Netflix is Wrong, Going to the Movies is Not an Outdated Experience

Hollywood woke up Friday morning to the kind of news that makes agents skip breakfast, studio executives break into cold sweats, and industry group chats explode in all caps. After a bidding war that felt like a live-action crossover of Succession and Shark Tank, Netflix officially entered exclusive negotiations to purchase Warner Bros. for just under $83 billion. Eighty-three. Billion. Dollars. Even for an industry built on massive egos and even bigger budgets, that number rattled the room.

The proposed merger still needs to survive an obstacle course of regulatory scrutiny, antitrust headaches, and union pushback. And the unions are already making noise — the Writers Guild of America wasted no time calling for the deal to be blocked outright. Others, especially those who care deeply about the cinematic experience, want to know what happens when the streaming giant gains control of one of Hollywood’s most storied theatrical studios. What happens to cinemas when Netflix owns the house that built Superman, Harry Potter, The Matrix, and decades of classic filmmaking?

That’s where things get messy — because Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-CEO and unofficial spokesperson for the “Why leave your couch?” lifestyle, has not exactly hidden his feelings about movie theaters.

Ted Sarandos Thinks Going to the Movies Is Outdated — But He’s Working Off a Myth

The resurfacing of Sarandos’ comments from the Time100 Summit isn’t helping calm anybody down. Back in April, he was asked whether Netflix had “destroyed Hollywood.” Sarandos flashed a confident smile and insisted that Netflix was actually saving the industry. Then he pivoted into a line that has echoed across the entertainment world ever since: going to the movies, he said, is “an outdated concept” and an “outmoded idea.”

And just to reinforce the point, he doubled down on the notion that struggling box office numbers must mean audiences “would prefer to watch movies at home.”

Here’s the problem: Sarandos’ idea of “going to the movies” seems to be based on an extremely narrow — and extremely inaccurate — slice of reality. When explaining his stance, he framed the theatrical experience as something only practical for people who can walk to a movie theater.

“If you’re fortunate enough to live in Manhattan and you can walk to a multiplex, that’s fantastic. Most of the country cannot.”

This isn't just misguided. It’s historically wrong.

Nobody in the 1940s was walking to their local picture house unless they lived down the street. People drove in from farms and small towns. They hitched rides. They took the bus. The multiplex era only increased that pattern, turning theaters into social hubs attached to malls, diners, arcades, and bookstores. Even New Yorkers who can walk often take the subway to their preferred theater anyway.

The idea that moviegoing hinges on walkability ignores how the U.S. — and much of the world — has interacted with film for a century. Watching a movie has always involved an element of travel, and audiences have never seemed to mind.

And if that isn't proof enough, just look at Barbenheimer.

“Barbenheimer” Proved Audiences Will Go Out of Their Way When Movies Become Events

The summer of 2023 wasn’t just a successful theatrical run — it was a cultural moment. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer and Greta Gerwig’s Barbie debuted on the same weekend and sparked a double-feature frenzy that felt like a global costume party wrapped in a cinematic pilgrimage. Fans didn’t stumble into theaters while on a neighborhood stroll. They drove across cities. They bought tickets weeks in advance. They planned outfits.

This was not passive consumption. This was participation.

“Barbenheimer” wasn’t unique either — just rare. People still crave the communal rush of theater energy; Hollywood just isn’t consistently giving them films that generate that spark. But when a studio does? The audience shows up.

Which brings us to Sarandos’ other claim: that box office numbers prove people prefer to stay home.

No, Ted — The Box Office Isn’t Dying Because Theaters Are Outdated

Sarandos suggested that declining box office returns indicate a clear consumer preference: watching at home “thank you very much.” But that interpretation cherry-picks one variable while ignoring a dozen others — starting with cost.

When fans complain about skipping the theater, their reasons almost always revolve around price. Tickets aren’t cheap. Popcorn costs more than a tank of gas in some states. Multiply that by a family of four and suddenly a night at the movies requires a short-term loan.

But here’s the twist: streaming prices are also skyrocketing. Netflix, of all companies, has raised subscription rates repeatedly while simultaneously cracking down on password sharing — the very thing that once fueled its growth. Social media is full of people threatening to cancel Netflix due to price hikes.

Using Sarandos’ logic, declining subscriber numbers would mean streaming is an outdated concept too. But that’s not how any of this works.

The truth is simple: the moviegoing experience isn’t outdated. Affordability is the real culprit — and that affects both theaters and streamers.

Streaming and Theaters Aren’t Opponents — They’re Co-Stars in a Changing Industry

The history of film distribution is a constant evolution: theatrical exhibition, broadcast television, cable, VHS and DVD, on-demand rentals, and now streaming. Each new technology was once framed as a threat to the old one. None of them killed the theatrical experience. They just reshaped it.

Streaming didn’t end theaters. It changed what theaters show — and how often audiences go. And that’s okay, because multiple modes of viewing can coexist. They always have.

If Netflix acquires Warner Bros., the company will inherit a legacy of blockbuster storytelling, genre-defining franchises, and theatrical clout unmatched in Hollywood. That gives Netflix something precious: options.

They could double down on streaming exclusives. They could build a genuine theatrical pipeline. They could experiment with hybrid releases. They could redefine what a “Netflix original” even means.

For the first time, Netflix has the opportunity to be more than the platform that disrupted Hollywood. They can become a studio that participates in Hollywood’s oldest traditions — rather than declaring them obsolete.

Netflix Has a Rare Chance to Learn the Right Lesson

Sarandos might believe that movie theaters are outdated. But history, culture, and consumer behavior say otherwise. Theatrical releases still have power. They build prestige. They create shared experiences. They generate the word-of-mouth buzz that streamers dream of but rarely achieve.

If Netflix wants Warner Bros., they’re not just buying a library. They’re inheriting decades of cinematic heritage — and an entire theatrical infrastructure designed to reach audiences on a scale no algorithm can replicate.

If Netflix is smart, they’ll stop trying to convince people that moviegoing is a relic — and start treating it as one of the most valuable assets they’re acquiring.

Because the future of film isn’t streaming or theaters.

It’s both.

And Netflix now has a chance to prove it.