Hollywood Rewritten: Netflix, Warner Bros., and the Future of Entertainment – Part 2
- Estefania Rosas
- 5 hours ago
- 6 min read
Welcome back to Part 2 of History Rewritten. In Part 1 we dug into the current state of Hollywood. We looked at how theaters have been struggling in a post-pandemic environment and how streaming, led by Netflix, has completely reshaped the way we watch content. We also looked at Netflix’s bold move to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s crown jewels, including HBO Max and a legendary library that has helped define Hollywood storytelling for nearly a century.
Now it’s time to get into the real impact of this deal such as how it could shake competition, shift control, and affect creatives across the industry.
It should be noted, this deal isn't official yet. It still needs government approval, a process that could take 12 to 18 months. And, like all massive media mergers, it raises big questions especially about competition.
When competition shrinks, the effects are hard to ignore. Consumers usually feel it first, with higher subscription prices and fewer choices. Creatives feel it too. Fewer major studios mean fewer opportunities, less negotiating power, and more control concentrated in the hands of one company. This isn’t exactly new. We’ve seen something similar before. Back in 1948, the Supreme Court’s Paramount decision broke up the old Hollywood studio system by forcing the “Big Five” studios to end monopolistic practices like block booking. That ruling opened the door for independent films, foreign cinema, and a much wider range of stories and voices. In other words, competition made the industry more creative, not less. If Netflix were to take over Warner Bros. Discovery, it could once again centralize massive influence over pricing, distribution, and ultimately which stories get told allowing history, in a way, to repeat itself.
So, why does that matter? Because Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery operate on very different playbooks. Let’s take a closer look at what SCL explains in “Why Netflix–Warner Bros. Threatens Competition in Hollywood,” and what they have to say about the differences between these two studios.
Warner Bros. Discovery still operates on a more traditional studio system. Nearly a century old, it’s produced films and TV across every genre, managing iconic franchises like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. HBO is part of that legacy too, a brand known for prestige television and groundbreaking storytelling, supported by a production infrastructure built for theaters, long-form TV, and global franchises.
Netflix, on the other hand, is a creature of the streaming era. Its strategy is data-driven: viewer behavior, global trends, and analytics shape what shows and films get made, designed to appeal to massive international audiences. When these two worlds collide, it’s not just a corporate story, it’s a story that affects what gets made, who makes it, and how audiences experience it. And that’s why the stakes couldn’t be higher because when two fundamentally different visions of entertainment collide, it is us who ends up paying the price.
One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether Netflix would preserve Warner Bros. Discovery’s existing business model, particularly its commitment to theatrical releases. As USA Today reports, Netflix hasn’t made any firm guarantees. In its press release, the company said it “expects to maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films.” Sounds reassuring, right? The catch is the word “expects” not guarantees.
That uncertainty has only grown following comments from Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, who hinted that traditional theatrical release windows could change. “I think the windows will evolve to be much more consumer-friendly, to be able to meet the audience where they are, quicker,” Sarandos said. For theater owners, that raises serious concerns about the long-term future of movie theaters in a Netflix-led ecosystem.
The industry response was swift. According to PBS, Cinema United is a trade association representing more than 30,000 movie screens in the U.S. and another 26,000 internationally who publicly opposed the proposed deal, calling it an “unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business.” Its CEO, Michael O’Leary, urged regulators to scrutinize the merger closely, warning that Netflix’s business model “does not support theatrical exhibition. In fact, it is the opposite.” The consequences, he cautioned, could be severe: theater closures, lost jobs, and communities left without local cinemas.
Cinema United isn’t the only group sounding the alarm. According to Variety, a group of anonymous A-list producers also sent a letter to Congress expressing serious concerns about the merger and Netflix’s incentive to weaken, if not outright dismantle, the theatrical release model. (And yes, one can’t help but wish those A-listers would actually put their names on it.)
Their argument is straightforward: theatrical releases are fundamentally at odds with Netflix’s core business strategy. As the producers warned, Netflix could “effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace,” wielding enough power to shrink the theatrical footprint and drive down licensing fees in post-theatrical windows.
It’s not just producers raising red flags. One of the most powerful unions in the industry: the Writers Guild of America (WGA) has also taken a firm stance against the merger. At its core, the union’s concern is about control. If the deal goes through, Netflix would gain unprecedented authority over what stories get told, when they’re released, and how they reach audiences.
In a public statement, the WGA didn’t mince words:
“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent. The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers. Industry workers, along with the public, are already impacted by only a few powerful companies controlling what audiences can watch on TV, streaming, and in theaters. This merger must be blocked.”
Questions about whether this deal will actually happen are also mounting. According to Deadline, if the merger collapses, Netflix would be on the hook for a $5.8 billion breakup fee, a stark reminder of how high the stakes are. And don’t count on Paramount quietly walking away.
As USA Today points out, this potential merger fits neatly into Hollywood’s new mantra: bigger is better. If Netflix were to absorb Warner Bros. Discovery’s massive content library, it would no longer need to license as much programming from other studios, cutting costs while consolidating power. In the current streaming economy, ownership, not partnership, has become the ultimate goal.
The ripple effects of a deal like this could reshape the creative landscape in ways we haven’t fully seen before. This isn’t just another acquisition like Disney buying Fox or Amazon acquiring MGM. What makes this different isn’t only the scale, but the level of control it would place over production, distribution, and audience access under a single, streaming-first company. And even if this specific deal never happens, the reality is that a similar buyout likely will. Consolidation isn’t a “what if” anymore, it’s a pattern. For creatives, that future can feel unsettling. Fewer studios often mean fewer opportunities, less negotiating power, and more pressure to chase proven IP over original ideas. A Netflix-WBD merger could also signal reduced theatrical windows, a stronger focus on franchises like DC, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, and a shift away from box-office success toward total IP value, merchandising, and subscriber retention. Add in Netflix’s famously opaque data model, and filmmakers and critics alike may struggle to understand how success is even being measured.
But history suggests that moments like this don’t only lead to loss, they also create space. When the studio system collapsed after the Paramount decision, it didn’t kill cinema. It eventually opened the door to independent films, foreign cinema, and more diverse storytelling in the U.S. The industry changed, and creatives adapted.
The same may be true now. Mergers, streaming dominance, and the rise of AI aren’t distant threats, they’re already here. That raises real questions about what happens next: What becomes of theaters? How do filmmakers rethink scale and distribution? What role do critics play when box office numbers no longer tell the full story? And where do new voices find room to break through?
While consolidation may narrow certain paths, it could also push creatives to build new ones, through smaller productions, alternative distribution models, or entirely new ways of reaching audiences. Whether Congress approves this merger or not, one thing is clear: the balance of power in Hollywood is shifting, and with it, the future of creative expression.