Last week, Netflix announced a sweeping $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Bros., a move that further entrenches the company’s dominance in the streaming landscape. The deal, which also brings HBO under Netflix’s umbrella, positions the platform even further ahead of its competitors. However, while the transaction signals strategic strength for Netflix, it has prompted widespread questions about its implications for viewers and for the creative talent on which streaming platforms depend.
The industry has been steadily consolidating, coalescing into three major streaming ecosystems. A Forbes survey indicates that Netflix remains the most widely used service in the United States, with 55 percent of Americans reporting they subscribe, followed closely by Amazon Prime at 51 percent and Disney+ at 49 percent. For actors, writers, and other creative professionals, this consolidation raises financial concerns that have been escalating for years.
As streaming disrupted traditional broadcast economics, residual pay structures changed substantially. Historically, actors received residuals each time a show re-aired. Newer agreements shifted residuals to a model based on predetermined licensing fees rather than reruns or viewership. Netflix, known for offering larger upfront payments instead of meaningful residuals, has faced consistent criticism from talent who say the compensation model undervalues their contribution.
Cast members from several of Netflix’s hit series have publicly discussed low compensation, the need to work secondary jobs, or even paying for their own transportation to sets. These critiques gained more traction during the 2023 writers’ strike. Alysia Reiner, who portrayed Natalie “Fig” Figueroa on Orange Is the New Black, told New York magazine in 2023 that early streaming-era actors took substantial risks for rewards that were not shared equitably. Reiner noted the global recognition that came with the role but questioned whether her compensation ever reflected the show’s impact.
SAG-AFTRA addressed these issues directly in a December 5 statement following news of the deal, noting that the consolidation “raises many serious questions about its impact on the future of the entertainment industry, and especially the human creative talent whose livelihoods and careers depend on it.” The union emphasized that any deal in the interest of its members must lead to increased creation and production and must operate with genuine respect for creative workers.
Netflix’s longstanding strategy of releasing high-budget films directly onto its platform—often bypassing theatrical runs—has also generated concern. The Directors Guild of America (DGA) stated on December 5 that it views the acquisition with “significant concerns,” arguing that a healthy, competitive industry is essential to protecting the careers and creative rights of directors and their teams. The DGA plans to meet with Netflix to better understand the company’s long-term intentions.
Independent filmmaker and writer Jon Shaivitz highlighted another dimension of the debate in a recent blog post: the potential erosion of the theatrical experience.
He argues that audiences still crave the collective, immersive environment of movie theaters, something he believes streaming cannot replicate. “You can’t algorithm that,” he writes.
Shaivitz told Fast Company that creators’ concerns about finances and shrinking job opportunities are justified. He contends that the current streaming model is fundamentally flawed when it comes to fair compensation, but he remains hopeful that industry stakeholders will push for meaningful reforms. He predicts that the economics of acquisitions like this may eventually force a renewed emphasis on traditional theatrical windows.
In his blog, Shaivitz calls Netflix’s acquisition an “overreach” that confronts both creators and audiences with a choice: accept a future where major studio films debut exclusively on streaming, or work to preserve the theatrical traditions that helped establish cinema’s cultural significance. Once the transaction closes, he says, it will be “up to us—industry and nonindustry people alike—to fight for the theatrical experience.”