consequence of being a truly global company).
They take tremendous risks in terms of business strategy (that's the memo culture).
They don't take as many creative risks because those decisions are data-driven.
Netflix engages best with people who work well in the first bucket, not so much the second. That's the tension I see coming down the line with HBO.
Does Stranger Things fit that mold? My impression of it was that the idea was moderately original (as far as traditional horror can be) even though the production was all very detailed 80s homage.
I'm pretty much where Matt is on this: I'm basically fine with Netflix doing this deal if that's how it shakes out. But what are the odds this is what transpires? I really doubt Trump will allow a political ally of his to lose. And yes, it indeed sucks that this last sentence plausibly describes the state of US business culture in 2025.
I also want to comment on this:
>...if you’re just trying to do propaganda on behalf of the Trump administration, you could just buy CNN<
Which is what's going to happen, right? CNN's days as a trusted provider of news are numbered. Netflix doesn't want that part, and so, even if Paramount's bid loses out to Netflix, the CNN portion, I predict, will indeed fall into the hands of a MAGA-friendly plutocrat.
1. I barely go to the movies anymore because the costs are outrageous. $25 a ticket and then $25 for a popcorn and coke (that’s costs them less than a dollar). Yes home entertainment systems are better, but the movie theatre experience would still be valuable if it were more reasonably priced.
2. I’ve alway thought it was a shame that streaming services compete on differentiated content libraries. Music streaming works much better - all the big platforms have 99% of songs, and they compete on price, quality and features.
Where are people spending that much? In my neck of the woods, a not exactly cheap part of the country, I pay for tickets what I did as a kid, adjusting for inflation. For popcorn, sneak in a candy bar instead or something.
If the issue is lack of demand, I don't think they'd be killing theaters with high prices.
When you lose the casual consumer and your audience is a small number of people obsessed with film, making the theater much nicer and charging way more is the correct strategy. And that's where theaters have gone the last few years.
Again, I'll say, I've never seen a ticket go for that much, even in a high-priced metro area. I think theaters are largely going in the opposite direction to snag repeat-viewers. Subscription services, after the Moviepass fiasco have popped up at most chains. They're a pretty good deal, and save money if you go at least once or twice a month, and you save on popcorn.
I don't think the fact that theaters are going for repeat customers really contradicts the idea they're chasing a shrinking audience of people who like theaters. But I'm glad your tickets are more reasonable than mine
I checked Flix Brewhouse (fancy reclining chair-and-food theater) for Avatar on Friday night and the ticket is $18 online or $16 in person. Seems reasonable adjusted for inflation and quality improvements like the nicer chair.
Hot food and a drink menu is also an improvement over an oversized tub of popcorn.
The thing I don't like about those super comfortable reclining chairs is that it is too easy to fall asleep and waste the movie ticket!
Depending on how bad the movie is, that could be a perk!
You should appreciate popcorn more.
Depends on when you were a kid! We 90s kids are paying more. https://nitter.net/mattyglesias/status/1997403375814488435#m
Agree. If consumer welfare is going to be the standard, what would be good for consumers is if the Library of Congress created a universal streaming library of all the movies and TV shows. Consumers don't benefit from the endless copyright extensions or corporate strategies that make it hard to access things.
ASCAP but for video is surely a way to destroy the entire content industry. I support this wholeheartedly.
I’d love data on whether movies are in fact much more expensive these days (which is a feeling I share as well) or if I just anchored on prices from my youth without adjusting for inflation, when going to the movies and getting some popcorn or candy felt like something my family would do as the splurge outing for the week instead of going to Applebees or mini golf.
I pay more money (not $25, not even $20) now than we used to 10 years ago but we have big recliner seats.
Matt has actually tweeted about this! They are more expensive in inflation-adjusted terms than they were in the 90s, but not their highest ever. https://nitter.net/mattyglesias/status/1997403375814488435#m
It's well-understood that the popcorn and coke are there for price-insensitive customers.
I've paid less than that at major chain theaters in midtown Manhattan. How are you paying $25 a ticket? That's how much I pay for a monthly AMC subscription that gives me multiple free tickets a week.
I'm frustrated with the coverage of this debate, which tends to define "choice" in terms of how the merger will affect creativity. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised because the coverage comes from people in the creativity business. Yes, a Netflix-HBO merger would reduce competition in Hollywood and probably stifle some creativity. But I think most ordinary people (consumers) would gladly forgo a little creativity in exchange for paying for one less service. For most people, more streaming services is a false choice. They’re not choosing between the different shows on different services. They’re choosing between the *services themselves.* Media critics may have access to all the creativity across all the services. But most families pick the one (or maybe two) that suits them best and stick with it. Netflix is by far the most popular streaming service. I’m confident that most families would prefer having HBO’s content available through their existing Netflix subscription—even if it cost a small premium and even if the programming became less distinct moving forward. My complete thoughts at: https://foundhistory.org/netflix-and-hbo/
Ahmed al Ahmed - it's like that scene from Patriot Games but in real life.
https://youtu.be/KnhDO1G0ieY?si=ZTnDZoFCH_WR3O54
Antitrust enforcement is a bandwidth issue for the DOJ and FTC. There is plenty of anticompetitive behavior in the healthcare industry and a strong case could be made that the behavior is illegal. I don’t know all the details, but Netflix buying HBO doesn’t strike me as bad for the consumer.
The Paramount bid doesn’t seem like a legitimate market transaction but an attempt at Trump gaining control—WBD has 5x the market cap of PSKY, shouldn’t they be the acquirers if there’s going to be a merger? So you kind of have to hope Netflix wins if that’s the alternative.
I still can’t believe Democrats didn’t even try to stop the Twitter takeover because they were too busy going after the Roomba acquisition and then affirmatively handed TikTok to Trump. If there’s a next Democratic administration they need to put a lot of thought into reversing the Trumpist media takeover which is surely worth way more points on the margin than any amount of moderation will get you.
Stopped the JetBlue Spirit merger and the supermarket merger. How did those workout?
I’m pretty depressed about both options.
With Netflix you have a group of executives who don’t have any taste and despise the theatrical movie going experience. How many Netflix movies are forever movies? The Irishman and Marriage Story. Is there anymore? Warner alone released two this year in OBAA and Sinners. Ten years down the road we will see the most important studio in Hollywood releasing a few tentpole films a year in theaters and the rest will be slop for streaming.
With Paramount you have a group of executives who don’t have any taste (unless you only like Mission Impossible) and a right wing / foreign takeover of media properties. At least the theatrical experience will be saved? But at what cost to society.
I think Power of the Dog should have won the Oscar in that year.
OBAA was ... fine. I guess. But Lockjaw's character with the racist illuminati sub-plot was jarringly misplaced.
I think it spoke a lot to the moment we’re in. Which is remarkable for a film PTA has been working on for 20 years.
I feel like I’m a little skeptical that this deal goes through and movie theaters are all Thanos snapped away replaced and demolished.
It seems like the likelier outcome is a smaller number of theaters, bad but not cataclysmic, possibly owned by the major studios conglomerates.
I went to see zootopia 2 at Disney springs and then went to dinner after and probably spent like over 200 dollars all told. What is AMC providing here?
My understanding is it’s currently illegal for studios to own theaters? Or something like that?
Why does Warner need to be bought at all?
Shareholder value of course
inevitable increase in monthly subscription fees forthcoming! Nowadays having 5-6 streaming service subscriptions could easily mirror the price you'd pay for traditional cable. No escaping corporate greed but consumers clearly will pay the money.
I have given up. It is all so much to juggle that I don't watch much of anything anymore. I go to the movies a few times a year and go to a bar to see big sports matchups. I read a lot more books these days. I worry about this because traditionally TV and movies have big exports for the US. My kids tell me that other countries are muscling in on that
I use a paper-sized HD antenna next to a window for TV. It works for watching important events (football, news events, etc).
My parents grew up watching TV from an antenna. I grew up with satellite or cable (depending on living in the country or in town). Now I watch TV from an antenna!
These guys can’t win! People complain when there are too many streaming services and also when they consolidate!
If you're sick of paying for 5-6 streaming services then consolidation into fewer services is exactly what you want.
It was also obvious from a consumer perspective that a lot of these studio/network-specific streaming options were going to fail or underperform expectations. Who wants to pay more for CNN+? How much content do Paramount and NBC actually put out individually to make a sustained monthly subscription worth it to the consumer?
Paramount probably survives off of Taylor Sheridan alone. But he will move to NBC Universal in a couple of years when his current contract is up.
Hasn’t Zaslav’s reign been very marginal to outright failing?
Everyone is talking about affordability today, but I don't think anyone believes that either of these mergers is going to result in lower streaming prices. And outside of housing, it feels like we have managed to optimize "consumer welfare" all the way into an economy that everyone hates.
We are not going back to the Netflix era of 2010-2017 anyway, when Netflix seemingly had all the best, binge-able content for $10 a month. That was a product of ZIRP VC investment and other studios undervaluing their content libraries.
The 2025 Netflix content is far better than the 2020-2023 content by far.
Well, even if Netflix will cost more once it has HBO’s content, it probably won’t cost as much as a Netflix subscription plus an HBO subscription do together now.
The streaming landscape is a lot more fragmented than you make out in this piece. You totally omitted Hulu and Prime Video. Apple TV doesn't have huge market share but they have a disproportionate amount of the very best original content, like Severance and Foundation. And there are any number of smaller niche services like Mubi and Tubi
Apple somehow manages to produce some of the best and the worst “high touch” shows. Eg Severance vs Invasion. Wtf happened to Invasion? I’m still mad about that sucking so hard.
It is a nice to read a positive spin these days, but I think this misses the mark. While I hear you about discovering great cinema via video in the 90s, I just think the Streaming universe is different these days because of phones. It is much easier for me to actually watch movies in a theatre than at home because I have to be free of distractions there. At home on my couch I'm either reaching for my phone or falling asleep on the couch. Netflix knows this about all of us, and makes much more passive entertainment then what Warner Movies at least churned out.
Yeah, when streaming executives are complaining to the creators of animated comedies that their plots are too complicated for people who are scrolling on their phones at the same time, we're going to get less complicated plots moving forward.
This is definitely an issue to at least acknowledge. Less complicated plots and characters verbally describing visual plot points for distracted audiences are both things I’ve heard streaming services ask creators to do.