What’s wrong with this babble from
@mjarbo
Netflix is not failing to understand theatrical exhibition. It understands it perfectly well. It just does not need it in the way a legacy studio does.
That is precisely the problem.
This is not Netflix “not caring.” It cares — about subscribers, investors, talent, regulators, awards and brand perception. It just does not care enough about theatrical culture to rebuild itself around a model it was created to bypass.
And commercially, that makes sense.
Netflix did not spend years training audiences away from shops, discs, schedules, windows and waiting, only to suddenly turn sentimental about theatrical exclusivity because filmmakers and exhibitors are upset.
But the fact that Netflix’s model makes sense for Netflix does not mean it makes sense for cinema.
That distinction matters.
Netflix is built around retention, scale, convenience, habit and global access. Its audience is not queuing outside a multiplex on Friday night. Its audience is already on the sofa.
But the sofa cannot be the whole future of film.
Because cinemas do something streaming cannot: they train audiences to value cinema as an event. They teach people to leave the house, sit in the dark with strangers, pay attention, surrender to scale, sound, silence and shared reaction. They make film social, physical and culturally visible.
Strip that away and a film stops being an event and starts being content — and content does not carry the rituals that make audiences care.
Theatre is not just a delivery mechanism. It is part of the education of the audience. It tells people that some things are worth leaving the house for, worth seeing properly, worth more than the background hum between messages, dinner and scrolling.
That is what the industry should be defending.
So when Dan Lin says there are filmmakers Netflix has accepted it simply will not work with if theatrical is their non-negotiable condition, that is not shocking. It is Netflix admitting the obvious: theatrical primacy is not its business.
But Hollywood’s mistake is pretending that Netflix can be persuaded into loving a model it was designed to escape.
It cannot.
The answer is not to beg Netflix to behave like an old studio. The answer is for studios, exhibitors, filmmakers and distributors to make theatrical matter again — with better windows, better projection, better sound, better pricing, better programming and films that genuinely deserve the room.
Because if theatrical becomes optional, it becomes ornamental. And ornaments do not survive cost-cutting.
Netflix may not need cinemas.
But cinema does.
And so do audiences — even if they have been trained to forget it.
What you have to remember is that Netflix does not care if people are mad at it.
Dan Lin told the New York Times that filmmakers who still demand theatrical are basically people Netflix has accepted it just won’t work with.
People are acting shocked.
Come on.
Netflix has been telling Hollywood who it is for almost 30 years.
They got tired of Blockbuster late fees, built DVD-by-mail, helped kill the rental model, pivoted to streaming, and trained audiences to watch movies at home.
Now they have more than 325 million paid subscribers.
They do not need theaters.
They wanted Warner Bros., sure. They said they would protect theatrical for a while. Maybe they saw value in having that machine attached to the platform.
But Hollywood treated Netflix like the barbarians at the gate.
So Netflix is basically saying, fine.
We’ll go our way. You go yours.
Theaters can still have great weekends. May and June proved that.
But theatrical is expensive, inconsistent, and built around audiences who increasingly assume the movie will be home soon enough.
Netflix lives above that chaos.
Hollywood keeps wanting Netflix to respect the old model.
Netflix killed Blockbuster.
It might kill AMC next.