Why the Acquisition of Warner Bros. Is Such a Big Deal
The acquisition of Warner Bros. is a developing story and one that has already faced a series of road blocks and plot twists. Still, let’s break down a few aspects of what this could mean for the industry, specifically how expensive moviegoing could become.
Warner Bros. is one of five major traditional studios left in Hollywood. Founded in 1923, it is one of the entertainment industry’s longest-running institutions. Warner Bros. also owns several assets and brands from HBO to CNN as well as intellectual property like the DC Universe, Harry Potter, and Looney Tunes.
If Netflix were to acquire Warner Bros., the assumption of HBO into Netflix could make the streaming giant an even bigger monopoly than it already is. As with all mergers and acquisitions, jobs will likely be lost. Yes, the cost of your streaming subscription would likely go up as well.
Furthermore, Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos has already hinted at significant changes to the theatrical release model, a statement that caused such backlash among the film community that he has since attempted to walk it back. A shift from theatrical releases to exclusive streaming would be creatively upsetting for filmmakers who want to make projects for the big screen. However, it would also cause movie theaters across the country to close in large numbers. To that end, the decline in theatrical releases would inevitably hurt the residual model, where artists are compensated for the success and reuse of their work.
Paramount’s potential takeover would not necessarily be good for the industry either, but at least Paramount has always been in the business of theatrical releases. Still, consolidation means that one less major studio would exist, which means jobs will still be lost and fewer projects will get greenlit.
At the end of the day, fewer Hollywood movies with a traditional theatrical release model will get made no matter who gets to ultimately control Warner Bros. This means that in order for theaters to stay afloat, the prices of movie tickets will inevitably rise… and they are already expensive.
Why Moviegoing Will Become Theatergoing
Movies used to be made for the masses because they were accessible and affordable. In 1985, forty years ago, the average price for a movie ticket was $3.55 ($8.24 if you adjust for inflation). Today, according to Cinemark, the average cost for a ticket is $16.08. Of course, this price varies based on the location and company. There are also monthly subscription services now, such as AMC Stubs, which are meant to offer the customer more reason to go to the theater, especially in the age of streaming. Still, it is already more expensive to go to the movies than it ever was.
Theater fans have experienced this change over the years as well. Sure, in my lifetime, going to a Broadway show was always more expensive than seeing a movie on the big screen. However, in 1985, the average ticket price for a Broadway show was between $20-25, not too dissimilar from the price of a movie ticket today. Forty years later, the average Broadway ticket costs well over $100.
As a result, the audience for a live theatrical experience has become more and more exclusive as tickets became more and more unaffordable. This trajectory also pertains to other live experiences like the opera and the ballet. Naturally, the inaccessibility of theater has also impacted its overall cultural relevance as a medium. After all, how can something capture the cultural zeitgeist when no one can afford to see it?
The moviegoing experience is headed in this direction unless something changes fast. If a ticket costs close to $20, plus popcorn and candy for approximately $10 and the cost of parking, it’s no wonder why many families wait for movies to become available on streaming. In 2013, filmmakers George Lucas and Steven Spielberg predicted this unfortunate downward spiral. “What you’re going to end up with is fewer theaters […] Going to the movies is going to cost you $50 bucks, maybe $100. Maybe $150.”
It’s not that all audiences don’t want to experience a film on a big screen, although I’m sure some people would rather sit at home watching Netflix all day. More importantly, however, it’s a financial commitment that is simply too hard to justify making often. These days, movies need to be marketed as major events, like “Barbenheimer,” in order to convince the average audience member to make said financial commitment.
Audiences won’t care about Netflix’s potential takeover of Warner Bros. and its catastrophic impact on the theatrical release model if we continue to not give them reason to care. If we want movies to remain in theaters, as the artists intended, then we need to make it more possible for audiences in this economy to go to the movies and to feel like movies are for them. Otherwise, they will go to the cinema as often as they go to a Broadway theater, which is to say… not very often.
Still, we are not entirely powerless here. Look what happened to the reversal of Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation after viewers made their voices heard. There is a robust community of young cinephiles, the Letterboxd crowd if you will, that still brings passion to the multiplex. This is the same community that has made mid-tier studios like A24 and Neon household names. These are the folks who brought about a revival of independent cinema, particularly in the horror genre. They even went to Warner Bros. films this year; Sinners and Weapons were two of the biggest hits of 2025. Movies still have a following, and the demand is out there for both big-budget films and smaller ones. If we don’t want cinema to become as expensive as theater, then we need to go to the movies more. I’ll be there, and I hope you’ll join me.
via Unsplash+ (Getty Images)
0 Comments