After plenty of negotiation, Netflix recently announced that it will give Greta Gerwig a two-week, Imax-exclusive theatrical run for
her upcoming film. Everyone else, from the studios to the exhibitors, isn’t so happy. 

Last week, when Imax C.E.O. Rich Gelfond presented the company’s latest quarterly
earnings report—which fell short of Wall Street expectations and caused the stock to dip 5 percent in after-hours trading—he had some additional, exciting news to discuss: Netflix had committed to showing Greta Gerwig’s upcoming Narnia film on at least 1,000 Imax screens for an exclusive two-week run starting on Thanksgiving weekend 2026. Netflix would then wait two weeks before debuting the film on Christmas Day. The only problem? Theater owners and studio execs, who
are kind of essential to Imax’s business, wanted to throttle him.

Netflix’s insistence on putting its movies directly on the streamer, with some exceptions that get brief theatrical releases to qualify for festivals and awards, is all too well known to both studios and exhibitors. But Gerwig, like many directors, wants audiences to have a chance to see her film on the big screen first. And because Greta gets what Greta wants, as she should, the Imax deal was born. In a February 19 call
with analysts, Gelfond talked about the heavy lifting required to reach that agreement. “Obviously, there’s a lot of different constituencies with different agendas,” he said. “So we really had to construct something that would work for the exhibitors, that would work for Greta, that would work for Netflix, that would work for a lot of people. The right amount of windows. The right amount of playtime. … It’s a fairly complex deal to have met all the various constituencies.”

The
Netflix-Imax deal, however, didn’t work for the legacy studios and theater chains that regard Netflix as their “common enemy,” as one studio veteran told me. According to sources, some of the studios had vehemently pressed Imax not to do this deal. Imax’s most important partner, Disney, is especially furious given the many millions of dollars its megahits have put into Imax’s coffers. “Rich did this on his own without consulting any of his [studio] partners,” an insider said. “They gave
Netflix a two-week exclusive even though the other studios provide movies to them 52 weeks a year.”

Disney also has an opening-date marker on Thanksgiving 2026 for an unspecified animated film, which—if it turns out that the studio really has a movie ready for that slot—would be deprived of an extra-profitable Imax run during the holidays. (Last time Disney put a marker on that date, the movie turned out to be Moana 2, which grossed a modest $1 billion.) A couple weeks earlier,
on November 6, 2026, Disney has an untitled Marvel movie slated. Lionsgate, meanwhile, has a Hunger Games prequel set to open on November 20, and undoubtedly would like more than a few days on Imax screens.

And despite Gelfond’s claim that he had won over the “various constituencies,” multiple sources told me that some of the largest theater chains in North America—including Regal and Cinemark—were caught off guard and are so angry that they are indicating, at least for now, that
they won’t play Narnia on the Imax screens in their theaters. That may be a plausible threat. As one exhibition exec observed, after pandemic- and strike-related supply delays, there are now more movies in the pipeline that could bring profit and play on all of a chain’s screens, large and small. For theater owners, this two-week Netflix stunt, he said, “is not anything that’s sustainable in any shape or form.”

So… can theaters refuse to play the Gerwig film on their Imax screens? The answer would appear to
be yes. While Imax licenses its technology to theater chains, multiple exhibition and studio sources told me that the chains ultimately control what gets booked on those giant screens. Another source said that both Netflix and Gerwig’s reps were concerned about this very threat.

But Gelfond assured both that he had a “nuclear option” to ensure that theaters will cooperate and book the film. What specifically that might be was unclear to the many sources I asked. When I put the
question to Imax, the company responded with a statement that doubled down on the premise: “Under our theater agreements, Imax requires exhibitors to play the films we format and program. Our ability to curate our programming is what makes us valuable to exhibitors, filmmakers, and studios, and delivers a return on investment with our theaters worldwide.”

While the issue might seem like a see-you-in-court situation, that outcome is probably unlikely. Sources believe that Imax has already
cut a deal with AMC Theatres, which has 182 Imax screens in the U.S.—far more than any other company—and often doesn’t march in lockstep with other exhibitors. (Reached by phone, AMC C.E.O. Adam Aron said it was “inappropriate” for him to comment.) Also, what happens in 2026 is all hypothetical at this point, anyway. Even if the other top exhibitors—which together account for about 108 Imax screens out of roughly 400 in North America—are mad now, that doesn’t mean they won’t
eventually crack to get a couple of weeks’ worth of revenue from what might be another Gerwig event movie, especially if it picks up good early buzz.

It’s not like the big theater chains haven’t played ball with Netflix before: AMC, Regal, and Cinemark all showed Rian Johnson’s Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery during its very limited, weeklong run in about 600 theaters in November 2022, no doubt hoping that a taste of box office cash would whet Netflix’s
appetite for more. Netflix didn’t disclose box office numbers from the run, but David A. Gross of Franchise Entertainment Research told Variety that he believed the Knives Out sequel would have opened at around $30 million domestically and pulled in $300 million worldwide had it been given a full theatrical run.

Netflix’s appetite was not whetted, much to the frustration of the filmmakers and exhibitors. “By their own account, they thought they left
money on the table,” said Cinemark C.E.O. Sean Gamble at an investor conference in March 2023. “We certainly were disappointed they didn’t take advantage of a more significant theatrical release, just based on the overwhelming consumer demand.” Still, he called the experiment “a positive step” and expressed hope that, in time, Netflix would see the value of larger theatrical releases.

Of course, when the Narnia deal was announced, most of the town immediately began to hope that it
might represent a shift in Netflix’s longstanding policy against putting its movies in theaters. But co-C.E.O. Ted Sarandos shot that down immediately, saying the deal represented “no change at all” to the streamer’s strategy.

Many in Hollywood are baffled by Netflix’s steadfast commitment to this filmmaker-unfriendly position. Scott Stuber, when he was chairman of Netflix Films, was openly warring with Sarandos on the issue before he left the company
last year. That’s because a hit movie that gets a high-profile marketing push and plays for weeks in theaters can bring in big box office dollars and lead to a waterfall of money as the film progresses through various release windows and platforms. These days, Netflix can be part of that waterfall as studios license movies to the service after they’ve played on other platforms. (“Sometimes you get in bed with the devil,” as one studio executive put it.) With luck, a hit movie can launch a
franchise and, critically important to Disney and NBCUniversal, a hit movie can also become a cultural phenomenon that sells a lot of merchandise and inspires new theme park attractions. Movies that have gone straight to streaming have yet to generate anything near that kind of impact.

As one frustrated agent noted, the streamer that ate Hollywood has already broken its own policy vows: that there would never be ads, for example, or that the streamer would never go into sports. Why draw
the line at giving at least some movies full theatrical runs? Theater owners are baffled. “This has been a perplexing misdirection from Netflix in exhibitors’ minds for years,” says a veteran theater executive. “Exhibitors are kind of fed up with Netflix sticking their toe in the water and pulling back. Apple and Amazon have tried real theatrical runs, with mixed success. But they made a real attempt, and Netflix never has.”

Meanwhile, a top executive at one chain predicts theater owners
may well follow through on their threat and decline to play Narnia. With more movies in the marketplace now, it’s “a different ball game” than with Glass Onion in 2022, he said, adding, “I struggle to see who would program Narnia over Moana 3, if that were to come out. These large formats still only account for less than 20 percent of box office. It’s not something that really works for our industry to support that—particularly with a studio that is not in our
business.”

So while it remains to be seen how Narnia will fare in Imax, let’s at least take a moment to celebrate the fact that a female director, of which there are but few, has the clout to command a wide theatrical release from Netflix. From Lady Bird to Little Women to Barbie, Gerwig’s movies have not only been critically acclaimed but have grossed a combined $1.9 billion, and not a dud in the lot. Whatever happens in this Imax
skirmish, no one will blame her for the plan, though a knowledgeable source says Gerwig got interested in locking up some Imax screens because Warner Bros. couldn’t book any for Barbie thanks to Chris Nolan, who hoovered them up for Oppenheimer. That was a sore subject for Tom Cruise, too; he couldn’t find room on the giant screens for the seventh (and very expensive) Mission: Impossible film, which underperformed at the box
office with a global take of $571 million. Come to think of it, while Barbie didn’t open on a single Imax screen, either, it still managed to do okay, raking in $1.5 billion on garden-variety movie screens.

So far it’s unclear how big the blast radius will be on the implosion of Paris-based Technicolor, which
owns VFX houses like MPC and The Mill that employ about 10,000 people globally. Readers have been forwarding me ominous notices that shutdowns are imminent due to the usual causes (strikes, content correction, A.I.). [BBC]

More: Cartoon Brew has a good live updates page with the latest.
[Cartoon Brew]

Dylan Byers admires MLB commissioner Rob Manfred’s spin tactics after ESPN kicked baseball to the curb. [Puck]

The
Wicked theme park of our nightmares—sorry, dreams—is part of Universal’s long-game plan to lure more motorized scooters from Disney World. [NY Times]

Amelia Dimoldenberg, the Chicken Shop Date host, seems about as delightfully unhinged as expected.
[New Yorker]

The Crime Junkie podcast made $45 million in profit last year. [Bloomberg]

Amazon will find the next James Bond without the
help of casting director Debbie McWilliams, who’s retiring after casting the past 13 Bond films. [Screen]

SNL’s archives reveal great old notes from Standards, apologies to Lorne from celebrities who cursed on air, and hate mail over Milton
Berle’s racist, homophobic monologue. [NY Times]

Dr. Phil’s attempt to reposition his vanity TV network as a Trumpy news channel is not going well. [Bloomberg]

More (presented without comment): “Another former employee notes that the production staff makes McGraw look younger by applying a series of face filters in the editing process, a trick referred to internally as the “spa treatment.”

Not surprisingly, my Thursday quasi-eulogy for James Bond elicited tons of responses, not all of them
anti-Amazon. Some examples…

“A heartbreaking day, indeed. After everything that has happened to Hollywood and California this past year… there can only be so many more major surrenders before it is all wiped away forever.” —A lawyer

“Mike [Hopkins] is furious at Jen [Salke]. He had to explain to Seattle why they needed to pay the producers that Jen was supposed to be managing in the first place.”
—An executive

“Barbara Broccoli couldn’t stand Jen. Wouldn’t sit with her at events or pose with her in photos or even mention her or Amazon in speeches. Badly handled from the start.” —An Amazon insider

“I’m always here for your swipes at Amazon—frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t delivered you a ticking package. But I’d love some context on how the [Ian] Fleming estate feels about all this. As someone who works
with writers, the Broccolis seem like classic nepo babies who, depending on who you ask, either protected Bond’s I.P. or diminished and exploited it. Sure, the movies are fine—some are good, some suck. But why so much love for a family whose dad simply cut a great deal for rights to a property they had no hand in creating?” —A producer

“This franchise is not an easy lift for Amazon. It’s old and it’s mostly international now. How do you reconnect a suave spy born out of the Cold
War with a young audience? The world order is so different now. Will there be Russian bad guys? Probably not.” —An executive

“As a Bond fan, I have to comment that the going-public-domain-in-2035 fact is a hell of a kicker. If they did come back with a rival Bond, it would be an amazing reverse-Never Say Never Again situation! Never Say Never Again AGAIN!” —A writer-actor-producer

How did we survive January and February without a Jason Statham movie? Amazon/MGM has
one, A Working Man, in late March, and it looks like another low-key hit, according to The Quorum early film tracking chart…

Have a great week,
Matt

Correction: I misspelled The Monkey director
Osgood Perkins’ name on Thursday. Apologies.

Got a question, comment, complaint, or an ‘Electric State 2’ pitch? Email me at Matt@puck.news or call/text me at 310-804-3198.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with . To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10006