Brand Logo

Subscribe

Icon
Brand Logo

Subscribe

Icon
Icon

Home

Icon

All blogs

Big Tech/Small Screens

For the debut piece for this column we have taken under the microscope the changes underlying the art that perhaps most of you immediately correlate with the visual - the art of cinema. The days of the movie theatre, as we remember them, seem to be slowly fading into obscurity, whether we like it or not. We believe that the case of Del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025) will provide parallels not just to the general shift toward platformisation in the cinema industry, but to the realities of all kinds of arts that we all hold dear to our hearts, and address the uneasy feeling that we’re slowly losing what made us fall in love with them in the fi rst place.

by

Emil Voss

3 min read

3 min read

Blog Image
Blog Image
Blog Image

As Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein premiered at the famed Venice Film Festival, it was received by a 15 minute standing ovation and it would be hard to argue that such a reception was undeserved. An instant gothic classic, the film boasts an impressive cast, featuring the likes of Christoph Waltz, Mia Goth and Oscar Isaac. Least we forget the phenomenal Jacob Elordi, who brings to life The Creature to great effect, despite joining the production late, replacing Andrew Garfield of Spider-Man fame. Del Toro - one of the most talented directors of his generation, who had dreamed of creating a screen adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel since he was a child, has been given total creative control over the film. Frankenstein's $120 million budget also left space for magnificent costume and set design. With all of the elements mentioned above creating a seemingly perfect storm, one would be excused to assume that Del Toro's Frankenstein would swiftly become a hit. And yet, it hasn't. At least not by the traditional measures of success in the cinema industry, meaning box office ratings. The movie had a limited theatrical release this Fall, being screened in "select" cinemas for merely three weeks, with box office numbers remaining unreleased. But why is that? Well, the answer to this mystery is simpler than one would think: The movie did not perform well in cinemas because it was never supposed to do so. Not with Netflix producing it. 

In an interview with TIME earlier this year, Netflix co-CEO, Ted Sarandos described the movie theater model as an "outdated idea", pointing towards the greater accessibility and convenience of on-line streaming as a way of "saving Hollywood". This approach seems evident in Netflix's approach to producing films and Del Toro's Frankenstein is the perfect case study. The movie's theatrical release lacked a strong marketing campaign and was only released in around 1000 cinemas in the US, with only 10 of those being IMAX cinemas. This peculiar lack of commitment to big screen releases raises the question of why Netflix even bothers to show their movies in cinemas at all. The reason, however, is quite simple. In order for Netflix to be able to attract big-name directors like Del Toro, they have to be able to ensure that their productions are eligible for Academy Awards consideration. That in turn requires a film to have a movie theater window of at least three weeks. If this duration sounds familiar, it's probably because that was exactly how long Frankenstein's screening window was. Having fulfilled this requirement to the bare minimum, Netflix could safely make the movie available on their own platform, where it quickly became incredibly popular amassing an incredible 62.9 million views in its first ten days of availability. The streaming success of Frankenstein serves, therefore, as a sort of proof of concept. A concept that we should probably start getting familiar with as Netflix becomes an increasingly powerful player in the movie making industry 

 While some might still doubt whether this streaming-based release model will go on to dominate over the traditional cinema model which Sarandos criticises so strongly, the 5th of December 2025 was a day when even the strongest advocates of movie theater based releases would have had to rethink what the future of cinema is going to look like. It was on that day that Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery released an announcement, stating that Netflix "have entered into a definitive agreement with Warner Bros under which Netflix will acquire Warner Bros." for a staggering fee of $82.7 billion. While the sale is still subject to regulatory processes, if completed it would mean that Netflix would be able to add to its extensive repertoire not just the rights to the famed film studio's iconic releases like The Matrix, The Dark Knight or the Harry Potter franchise, but also shows released by HBO. Those include hits like Game of Thrones, The Sopranos as well as Succession. The deal would therefore render Netflix a behemoth in the streaming and film industries, while also irreversibly changing the future of cinema as a medium. After all, Warner Bros. was responsible for 7 out of the 20 highest grossing films released in theaters this year. While Netflix assures that it would remain committed to screening new Warner Bros. productions in movie theaters, it would be safe to assume that such releases would likely follow in the footprints of Del Toro's Frankenstein, marginalising the cinema experience and rendering it a relic of the past, a caricature of its former self. It still, of course, remains to be seen whether this buyout deal is to be completed, which leaves a sliver of hope for those who long for the return of the glory days of the movie theater model. Is it, however, smart to remain hopeful? And if so, how do we remain hopeful? Christoph Waltz was confronted with the latter question at a press conference in Venice and had a blunt answer ready - "I don't." 

Keep Reading

0%

Keep Reading

0%