The final season of Stranger Things is more than a television conclusion—it marks the end of Netflix’s first era of ascension. Since its debut in 2016 (when its cast of kids still looked like actual children), Stranger Things has been the most popular TV series behind only Game of Thrones. Its ability to drive subscription growth, generate addiction-level hours of viewing, and mint money cemented Netflix’s rise as a programming powerhouse. 

Streaming is a hits-driven business, and every major player needs a tentpole series to anchor its results. As Stranger Things closes, let’s pinpoint the most important actively running flagship TV series of the streaming era. Using a mix of viewership, revenue, longevity and franchise potential, here are the shows doing their best Atlas impressions by holding up their respective streamers. 

Netflix: Stranger Things

In 2022, Stranger Things was the most-watched U.S. streaming original at 52 billion (!) minutes (No.2 was Ozark at 31.2 billion minutes), according to Nielsen. Even after three years without new episodes, it ranked as the 17th most-watched streaming original (5.4 billion minutes) over the first half of 2025. The four-episode Season 5 premiere in November drew the largest first-week global audience for an English-language Netflix series—second all-time only to Squid Game Season 2’s debut. 

After nine years atop the pop-culture hierarchy, whispers of spinoffs, prequels and other expansions persist. Yet creators Ross and Matt Duffer are departing Netflix for a lucrative deal at Paramount, leaving Netflix without a clear heir apparent.

Squid Game actually generated the most estimated global revenue for Netflix ($180 million from Q4 2024 to Q3 2025, including subscriber retention and new subscriber acquisition, per Parrot Analytics). It was also the second most-watched streaming original in 2021 (16.4 billion minutes) at its debut and the ninth most-watched show overall across the first half of 2025 (15 billion minutes). But it’s finished now. 

Wednesday’s second season became Netflix’s fourth most-watched English series ever, but dropped 50 percent compared to Season 1. Since The Adams Family IP belongs to Amazon MGM, Netflix can’t capture its full value.

In the absence of Stranger Things, the market-leading streamer faces a void on its release calendar with no obvious fill.  

Amazon Prime Video: The Boys

Like Netflix, Amazon is nearing the end of a flagship run. The hyper-violent superhero satire The Boys will conclude after its upcoming fifth season, having ranked in the Top 15 streaming originals twice (in 2022 and 2024). The question is how much higher this superpowered IP can fly. 

Amazon is planning a 1950s-set prequel series (Vought Rising) and a Spanish-language series (The Boys: Mexico). But earlier spin-offs—animated anthology Diabolical (one season) and live-action companion Gen V (two seasons)—didn’t quite break out despite being well-liked. 

Fortunately for Amazon, Reacher has emerged as Amazon’s next heavyweight over its first three seasons. In 2024, it ranked 10th among Nielsen’s U.S. streaming originals (10.6 billion minutes) and climbed to fifth overall in 2025, per Samba TV’s State of Streaming report (releasing new seasons yearly helps maintain audience momentum). This has made it Prime Video’s biggest TV windfall over the last year, with an estimated $132 million in revenue contribution. A spinoff was ordered for the series in October. 

Disney+: The Mandalorian

The Mandalorian helped Disney+’s launch outperform all reasonable expectations in the platform’s first year of existence. Since 2020, it has landed twice among Nielsen’s ten most-watched series while becoming the linchpin of the streamer’s small-screen Star Wars universe. 

This May, the show will make the leap to the big screen with The Mandalorian & Grogu, Star Wars’ first big-screen outing since 2019’s disappointing The Rise of Skywalker. Translating TV fandom into theatre ticket sales is far from guaranteed, but brand power ensures a high floor. 

The bigger question: Does this movie spell the end of the series? If so, Disney+—which has struggled to create live-action hits beyond the aging Marvel and Star Wars titles—needs a new flagship. Andor ($138 million in estimated revenue over the last year) was a critical marvel, but wrapped up its two-season run without approaching the same viewership highs. 

That said, with Hulu now fully integrated into Disney+, future seasons of FX’s Shogun could emerge as the streamer’s next tentpole. 

HBO Max: The White Lotus

HBO titles make up just 14 percent of HBO Max’s library, yet drive more than 18 percent of its audience demand, per Parrot. The premium cable network is television’s flagship brand. Of course, it continues to deliver streaming value. The White Lotus, in all of its original esoteric glory, may now be the service’s top title. 

Samba TV named it 2025’s most-streamed U.S. show overall with the year’s fourth-largest two-week viewership debut. From January to June, the upstairs-downstairs dynamic of the murder mystery anthology was Nielsen’s 16th most-watched series on streaming (11.5 billion minutes) and generated an estimated $124 million for HBO Max over the past year, per Parrot.

Production on Season 4 is set to start in 2026 in France.

Apple TV: Severance and Ted Lasso

This one’s a toss-up. 

Ted Lasso transformed the early identity of née Apple TV+, evolving from a feel-good sitcom to a prestige dramedy. It ranked as the 12th most-watched show of 2021 (8.1 billion minutes) and the top overall original of 2023 (16.9 billion), per Nielsen, despite the streamer’s small subscriber base. But Season 3 closed the original chapter, and while a continuation is in development—with some returning cast, but a new on-screen soccer team—it’s unclear if Ted Lasso will remain a juggernaut after another long wait.

In its place, the heady thriller Severance became a prestige breakout in its second season. Over the first half of this year, it was the fifth most-watched streaming original (9.2 billion minutes), per Nielsen, and led all Apple TV shows in estimated revenue contribution ($146 million), per Parrot. Apple calls it its top series ever based on unique viewers in the first month of its sophomore run. Yet after a nearly three-year gap, another long wait looms before Season 3.

There’s a particularly trenchant quote from HBO’s House of the Dragon that keeps popping into my head as major media companies jockey for position in pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery: “Aegon Targaryen sits the Iron Throne. He wears the Conqueror’s crown, wields the Conqueror’s sword, has the Conqueror’s name. He was anointed by a septon of the Faith before the eyes of thousands. Every symbol of legitimacy belongs to him.” 

Symbols are assets that can be leveraged for value in different ways. Zooming out to House of the Dragon’s home network, HBO finds itself in a position to be an integral symbol of legitimacy and value in the WBD sweepstakes. As all publicly circle the wagons, it’s time to explore the premium cable network’s merits and which company would benefit most from its addition.

This article contains a plethora of data points that highlight whitespace opportunities and strategic value in the market. But it’s not always the quantifiable elements that yield the greatest benefits. HBO’s multi-decade track record as a culture-shaping authority cannot be summed up in an Excel sheet.  

“It is not merely a content library; rather, it is a brand that stands for prestige and audience trust, meaning an acquirer instantly uplevels its brand value with the acquisition, as well as attracts unrivaled talent,” Andrew Cussens, CEO of content studio Film Folk, told Observer.

This very notion was recently demonstrated when WBD re-rebranded its streaming service to HBO Max. The name carries weight throughout the industry while certain rival brands still search for a defined identity that elicits strong audience associations. The data backs up its position as a go-to destination and an illuminating opportunity.

HBO and HBO Max by the numbers

WBD’s streaming platforms had 128 million subscribers at the end of September, with the vast majority belonging to HBO Max. (Netflix has more than 300 million subscribers.) It’s a hits-driven platform that values prestige quality over quantity. That’s incredibly valuable, but it can run counter to mass market ambitions. 

For example, The Last of Us Season 2 and The White Lotus Season 3 rank among the most-watched U.S. streaming series of 2025, according to Samba TV’s State of Streaming report. Yet, HBO Max only accounts for 7 percent of the Top 100 most-streamed series overall, per Samba, while WBD’s share of U.S. streaming sits at just 1.3 percent, per Nielsen, respectively. Even as the majority of viewing for HBO series occurs on streaming vs linear, HBO Max remains a top-heavy platform that accounts for a surprisingly small slice of the U.S. TV pie despite its namesake brand’s prestige.

From Watchmen and Penguin to House of the Dragon and It: Welcome to Derry, HBO has worked wonders in elevating brand-name intellectual property and franchise fare in pursuit of greater viewership (while still succeeding with more standard “prestige” fare like The White Lotus and Task). This raises the question: has it reached its scalable ceiling? 

“There is definite upside in the number of subscribers and revenue-per-viewer, and HBO Max hasn’t saturated either,” Samba TV CEO and co-founder Ashwin Navin told Observer. “By adding new tier-one shows and tentpoles, they can continue to broaden their audience base. With more subscribers on the ad-tier, combined with more precision targeting and data, there’s definitely room to grow monetization. The ceiling is much higher with the right investment and growth strategy.”

HBO is already doing most of the heavy lifting for HBO Max, especially when compared to its high-minded cable counterparts. HBO titles account for 14 percent of the streamer’s library, but more than 18 percent of its audience demand, according to Parrot Analytics. That tops Showtime on Paramount+ (7.2 percent supply vs. 7.3 percent demand) and FX on Hulu (3.6 percent vs. 4.6 percent). 

Who stands to gain the most if WBD is sold?

For better and for worse (mostly the latter), Hollywood is chasing scale to compete. Yet, no one is talking about the potential overlap when it comes to possible streaming combos. Paramount Skydance, Comcast and Netflix could all stand to gain from HBO’s prestige pricing power, but face challenges to continue scaling without sacrificing quality. 

Roughly two-thirds of U.S. adults who subscribe to HBO Max also subscribe to Netflix, according to Greenlight Analytics, where I work as Director of Insights & Content Strategy. About 40 percent of HBO Max subscribers also use Paramount+, while only 20 percent overlap with Peacock.

“Either Paramount or Comcast would benefit the most,” Hernan Lopez, founder and CEO of media/tech management consulting firm Owl & Co., told Observer. “They would immediately more than double their global revenue and profits from streaming, and the size of the library — both for their own streaming services as well as strategic leverage for negotiation with Netflix.”

The end result for each suitor would be different. Generally speaking, we’re talking about more subscribers, greater pricing power, higher combined lifetime value per customer, higher engagement, lower churn and so on. On paper, that’s awfully tantalizing, though not without its obstacles. 

“Netflix would only fully realize the value of buying WB streaming and studios if it keeps the TV and theatrical studios open, which would mean being willing to make and sell shows to third parties and distribute in theaters—things they haven’t done so far,” Lopez noted. Despite nudges in the theatrical direction, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said as recently as April that movie theaters are an “outmoded idea.” Oof. 

Interestingly, 78 percent of 2025 HBO Max engagement was directed at titles released before 2025, the second-highest rate among the premium streamers, per Samba. That speaks to the enduring power of HBO’s treasured library and the appointment-viewing gaps between high-profile HBO releases. On the flip side, Peacock (64%) boasts the largest share of engagement dedicated to programming that debuted in 2025. Meanwhile, Paramount+’s male-skewing originals fit well with HBO Max’s female-leaning audience. To Lopez’s points, one can see the non-Netflix fits. 

It would be media malpractice to see HBO reduced to a mere tile in another company’s crowded streaming ecosystem. The small screen’s crown jewel deserves better than that, not only for its reputational value but for the tangible results it yields. Yes, time spent has become the all-powerful quarry of every streaming platform. No, HBO is not a content firehose designed to constantly scratch that itch. But much like the throne, crown and sword, the validation it offers is the first step in empowering whomever its parent company may be to rule the realm.

Late-night talk show hosts are intertwined with the meteoric rise of television. From Steve Allen and Johnny Carson to Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, they have helped shape the voice of broadcast and cable across various eras. Yet, when hosts such as Hasan Minhaj, Chelsea Handler, David Letterman, John Mulaney and others have attempted to adopt or reinvent the format for streaming, they have not been met with the same success. 

Has the quality of our talk show hosts somehow declined over the last few decades? Or, like the social opinions of many of our parents, has the format truly reached irrelevance in its old age? Streaming offered creative freedom unfettered by FCC broadcast standards and a seemingly endless budgetary runway. However, the medium’s on-demand culture has never meshed with the timely appointment viewing that made late-night such a revelation on linear TV. 

The numbers don’t lie

Early on, broadcast late-night TV was defined by a few key criteria that made it such a valuable product: heaps of ad revenue from live nightly broadcasts, lower production costs compared with scripted programming, and reliably consistent scheduling that drove habitual tune-in every night. (While costs for late-night on broadcast have ballooned to more than $100 million a year while generating not enough revenue, one can see how that model worked for decades.)

Streaming is built entirely differently. Netflix popularized the cost-plus model, in which producers are paid an upfront flat fee premium, while ad revenue remains minimal today. Batch and binge releases train audiences to consume in short bursts of hyper-engagement rather than regularly scheduled repeatable tune-ins. 

Though some of Netflix’s talk show projects ended before the streamer began releasing engagement reports in 2023, the data we do have still speaks volumes. In the past two years, John Mulaney’s Everybody’s in L.A. and Everybody’s Live, Hasan Minhaj’s Patriot Act, Chelsea Handler’s Chelsea Does and David Letterman’s My Next Guest Needs No Introduction have all struggled to generate more than a few million hours viewed, according to Netflix’s ratings reports. Putting aside quality, they’ve more or less been met with weak engagement, low retention and niche audience appeal despite the fact that Netflix leads TV sources as the preferred destination for entertainment late at night, per Hub Entertainment Research. 

The deeper question is why. 

Talk shows don’t work on streaming (yet)

Three main factors are contributing to late-night’s decline: functionality mismatches, new media replacements, and discovery and marketing obstacles. 

The enduring appeal of streaming is that it shifts the control from the programmers to the viewers. We can watch anything we want, anytime we want, at any pace we want. That on-demand flexibility is rarely conducive to regular routine for non-scripted entertainment (excluding sports like WWE). The fact that Netflix measures its most-watched programming by viewership in the first 90 days says a lot about how the windows of success are longer in streaming than on linear. Streamers are betting on viewers returning to their favorites and most-anticipated over time. In contrast, late-night revolves around timely and topical humor that affords practically zero catch-up and rewatch value. If you miss it, poof, it’s gone in your mind. No one cares about last week’s headlines. 

Talk show formats live at a very special intersection of news and comedy. Those just so happen to be the primary lanes that social media and podcasts are eating into most. Today, four in ten adults under 30 and one in four over 30 (under 49) get news from TikTok, and the share is growing, according to Pew Research.

One element contributing to CBS’s cancellation of Stephen Colbert was that the “Late Show has by far the smallest digital footprint on YouTube and other platforms,” per Puck News. Comedian Mike Birbiglia echoed a similar sentiment for his side of the tracks when he said on The Town that “podcasts are where people go to find comedy at this point.” There just isn’t a lot of room for this type of entertainment to live these days, at least in its original-ish form. (By the way, Netflix is moving into podcasts.) 

Late-night and talk show formats don’t have a natural fit within streaming’s algorithm-driven model, which runs on genre specificity. If you like true crime, it recommends more true crime. If you like superheroes, it recommends more superheroes. The topical variety of talk shows exists in a disconnected bucket with very little genre affinity to others. 

Unlike massive streaming originals such as Stranger Things or The Boys, these platforms struggle to market a regularly recurring program without a central hook. Splashy guest? Viewers can just go directly to that celeb’s social channels to get their fix. Humor? Go and check out the thousands of stand-up specials available on the same platform. Streamers haven’t yet found a clear viewer incentive to spur live tune-in. 

Final takeaway

The elements that once made late-night programming great—familiar consistency, topical comedy, rare celebrity access, and financial feasibility—are almost diametrically opposed to streaming logic and how it has trained audience behavior. Hosts like Minhaj, Letterman, Handler, and Mulaney continue playing with form and function. Much of it has been highly entertaining, but it has yet to be consistently commercially successful. They are fighting on an entirely different battlefield than the Carsons, Lenos and Stewarts of the past. 

In my former life as a critic, I always argued in favor of analyzing elements of something you loved that didn’t fully coalesce versus dogpiling on something universally disliked. There’s no value in the latter while the former offers pathways to new success. In that spirit, we’re continuing our exploration of The Walt Disney Company’s recent wobbles with a closer look at its animated efforts. Disney is one of the most beloved brands in the world and, at its best, the proud purveyor of unrivaled blockbuster theatrical success. But its bread and butter is getting burned in recent years. 

Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar films Wish ($238 million in worldwide box office), Strange World ($175 million), Encanto ($231 million), Raya and the Last Dragon ($116 million), Soul, Luca, Turning Red, Lightyear ($219 million) and Elio ($154 million) struggled commercially amid COVID complications, hybrid streaming releases, or general audience apathy. Disney has absolutely delivered successes in the post-pandemic era. Sequels to Inside Out and Moana crossed $1 billion apiece, Elemental showed off enviable legs, and Encanto is the most-watched movie on streaming in the U.S. over the last five years. But new-to-screen efforts are undeniably struggling due to structural and creative obstacles. 

Structural challenges in Hollywood

Streaming has irrevocably changed audience behavior and preferences, and Disney+ is no exception. But before we get to that, let’s highlight how Disney’s recent moves reflect leadership’s understanding of the need for a refresh for intellectual property development. 

Disney has built its business around four key content pillars: Marvel, Star Wars, Walt Disney Animation and Pixar. “There’s been a very specific way Disney’s animated concepts have been generated over the years,” Simon Pulman, an entertainment lawyer specializing in IP rights at Pryor Cashman, told Observer. “It’s either based on a fairy tale or something that has been generated by their classic braintrust. At some point, you have to ask if any centralized creative force across Hollywood becomes too insular over time?” That question takes on added importance when animated budgets are running $150 million to $200 million-plus while rivals are generating solid ROI at roughly half the cost (hello, Illumination). 

Disney’s animated theatrical fare is typically created in-house. The lack of third-party IP and external development has created a creative bottleneck for many studios relying on recycling library concepts. 

The Mouse House seems to recognize this. It recently made the rare move to acquire the planned five-book series Impossible Creatures, which is currently delighting young adult audiences across the U.S. and U.K.. It’s also expanding its partnership with BBC Studios to bring licensed streaming sensation Bluey to the big screen. 

What else is mobilizing young audiences? Adaptations based on video games, manga and anime—key areas Disney has ignored or previously given up on. That’s changing too. The company invested $1.5 billion into Fortnite maker Epic Games, acquired a 2 percent stake in South Korean digital comics platform Webtoon Entertainment, and has begun dabbling in anime/anime-inspired entertainment with the likes of Star Wars: Visions, Twisted-Wonderland: The Animation, Miraculous Stellar Force and more. 

“Anime has become a global force because it’s unafraid to confront existential stakes,” Derick Tsai, creative executive and producer in games and animation at the IP development studio Magnus Rex, told Observer. He pointed to climate collapse in Nausicaa, alienation in Neon Genesis Evangelion and systemic oppression in Attack on Titan as key examples. “These stories meet audiences where they actually live emotionally, socially and spiritually, and they do it with a sincerity that feels deeply authentic.” 

All of these show Disney slowly but surely breaking with its internal status quo in order to reignite creative engines. But these new creative vessels may not have as much runway if audience behavior can’t be reconditioned. 

Across Hollywood, the pre-streaming era was defined by carefully constructed windows. Films debuted in theaters, became available on home video three to six months later, and then finally hit broadcast and cable TV. The limited availability created a sense of exclusivity and premium allure that drove more urgent theater attendance. The company’s brilliant Disney Vault marketing strategy drove frenzied family purchases for decades. 

“Films felt more like an event and, therefore, very special. Now, it’s all available all the time in one place,” Pulman said. “Parents are running a calculus in their heads as to whether their children are going to terrorize them to see a movie in theaters or if they can wait for Disney+. If kids don’t fear FOMO [fear of missing out] on the playground, then they’re all content to wait.” 

This is reflected in Theatrical Intent scores for Encanto (35 percent), Strange World (44 percent), Wish (49 percent), and Elio (35 percent) in the week of release, which are all much lower than typical animated Disney fare, according to Greenlight Analytics, where I work as Director of Insights & Content Strategy. This issue isn’t specific to Disney; it’s an industry-wide epidemic with the advent of streaming. Scarcity once elevated demand. Now, endless availability has conjured apathy. 

Creative challenges amid cultural wars

The culture wars that have engulfed American discourse over the last decade created a hyper-polarized environment. Within the swirling winds of charged opinions, Hollywood is frequently cast in the role of public enemy number one. 

Whether intentional or not, Disney has increasingly found itself at the center of larger machinations related to state and federal issues. Florida’s 2022 “Don’t Say Gay” bill, corporate DEI initiatives, casting choices across Star Wars, Marvel, The Little Mermaid and other major projects, plot points in Soul, Luca, Turning Red, Lightyear and Elio, Jimmy Kimmel and the notion of free speech—all of these elements have generated discussions that divided Disney’s potential audience. Post-COVID films have been viewed by some corners as therapy sessions for their creators, which has creative merit but is not always rooted in broad appeal. 

Speaking generally about Hollywood’s place in the culture wars, Pulman observed that in the period surrounding the COVID pandemic, major entertainment and games companies had become more permissive about employees voicing their political beliefs and infusing creative work with personal ideologies – only to be taken aback when the cultural pendulum swung in the other direction. Owing to several recent controversies, studios seem “afraid of these things being picked up and used as a pawn. That has led to an overcorrection and studios being afraid of having any point of view at all, with a number of projects developed in that period being stripped of certain themes prior to release,” he told Observer. “The solution is probably a back-to-basics rethink on how projects are developed from inception—with an emphasis on universal and character-driven storytelling aimed at general audiences.”

Beyond the political spectrum, Disney animation may also have fallen a touch behind from a thematic and visual standpoint. “Disney’s core themes of believing in yourself, finding strength in family, and discovering that home is inside you are timeless,” Tsai said. “But the world’s hopes and fears have evolved. Audiences today are wrestling with identity in a digital age, climate anxiety and systemic inequality. The stories that resonate most now engage those questions directly with honesty and hope.” 

A successful example is Sony’s Spider-Verse film series, Tsai pointed out. They are superhero stories powered by profoundly modern ideas about authorship, destiny and owning your own narrative. Trojan horsing these contemporary ideals into standard blockbuster story structure is the secret sauce to critical resonance and emotional audience buy-in. Packaging all of this in aesthetically innovative new forms creates a strong theatrical pull (see: Spider-Verse, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Flow, Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle). It’s something Disney needs to further embrace to keep its art fresh. 

“Post-Spider-Verse, audience taste has shifted toward bolder, artist-forward visuals; animation that feels handcrafted and singular,” Tsai said. “Disney started to explore that space with Wish, experimenting with mixing 3D, painterly textures and linework. There’s a huge opportunity to keep pushing in that direction.”

There’s a scene in director Rian Johnson’s still volcanically polarizing Star Wars: The Last Jedi where protagonist Rey is confronted by her own reflection in a Force-swirling cave on the mystical planet Ach-To. In Johnson’s own words, the scene is designed so that Rey sees “who she has to connect with and answer to is herself.” Nearly a decade later, that sentiment has expanded beyond the psyche of the franchise’s characters to encapsulate the very owner of the property itself: The Walt Disney Company. 

In an ideal world, the recently released first teaser for 2026’s The Mandalorian & Grogu, the first Star Wars theatrical film since 2019, would lay the groundwork for a new era of creative blockbusters set in a galaxy far, far away. But instead, the multi-parsec-long laundry list of scrapped projects that precede it serves as a microcosm for Disney’s recent over-reliance on recycling the hits. Across the Magic Kingdom’s war chest of blockbuster intellectual property, major franchises are showing clear signs of fatigue. Repurposing a hit TV series for the big screen may work well for The Mandalorian & Grogu. But the move highlights a bigger issue facing Disney, despite its success, and the industry at large: the difficulty in sustaining long-running brand quality with fresh and urgent big-screen storytelling in an era of growing audience apathy. 

Disney’s franchise fatigue

The problem with repeatedly retreating to the perceived safety of a known commodity is the inevitability of diminishing returns. 

Ever since 2019’s The Rise of Skywalker arrived to global disappointment, Star Wars has been confined to its own corner of Disney+ as a purely small-screen series. While that helped drive rapid subscription growth for the Mouse House’s fledgling streamer over the years, the strategy has undoubtedly hit a wall. 

First seasons of Ahsoka (67.8 million), The Acolyte (29.7 million) and Skeleton Crew (5.8 million) delivered far fewer U.S. viewing hours than earlier series premiere seasons like The Book of Boba Fett (79.1 million), Andor (77.4 million) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (76.4 million), according to Nielsen data and analyst Entertainment Strategy Guy. Even flagship series The Mandalorian, the launching pad for this upcoming spin-off movie, saw its third season drop roughly 10 percent in Nielsen viewership from Season 2 while also experiencing a dip in audience demand, per Parrot Analytics. Even more existentially threatening is the possibility that audiences might feel less urgent theatrical intent for the Star Wars brand after roughly 15 TV series. 

And it’s not just Star Wars that is struggling to match prior levels of enthusiasm. Disappointing box office results for recent Marvel Cinematic Universe entries Captain America: Brave New World and Thunderbolts* reflect tepid audience interest in lesser-known characters. The further down the franchise reaches into its bench of names, the harder it is to strike up general recognizability. 

The surprisingly poor legs for The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2.3x domestic multiplier) raise serious doubts about the X-Men reboot’s ability to course correct (Deadpool & Wolverine notwithstanding). Greenlight Analytics, where I work as Director of Insights & Content Strategy, shows that MCU intent conversion—how effectively the franchise converts audience awareness into theatrical interest—has steadily declined since 2022. On the small screen, Daredevil: Born Again failed to make the Nielsen streaming charts this year, while Ironheart also disappointed commercially. 

The struggles across Walt Disney Animation and Pixar—Wish, Strange World, Lightyear, and Elio all flopped—further illuminate the clear pattern of vulnerability across Disney’s major IP pillars. Despite ranking second in box office market share so far this year, Disney’s streaming services account for less than 5 percent of monthly TV usage, per Nielsen. There exists a disconnect between mediums. 

Beyond Star Wars and Marvel

Though we’ll heed LL Cool J’s advice and not call it a comeback, Disney has recovered from cold streaks in the past. The studio enjoyed an animated renaissance across the late 1980s and 1990s by striking gold with The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King and more. And, of course, Bob Iger’s first tenure as CEO was defined by his industry-shifting acquisitions that brought Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm into the fold in the first place. But outside of Marvel and Star Wars, Disney has not produced a live-action, no-doubt-about-it big-screen hit franchise since Pirates of the Caribbean. 

To Disney’s credit, the studio has tried to address this. But The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, John Carter, The Prince of Persia, The Lone Ranger, The BFG, Tomorrowland and A Wrinkle in Time all bombed while more recent-ish attempts such as Artemis Fowl, Mulan and Jungle Cruise were stunted by pandemic headwinds, creative issues or both. On streaming, only Percy Jackson has emerged as a breakout live-action hit beyond Star Wars/Marvel. 

The hope was that the acquisition of Fox’s properties would help fill in some of these gaps. Yet Avatar, for as monstrously lucrative as it is at the box office, endures long stretches between releases and has no franchise extension beyond the films and its attraction at Disney World (which is admittedly pretty damn cool). Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes ($397 million) was the lowest-grossing entry in the franchise since Tim Burton and Mark Wahlberg’s 2001 debacle. We’ll see how Predator: Badlands performs in November after the franchise was relegated to streaming for recent releases. And while Alien Romulus ($351 million) breathed new life into the franchise—likely buoying the successful FX/Hulu series Alien: Earth—Disney can’t count on subsequent films scoring more than $110 million from the unreliable Chinese market. 

What’s the next big thing?

Disney is reportedly seeking out original concepts to appeal to Gen Z men (18-28), including “splashy global adventures and treasure hunts, as well as seasonal fare like films for the Halloween corridor.” At the very least, this signals a self-awareness that trotting out various versions of the same IP over and over again cannot efficiently power Disney’s famous flywheel forever. 

Following the success of Five Nights at Freddy’s and A Minecraft Movie, it’s difficult to see how Disney’s 10 percent ownership stake in video game company Epic Games doesn’t result in a Fortnite movie in the near future. Next year will see the studio release a new Sam Raimi horror film, an original Pixar concept and a sci-fi apocalyptic thriller from 20th Century to pair along with more expected releases such as The Mandalorian & Grogu, Avengers: Doomsday, Toy Story 5, the live-action Moana and Ice Age 6. 

The latter group will undoubtedly bring in big numbers at the box office. But it also exposes how Disney’s foundation is built on decades-old stories. Fatigue is real, and competitors are catching up. Can Disney revitalize its creative pipeline with updated takes before the old reliables dry out? We’ll soon find out.

For years, whispers have percolated around a potential merger or acquisition between Warner Bros. and Paramount (now under Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance, respectively). The tenor of these conversations just rose an octave thanks to reports of the Ellison family preparing for a formal bid. Will this be legacy studios’ best and last chance of creating a real rival to Netflix and YouTube? Or is it simply another experiment that stock-conscious executives hatched? Either way, such a deal would face enormous financial and creative challenges while also holding the potential to transform Hollywood. 

Growing a content library for the sake of volume without any consideration for audience fit is like trying to explain the third act of Tenet to your grandmother—it’s just not going to make sense. But on paper, a combined entity would be armed to the teeth with top-notch brands and talents.

A WBD-Paramount merger would trigger an intellectual property field day with DC, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Dune, Lord of the Rings, The Conjuring, Top Gun, Mission: Impossible, Transformers, Sonic, A Quiet Place and Star Trek under the same corporate parent. Cartoon Network, which the current WBD leadership downsized, might live once more alongside Nickelodeon as an irresistible one-two punch in kids media (or get sold off). Imagine no longer fretting about your overall TV slate because proven hitmakers Chuck Lorre, Taylor Sheridan and Bill Lawrence all work in-house on existing deals. 

“The real test would be creative and product-market fit,” Steve Morris, founder and CEO of digital marketing agency New Media, told Observer.

Theatrical stakes

As of this writing, Warner Bros. accounts for 28 percent of the domestic box office market share while Paramount sits at 6.6 percent. This varies year-to-year, though. Since 2021, Paramount has enjoyed fewer tentpole peaks (Top Gun: Maverick notwithstanding) but delivered steadier conversion of awareness to theatrical intent on a film-by-film basis by opening week, according to Greenlight Analytics, where I work as Director of Insights & Content Strategy. WB’s slate has proven streakier in pre-release tracking, but its impressive highs in awareness, interest and theatrical intent tend to best Paramount’s. 

Warner Bros. targets 12 to 14 theatrical releases annually, while Paramount wants to ramp up to 15 to 20 per year. A merger will almost assuredly reduce total output. 20th Century Fox released an average of 14 annual movies theatrically between 2015 and 2019. That number has dropped to around four under The Walt Disney Company’s ownership. Reducing the number of legacy movie studios again at a time when Big Tech grows stronger in entertainment by the day might cause a full-blown panic throughout the industry. 

Consolidation of this magnitude usually leads to greater franchise dependency, squeezing out mid-budget and indie fare in the process. In turn, this results in less consistent volume for movie theaters (already a problem), less leverage for talent at the negotiating table, and a race toward the middle in terms of creative programming. Not fun. 

Small-screen realities

WBD and Paramount collectively accounted for just over 13 percent of total U.S. TV usage (broadcast, cable, streaming) in July, trailing only YouTube, according to Nielsen’s Media Distributor Gauge. If we examine combined streaming catalog demand shares, which account for all original and licensed films/TV series on-platform, in the U.S. across 2024, we get a No. 1 ranking at 23.4 percent, according to Parrot Analytics. Even accounting for overlap across both services, the combined customers of WBD (122.3 million worldwide streaming subscribers between HBO Max and Discovery+) and Paramount+ (79 million) would pack a punch.

But WBD thought volume alone would close the gap with Netflix when it smushed together Max and Discovery+. Look at how that turned out. And while select content across Warners and Paramount commands high demand, a potential combo platter wouldn’t necessarily move the engagement needle immediately. 

Unlocking the full value of the combined content catalog would require a complete overhaul of the streaming user interface and experience, an endeavor that’s as costly as it is timely. In the 2020s, with subscription fatigue already gnawing at quarterly earnings and FAST growing faster than SVOD, would both leadership and shareholders really have the patience for such an undertaking? 

Talent and brand tensions

As kid-in-a-candy-store exciting as it would be for content executives to have so much franchise power and top-tier talent at their disposal, the logistical nightmare of balancing so many high-profile spinning plates boggles the mind. The Ellisons may have deep pockets, but funding always remains finite in Hollywood. Leadership would need to decide how to split the pie between, say, competing talent deals such as Tom Cruise and Timothee Chalamet (WBD) versus Will Smith and the Duffer Brothers (Paramount). How would you like to be the executive tasked with explaining to the talent why one slice is smaller than the other? 

No matter which way you cut it, certain talents and brands would inevitably feel shortchanged compared to others. In a town built on egos, you might as well strike a match next to a powder keg. It’s a good problem to have, but the abundance of choice doesn’t guarantee strong strategy and execution. 

Speaking generally about media mergers, Comscore Senior Media Analyst Paul Dergarabedian zeroed in on the brand issue. “Do they get diluted, spun off, marginalized, or are they exploited well to get the best results? That’s got to be part of the equation,” he told Observer. 

Regulatory and financial hurdles

The list of reasons why any such deal can’t or won’t happen runs equally long as why it will. The DOJ and FTC emphasize even greater scrutiny on major M&A these days. Governing bodies would almost assuredly require divestitures, especially if a deal happened before WBD officially split off its cable assets. Some percentage of linear networks on both sides would have to go. It’s hard to see CNN existing alongside CBS News, for example. Even after jettisoning TV channels, both companies would still suffer from over-exposure to the rapidly declining linear TV business. Good luck trying to explain those numbers to angry shareholders. 

WBD’s streaming division profits in part because it includes linear HBO revenues. Meanwhile, Paramount’s streaming business still wasn’t consistently profitable at the time of the sale to Skydance. On top of all that, both companies are saddled with considerable debt at the moment. It’s highly possible that any potential deal is more trouble than it’s worth. 

Any combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. would yield a content slate exploding with blockbuster firepower. The new company (I’m going to start saying WarnerMount from now on) would snatch the franchise crown straight from Mickey Mouse’s head as it fed its streaming and theatrical furnace a steady diet of dynamite. But creative, regulatory, technological and financial challenges rightfully threaten to cloud the starry eyes of ambitious CEOs. (I’d love to see what the Skydance team can do with Paramount on its own). 

Mergers and acquisitions have not proven to be the silver bullet Hollywood hoped they would be over the last 20 years. Would Warners and Paramount be any different? Perhaps. But more often than not, this tactic has been more exposing than helpful.

These days, Hollywood home runs are usually reserved for blockbuster franchises and massively popular IP. Are you an actor playing a superhero, wizard, Jedi or someone who is just really good at outrunning dinosaurs? Well then, step right up and claim your box office prize! Though leading your own franchise has become the star-making benchmark of the moment, some actors are still capable of moving the commercial needle without the safety net of a comic book or video game.

One way to quantify star power is surveying audiences across a number of attributes, such as awareness, fandom and desire to see in theaters or on streaming platforms. In doing so, we unearth the reasons why audiences flock to specific stars and how these actors leverage that for success today. 

Four Hollywood veterans stand out by these measures after we analyze data from Greenlight Analytics (where I work as Director of Insights & Content Strategy), Nielsen and Netflix. 

Sandra Bullock

Oh, Sandra, you ageless wonder. How have you managed to deliver at least one hit movie in each of the past four decades? You’re truly the Cher of actresses—and the data backs that up. 

Bullock ranks among the upper-echelon percentile in a number of crucial categories, according to Greenlight Analytics: Awareness (95th percentile), Fandom (94th), Will See-Theatrical (74th), Will See-Streaming (84th), Authentic (88th), Funny (85th), Likable (92nd), Good Actor (82nd), Sexy (84th) and more. 

Add it all up, and she boasts multidimensional appeal while avoiding audience fatigue (sporting very low Overexposed and Overrated scores). This has allowed her to continue drawing audiences across a variety of roles and genres, such as romantic comedy, science fiction, traditional drama and beyond. While she throws a franchise film into the mix every once in a while (Ocean’s Eight, Minions), she’s largely leading entirely new-to-screen concepts (The Lost City is underrated!). 

Since 2009, seven of Bullock’s live-action films have grossed at least $100 million at the domestic box office; nine of her movies have grossed at least $200 million worldwide since 2000. In the last 24 months, six of her movies (Bird Box, The Unforgivable, Miss Congeniality, The Blind Side, Two Weeks Notice and Practical Magic) have combined for more than 93 million global views on Netflix, according to the streamer’s bi-annual Engagement Reports. Bird Box has managed to remain one of Netflix’s 10 most-watched original movies for seven years, a rare feat when the Top 10 is constantly reshuffling. 

Sam Sandler

The Sandman is riding high, coming off the back of the record-breaking Happy Gilmore 2. Yes, that’s a franchise film. But its success speaks to Sandler’s larger modern advantage: he boasts one of the highest “Will See” on Streaming scores of any actor (95th percentile). 

Cross-generational appeal plays a major role here as Sandler consistently connects with Gen X, Millennials and older Gen Z viewers. But thanks to his prescient move to Netflix in 2014, which coincided with the collapse of theatrical studio comedies, he’s successfully trained audiences to seek him out on streaming. And seek they have! 

Since 2018, U.S. audiences have consumed more than 61 billion minutes of Adam Sandler movies (both originals and licensed) on Netflix, according to Nielsen. The ratings firm observed that it’s “the equivalent of playing over 255 million rounds of golf, or completing a kindergarten through high school education nearly 9,000 times.” 

Based on name power alone, Sandler can draw viewers to new titles on streaming. It’s why new concepts such as Leo, You Are So Not Invited to my Bat Mitzvah and Murder Mystery are among his most-watched features on Netflix in the last two years. 

Ben Affleck and Matt Damon

Damon and Affleck represent rare symbiotic star power that courts audiences to theaters and streamers in different ways. Both maintain theatrical pull (38–45 percent of respondents are interested in seeing them on the big screen) and even stronger streaming appeal (47–54 percent of respondents are interested in watching them on streaming).

This duo works in part because they have developed complementary strengths. Damon scores well in audience warmth and likability because he’s seen as authentic and solidly inspirational. High marks as a “Good Actor” (82 percent) reinforce his critical reputation, giving him the flexibility to try a variety of roles. Damon’s growing association with Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Oppenheimer, The Odyssey) has provided a later career surge in commercially accessible prestige. (While his Apple TV+ action comedy original The Instigators didn’t light up the viewership charts, it did drive an impressive estimated 50,000 new subscriber sign-ups, according to Parrot Analytics). 

Meanwhile, Affleck delivers conversation-driving visibility and cultural relevance, with his “Good Actor” and “Authentic” scores rising in recent years. He boasts good taste and remains a known name across generations, which helped The Accountant 2 recently become the second most-watched Amazon MGM film on Prime Video ever. 

Together, the duo pulled the boardroom-centric Nike movie Air to $90 million worldwide in theaters. On streaming, Air enjoyed a solid four-week run on the Nielsen streaming Top 10 charts, including an 8.6 million-hour debut (well above the 5 million-hour floor that determines hits/flops for prestige films) and 24.5 million hours in its first month.

Final takeaway

In modern moviemaking, stars can draw audiences and viewers to non-franchise projects by cultivating specific qualities. Audiences are far more willing to buy a ticket or plop down on the couch if they find you particularly funny, sexy, authentic or talented. These attributes trickle up into the all-important desire to see a given actor in theaters or on streaming. 

Yes, it’ll always help raise an actor’s profile if you become the next James Bond or Spider-Man. However, developing individual star power outside of major franchises is absolutely necessary for a long and healthy career. As the viability of theatrical releases continues to narrow and streaming eats more and more into our entertainment habits, the actors who can organically connect with audiences across the spectrum—like Bullock’s longevity or Sandler’s streaming dominance—will be the ones who can survive long after any single franchise’s lifespan.

In The Karate Kid, there’s a beautiful exchange between the wise master Mr. Miyagi and the callow teenager Daniel LaRusso, in which the beloved sensei helps his student realize that mastery doesn’t always mean one must fight. The moment underscores the power of selective inaction—knowing when stepping away is the most powerful move. Sony Pictures Entertainment, the owner of The Karate Kid franchise, obviously took this lesson to heart. 

While Hollywood incumbents like Disney, Warner Bros, Paramount and NBCUniversal spent ravenously chasing Netflix, Sony Pictures opted not to enter the streaming wars at all. This prudence has positioned the company as one of the more strategically nimble and relatively financially sound players in Hollywood during a period of painful contraction. 

Unlike Netflix, a pure-play entertainment streamer, or Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global, which rely heavily on film and TV to drive their business, Sony Pictures operates as one arm of the much larger Sony Corporation. Last year, Sony’s Game & Network Services unit generated around $24 billion in revenue (hello, PlayStation), followed by Electronics Products & Solutions (~$16.5 billion), Financial Services (~$9.6 billion) and Music ($9.1 billion). Sony Pictures (~$9 billion) ranked as the company’s fifth-largest revenue-driving division, positioning it as a nice-to-have asset but not the backbone of the company. Since on-screen entertainment doesn’t serve as the sole lifeblood of the company, Sony can afford to be a touch more patient than some of its legacy media rivals. 

This shows in each company’s stock performance in the last five years (as Aug. 5):

• Fox: +102% (news/sports focus)
• Sony: +53%
• Disney: -9%
• Comcast: -24%
• WBD/WarnerMedia: -40%
• Paramount Global: -55%

Sony’s shareholder returns trail only that of Fox, which has also avoided the costly streaming wars (though the company will launch a direct-to-consumer product this year). Streaming platforms don’t turn a profit quickly. The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global only recently reached steady streaming profitability years after launching across 2020 and 2021. Along the way, Disney ousted former CEO Bob Chapek in late 2022 after the company lost $1.5 billion on streaming in a single quarter. NBCU’s Peacock has lost around $10 billion since launching in 2020 and still isn’t profitable. Even Netflix lost money for years as it gobbled up first-mover market share. Scrooge McDuck, Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark couldn’t hemorrhage as much cash as streaming platforms have bled in the last five years. 

A niche bet on anime became a streaming strategy of its own

But just because Sony didn’t invest in a buffet-style streaming endeavor doesn’t mean it ignored the digital future. Instead, the company acquired anime streaming service Crunchyroll and merged it with anime distributor Funimation, giving it a commanding presence in the growing medium. Crunchyroll has since grown from 3 million subscribers to 17 million and rising. More importantly, Sony has cultivated a marketplace community that monetizes those customers beyond a monthly subscription. Streaming, live events, theatrical film, games, consumer products, collectibles, manga publishing—Crunchyroll offers experiences for its fans across an array of touchpoints. 

To that point, Sony also recently acquired a stake in game company Bandai Namco to “focus on expanding the fan community for IP such as anime and manga around the world and strengthening engagement, particularly in the anime field where rapid market growth is anticipated.” It all may be more niche than Netflix and Amazon’s one-stop-shop style, but it’s impressive and scalable. 

Outside of anime, Sony sells to everyone rather than hoarding its content on a single platform. Its theatrical films head to Netflix in a Pay 1 window deal worth roughly $1 billion. (Sony Animation, a division of Sony Entertainment) has also partnered with Netflix on several animated streaming original films such as the Oscar-nominated The Mitchells vs the Machines. KPop Demon Hunters is on pace right now to become the streamer’s most-watched original animated feature ever). Sony also has a Pay 2 window deal with Disney likely worth somewhere in the nine-figure range. These licensing deals provide consistent revenue and cash flow that serve as a safety net for the studio. 

Sony licenses content broadly—and profitably

Sony appears to use these earnings to reinvest in more theatrical products. Amid a noticeable decline in wide release volume from major studios that caps Hollywood’s post-Covid box office recovery, Sony has sped forward as if nothing has changed. From 2010 to 2019, the studio delivered an average of 16.6 wide releases per year. From 2021 to the end of this year, it will have dropped an average of 17 wide releases annually, per The Numbers. 

Maintaining that level of volume arms the company with leverage in exhibition and distribution while maintaining the value of its pipeline to Netflix, Disney and any international partners that may come along. The library value benefits from that stable output, even though Sony Pictures itself doesn’t drive the largest domestic box office. 

The small screen presents another area where the company proves equally prolific. Sony TV generates around $3 billion in annual revenue, producing successful shows for the entire TV ecosystem. Seriously, almost every major platform and network boasts at least one notable contributor that originated from Sony: Amazon (The Boys, The Wheel of Time, Gen V); Apple TV+ (For All Mankind); CBS/Paramount+ (Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune, S.W.A.T); HBO (The Last of Us); Netflix (The Crown, Cobra Kai, The Night Agent, Dept. Q); Peacock (Twisted Metal); Disney+/Hulu (Goosebumps); Fox (Accused); ABC (The Good Doctor); NBC (The Blacklist). While the third-party licensing market has opened up again after years of in-house consolidation, most major companies sacrifice licensing revenue to keep the best and brightest programming for their own streamers. 

True, without a competitive mass market streaming service, Sony may have lowered its long-term ceiling. But thanks to the company’s diverse revenue sources, that discipline steered it clear of the SVOD minefield and preserved flexibility. A high floor of value and safety still exists in licensing and theatrical when deployed strategically. In an era dominated by the false equivalency that scale equals success, Sony’s restraint may be its greatest asset.

Your phone is buzzing, your bank account balance is staring you in the face, and you’re mentally sprinting through your schedule. No, it’s not an emergency. You’re just trying to make the crucial choice whether to see a new movie in theaters or wait for it to become available at home. That seemingly small sentimental difference? It’s actually quantifiable. In fact, it helps drive behind-the-scenes decision-making that determines why some movies go straight to video-on-demand (VOD) or streaming while others head to multiplexes. 

While theatrical cinema remains the epicenter of Hollywood’s cultural engine, we live in a digital world that requires more strategic approaches to distribution. Whether you’re enjoying the latest Marvel blockbuster in (increasingly less) crowded theaters or settling on the couch to watch Netflix’s newest highly irrational action movie, there is an economic logic and strategy as to which films go where and why. 

I’ve previously covered all the reasons why theatrical cinema tends to generate the highest financial return for studios, especially among bigger-budget fare. For a quick recap: 

• Pay-per-view (PPV), premium video-on-demand (PVOD) and standard VOD allow multiple viewers for just one transaction, whereas theatrical tickets are sold individually.
• Traditional theatrical releases can be monetized across several windows—theatrical release, electronic sell-through (EST), DVD/VOD rental, Pay One, Network, Pay Two—while streaming exclusives typically remain trapped on a single platform for all of eternity.
• Theatrical success drives broader success (franchise building, licensing, merchandise, theme parks, etc.) thanks to a deeper cultural footprint. You don’t exactly see Red Notice hoodies flying off store shelves, do you? 

In reality, the two mediums can be complementary. In the U.S., film studios generally split ticket revenue with movie theaters 50/50. But with VOD, studios keep roughly 80 percent of the revenue. VOD, syndication and streaming can also turn theatrical losses into break-evens or profit over time. Maximizing earnings potential means choosing the release strategy that best positions it for success with us viewers. That means determining whether it has breakout potential in theaters or might connect more if it skips theaters entirely. 

From big screen to small screen (or the other way around)

In 2020, Universal Pictures shattered the decades-long precedent of keeping movies exclusively in theaters for around 90 days before making it available anywhere else. Faced with pandemic-related challenges, Universal opted to release films on PVOD between 17 and 31 days after their theatrical debuts depending on box office openings. While there’s a debate as to the long-term audience effects this strategy yields, Universal has finished top three in domestic box office market share in four of the last five years, per The Numbers. 

Wicked is arguably this new model’s greatest success story. The Best Picture-nominated musical defied gravity with $756 million at the worldwide box office before scoring a record $70 million on PVOD in its first week of availability and more than $100 million total, with Universal keeping 80 percent of that PVOD revenue. The film’s overwhelming success in theaters and on PVOD served as a gigantic advertisement for its eventual run on Peacock. It racked up around 40 million hours of viewership in the U.S., according to Nielsen, contributing to subscriber acquisition and retention along the way. (Wicked was the second most-streamed 2025 Oscar nominee and one of Peacock’s most viewed films, per analyst Entertainment Strategy Guy). That’s a long and lucrative value chain. 

Similar success stories have also been seen in riskier projects. A Minecraft Movie, while based on one of the most popular games in the world, was not considered a guaranteed home run in theaters. Yet, it earned a whopping $950 million worldwide. In the week of its release, a solid 53 percent of viewers that were aware of the film said they would be willing to pay a fee (either a theatrical ticket or a VOD transaction) to see it, according to Greenlight Analytics’ film tracking service The Quorum, where I work as Director of Insights & Content Strategy.

This indicated a long runway of revenue potential, which was ultimately true. Samba TV reported that more than 470,000 U.S. households watched A Minecraft Movie in its first five days of availability on VOD. This alone likely added millions in additional revenue across rentals and digital purchases. It helps to demonstrate how theatrical hits can translate into leggy VOD successes and beyond.

It’s not the only instance of companies following the data to successful results. Paramount’s horror thriller Smile was originally made as a streaming-exclusive film. But unexpectedly sky-high test scores convinced studio executives to give it a full theatrical release. That pivot paid off: the film and its sequel have earned more than $355 million at the global box office against a combined budget of $45 million. 

These are all examples of how studios use an array of different inputs to inform where and how they’ll deliver a movie to eager audiences. 

When VOD and streaming out-perform theatres

The opposite is true, too. Timothee Chalamet’s cannibal romance Bones and All earned just $15 million in theaters against a $20 million production budget and a chunk more for marketing. The movie’s healthy 56 percent willingness to pay a fee score in the week of release alongside low awareness and interest scores, per The Quorum, suggests it may have been better suited for a direct VOD/streaming release to save on marketing. I’m a theaters-first kind of guy overall (and a lot of data backs that up), but for smaller-budget films there is more flexibility. Even Netflix overhauled its original film strategy to emphasize more cost-efficient bets. 

We see similar indicators across a wide range of films that help us better understand audience and studio behavior. Big-budget disappointment Snow White generated concerningly low Quorum interest scores prior to its release, providing advance warning for its poor box office performance ($206 million globally). However, it then saw a 405 percent spike in viewership when it hit Disney+ compared to VOD, per Samba TV. Small-budget prestige film The Brutalist saw seven times more viewership on Max vs VOD in its first weekends (while still struggling overall). The dominant viewer preference was to watch these titles when they became “free” on streaming rather than fork over a fee, which speaks volumes about how audiences valued each. 

Amazon’s Christmas action movie Red One similarly disappointed in theatrical box office but The Quorum’s pre-release tracking pointed to growing interest in home viewing, despite weak theatrical demand. That data supported its short theatrical window and helped anticipate performance beyond box office. It ultimately became the 10th most-viewed film on streaming for all of 2024, despite only debuting on Amazon Prime Video on December 12. Highly impressive. 

Not every film needs to break box office records to deliver value. But, ideally, every film needs to go through a rigorous pre-release testing ground to identify the best distribution fit. Theatrical and at-home releases should be viewed as two sides of the same coin for a studio’s benefit. This can make the difference between the glowing perception of a hit or the harsh reality of a flop. All of these inputs help to determine and explain why some movies go to theaters and others are made available at-home. In today’s attention economy, where a film releases has become just as important as the who, what and when.

Critics have declared traditional Hollywood entertainment dead to young audiences. Gen Z does enjoy TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat just as much—if not more—than plain old fashioned television and movies. But all hope is not lost. Traditional action and adventure thrillers are still finding new life with younger viewers. Tom Cruise, at 62, may be old enough to be a grandfather to some Gen Z audiences. Yet he ranks 4th among their favorite theatrical movie stars, according to National Research Group data reported by Puck News. This raises a fascinating question about how the action genre is surviving—and, in some ways, thriving—in an era defined by streaming standards, superhero spectacle and micro-attention spans.

The numbers tell a surprising story about star power

Gen Z represents just 20 percent of the audience demand for the Mission Impossible franchise vs. nearly 35 percent from millennials, according to data from media research firm Parrot Analytics. At 71 years old, the James Bond franchise is old enough to have forgotten which actor played 007 in which movie. Unsurprisingly, the film series skews even older with Gen Z contributing just 13 percent of demand. But the action-adventure genre overall still holds sway with these digital descendants. Why? One big reason is the star. 

As mentioned, Cruise ranks 4th among Gen Z’s favorite theatrical movie stars (and second overall for general audiences). He’s behind action-dynamo Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Deadpool himself Ryan Reynolds, and ahead of Brad Pitt, whose high-octane racing epic F1 has been climbing the awareness and interest charts of Greenlight Analytics’ box office tracking service, The Quorum, where I work as Director of Insights and Content Strategy. 

The Rock cultivated crossover appeal through his wrestling background and family-friendly brand. Reynolds wins them over with meta-humor and social media savvy. Cruise hooks them with death-defying Holy Shit stunts. Even the real-life romantic chemistry and Spider-Man IP power behind Zendaya (7th for Gen Z) and Tom Holland (13th) strikes a chord with younger viewers. (Social media following has become a key factor in casting. Studios see it as a small way to raise the floor of audience interest). 

On the overall star power ranking, major names that regularly pop up in action films like Denzel Washington (1st), Will Smith (7th) and Keanu Reeves (9th) are well represented in the top 25. There’s no doubt that in the intellectual property era, star power alone is waning drastically; the name of the franchise matters more than the lead actor. But the right actor paired with the right concept and/or notable character can still make waves. General audiences may not show up for every Keanu Reeves movie. But best believe they’re buying tickets to Keanu Reeves as John Wick. 

Outside of select star power, streaming has helped keep the genre top of mind. Three of 2024’s 10 most-watched streaming originals were action-heavy series (The Boys, Fallout, Reacher), according to Nielsen viewership. Nine of Netflix’s 10 most-watched English-language films globally all-time incorporate action/adventure elements (Say what you want about Bird Box, but it’s been planted in the top 10 for seven years!). Netflix particularly banks on casting brand names like Mark Wahlberg, Jamie Foxx, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth and Reynolds in shoot-em-up, chop-em-down fisticuff films. Streaming’s ease of access and the genre’s plug-and-play excitement cement it as ideal lean-back and lean-forward viewing. The comfort of our couches has never been so action packed. Just don’t forget the popcorn. 

Streaming platforms breathed new life and discoverability into older franchises. Classic Western series Gunsmoke drew more than 10 billion streaming viewing minutes nearly 70 years after its debut last year, per Nielsen. Legacy sequels like Bad Boys 3 and Top Gun: Maverick benefitted from years of catch-up viewing of prior films. This plays directly into Gen Z’s streaming-first mentality. Since 2011, the action genre has consistently been responsible for more than 20 percent of the annual domestic box office share, including nearly 30 percent last year, per box office database The Numbers. 

Traditional spy franchises like Mission: Impossible and James Bond may be growing long in the tooth and occasionally out of touch. But the action genre itself is alive and well across different formats and platforms as it adapts to the times. To understand how we arrived at this point, and where the genre is headed, it’s worth examining how action cinema has transformed in recent history. 

The evolution of the action genre

This resilience wasn’t always guaranteed. Non-IP action movies dominated the 1980s-90s led by heavyweight stars such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. But in recent decades, the superhero genre subsumed traditional action flicks by delivering similar explosive set pieces in service of beloved comic book mythology. 

From 2004 to 2010, action movies claimed less than 20 percent of the annual domestic box office while ticket sales declined steadily. M:I and James Bond maintained cultural relevance despite lower Gen Z interest. But hits like the John Wick franchise—which launched in 2014 and has since grossed more than $1 billion globally—assisted a cultural comeback. Fans love when Hollywood delivers a fresh approach to familiar storytelling. There’s an argument to be made that the superhero’s rise informed new approaches to action flicks. 

Marvel and DC trained audiences to think about franchises in more interconnected ways. Establishing universes that offer familiarity, spectacle and a mix of practical and visual effects re-engaged audiences. The sequential storylines and story eventization—such as Jurassic Park’s original cast returning for Jurassic World sequels or Fast & Furious bringing characters back from the dead—helped bridge eras and provide added audience incentive. 

The genre also benefited from a blend of boundary-pushing innovation and classic return to form. Both yielded impressive results. Filmmakers like James Cameron and Christopher Nolan pushed action to new technical heights with massive blockbusters like Avatar, Inception and Tenet, while George Miller elevated the genre with the glorious carnage of Mad Max: Fury Road. They capitalized on growing interest in IMAX and other premium formats that revitalized the big screen experience. Given the improving quality of at-home entertainment, this is particularly helpful in attracting young ticket buyers. 

Jason Statham’s recent 90s-esque mid-budget action movies (Wrath of Man, The Beekeeper, A Working Man) have all delivered consistent ROI. This year alone—with Sinners, Black Bag, Thunderbolts, Predator: Killer of Killers, Mission: Impossible—Final Reckoning, Ballerina, The Accountant 2, Fight or Flight, Captain America: Brave New World and Novocaine—has already leaned heavily on frenetic film action. 

Gen Z gravitates toward stars who feel accessible and self-aware, yet still appreciates traditional movie star charisma when executed authentically. They may not be the core audience target for traditional action franchises, but they’re not rejecting them entirely. Aided by streaming expansion and the genre’s storytelling and formatting development, we’re seeing renewed life outside of aging mainstays. 

It’s up to Hollywood to properly leverage the learnings from successes like John Wick (stylized balletic violence, engaging world-building and a well-liked star) and The Boys (genre-blending superhero deconstruction, easy streaming access and a tantalizingly satirical nature). Doing so effectively will create new pathways for action programming to reach younger audiences, which will collect more cash. Unlike Ethan Hunt and James Bond, the genre’s future won’t be found in chasing youth. Instead, it’s about being smart enough to help youth find you. 

The streaming industry once considered itself the disruptive challenger of archaic entertainment business practices. But now that the industry has matured, the one-time rebel is aging into fiscal responsibility. The latest example is Apple TV+, which is turning to a new performance-based compensation model, according to a report from The Ankler. Unsurprisingly, Apple TV+’s model sounds an awful lot like the way Hollywood used to do business, with a few modernizations. 

Apple Studios will now use a points and ranking system to grade new seasons on three key criteria: subscriber acquisition, engagement and cost efficiency. If, say, Ted Lasso is the first title viewed for more than 30 seconds in the first week of sign-up, it contributes to acquisition. Engagement is determined by total minutes viewed divided by the season runtime, which has become the industry standard for “views.” And cost efficiency is determined by budget divided by engagement. Combined, these three metrics will be used to grade performance over a calendar year, with subscriber acquisition being prioritized in ties, according to The Ankler. 

Essentially, Apple TV+ will now reward talent for success. This is a stark departure from the streaming era’s “cost-plus” model popularized by Netflix in the 2010s, which incentivizes streamers to often pay a large amount upon the purchase of a show in exchange for buying out a talent’s backend. In other words, the floor of talent compensation was raised, but the ceiling was lowered. As a result, breakout hits wouldn’t pull in Friends-level payouts for producers and actors, but misses wouldn’t leave them holding the bag. This new transition reflects not only Apple’s growing financial pragmatism, but a broader industry recalibration. 

Apple’s services business, which includes Apple TV+, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple Fitness+ and iCloud+, brought in nearly $100 billion in sales last year. Apple TV+ remains a small piece (Apple Music and iCloud+ drive the bulk of services revenue), but “You want this to add to the overall brand experience, but without also crossing a massive gap in resources and investments,” Alejandro Rojas, vice president of applied analytics with Parrot Analytics, said recently in a research report. 

The challenge: Apple TV+ reportedly loses more than $1 billion annually while needing to justify its place in Apple’s larger services strategy. Misguided observers like to clap back that money isn’t an issue for Apple, which enjoys a market cap of more than $3 trillion, and that Apple TV+ doesn’t need to make money. But no company, no matter how wealthy and successful, willingly burns billions of dollars every year without ever generating a return. Good companies generate value. That’s the driving force behind this compensation change—cost management and strategic alignment. No more effing around. 

“Content development is a long-term investment for Apple, and their scale and diversified revenue base provide the foundation to sustain that investment over time,” Mark Boidman, head of media and entertainment at Solomon Partners, a New York-based investment bank, told Observer. “Ultimately, the trajectory and ecosystem value of Apple TV+ will depend on several measurable factors, including the continued development of original content, the effectiveness of cost management practices and the success of distribution expansion efforts.”

Return to traditional Hollywood economics 

Talent and studios traditionally aligned their interests to share both risk and rewards. Believe it or not, but dumping a truckload of money into certain creative’s bank accounts sight unseen rarely produces the best possible results. 

Apple’s three-metric system—subscriber acquisition, engagement and cost-efficiency—creates aligned incentives. Everyone involved is motivated to deliver the best possible product, especially on top of the streaming bonus system previously negotiated by the Writers Guild Association. This model appeals to certain talent segments who prefer upside participation versus guaranteed minimums. It’s the difference between wealth and riches for some. 

“The better performance and more seasons, the higher the per point pay — maxing out at $350,000 per point for its top three shows in season 5 or beyond,” per The Ankler. “With a 35-point cap, that’s north of $12 million.”

Such a switch-up could help strengthen Apple’s competitive position in talent acquisition, especially when bidding wars break out for hot new packages. A key question will be if Apple moves slightly away from its insistence on brand-safe premium programming and more toward middle-of-the-road broad appeal content. The streamer has delivered commercially successful elevated broadcast-esque fare, like Ted Lasso and Hijack, but has proven reluctant to fully embrace sitcoms and procedurals that drive engagement. 

“Apple TV+ has great content, but great content without a real distribution model is like having the best wine sealed in a cellar,” Jarie Bolander, General Manager and Executive Partner at marketing agency Decision Counsel, told Observer. “While competitors like Netflix and Prime are scaling with flexible pricing, ad-supported tiers and global bundling deals, Apple is still treating streaming like a prestige product—premium-only, locked behind the Apple ecosystem. That may align with their brand, but it doesn’t align with how people consume media today.”

Industry-wide implications

Netflix reportedly considered similar backend deals last year, though no concrete changes have emerged publicly. The industry typically follows Netflix’s lead, though Apple’s proactive move suggests streaming executives are finally doing what works best for their own bottom lines. Mimicking the competition just isn’t a sustainable long-term strategy for success. 

More importantly, this is yet another instance in which streaming’s once disruptive practices are increasingly being discarded for more traditional approaches. Streaming once promised ad-free prestige programming delivered through binge releases while avoiding professional sports and being completely siloed. Now nearly every major streamer offers weekly programming across the creative spectrum, pursues sports rights, promotes ad-supported tiers and is often bundled on or with other platforms and services. New waves of changes are surely on the horizon that will once again reinvent the streaming business. 

The industry has matured from growth-at-all-costs to sustainable profitability. Apple desperately needs to grow its video subscription service, both as a business and as a cultural destination. Doing so across the board for every major streamer means increasingly borrowing traditional media practices. Apple TV+ is showing an ability to change strategies, which is a good first step.

ESPN is facing down the barrel of a self-made paradox: the company’s upcoming full-service streaming platform, creatively named “ESPN,” might accelerate cord-cutting while potentially making streaming more expensive for consumers. ESPN isn’t doing this out of spite or stupidity, though. Cable still throws off billions in revenue for a select few networks ($10.5 billion for ESPN in 2024). But the industry faces its last gasps. Since 2011, ESPN has lost 37 million subscribers, per State of the Screens, while the number of U.S. TV viewers who don’t subscribe to pay-TV will soon surpass the number who do. Remaining in the pay-TV bundle without a digital succession plan offers about as much viability as Bob Iger’s failed torch-passing. ESPN’s streaming launch serves as a bellwether for the business that could either consolidate sports streaming or fragment it further. Either way, its success or failure will directly impact you, dear consumer. 

ESPN+, the brand’s first real foray into streaming in 2018, boasts 25 million subscribers. However, most subscribers access the service through the Disney Bundle (Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+), and many remain inactive. Still, for those that do engage with the streamer’s second-tier offerings, where linear ESPN’s primary live sports aren’t available, the platform proves that demand exists. 

ESPN+ showed that hungry fans will watch sports anywhere, but “left consumers wanting more in terms of live premium content,” Ryan Schreiber, founder and CEO of streaming aggregator Streamline, told Observer. In that way, ESPN+ served as a “soft launch” that revealed that “loyalty is shaped less by heritage than by habitual usability,” Lyric Mandell, Director of Media and Public Relations at MOXY Company, said. The platform helped the company understand audience behavior in an entirely new viewing environment that they controlled. Disney gathered comprehensive data on personalization preferences, consumption habits and price sensitivity.

Owning the direct-to-consumer relationship this way, instead of letting Comcast or Spectrum control it, provides invaluable data and user behavior insights. 

Sports streaming is getting “more expensive and messier.”

ESPN priced its service at $29.99 per month. Disney priced it high enough that cable providers don’t revolt over immediate cannibalization. But does the price prove too costly for price-conscious cord-cutters and cord-nevers? After all, this holds the distinction of being the most expensive monthly subscription among all the other prominent streamers. 

Schreiber thinks the bundle offer—in which $29.99 will include Disney+, Hulu and ESPN for new sign-ups in the first 12 months—will help convince consumers to hop aboard. That is admittedly a nice value. 

Mandell notes that sports content pricing represents “scarcity value in an age of digital abundance.” ESPN owns only so many major live sports broadcast rights and controls many marquee titles: Monday Night Football, some NBA, some NHL, some MLB (for one more season), UFC, various NCAA rights, etc. Any sports fan seeking access to major events likely needs ESPN. But the company doesn’t own all the sports rights. 

ESPN isn’t the sole broadcaster for the NFL, NBA, MLB, March Madness or the College Football Playoffs. Not by a long shot. ESPN alone will never host a Super Bowl (though corporate sibling network ABC will). To watch all sports from America’s Big Four leagues requires a waterfall of different subscriptions and payments. As Schreiber noted, “it’s all getting more expensive and messier.” 

Disney’s long game

ESPN executives aim to transform the brand into the go-to digital hub for all sports content, including competitors’. Think of how Roku, Apple and Amazon devices serve as the mechanism through which you subscribe to and engage with other apps. Becoming the tech backbone of the sports broadcast industry represents a wonderful ambition. This approach would simplify the user experience for you and me watching at home, which offers immense value. But the strategy may not be entirely realistic. 

“It feels pretty unlikely. I think we are just headed for more fragmentation,” Schreiber said. Mandell echoes this sentiment, noting that “platform convergence” of this scale requires negotiations of “not just rights, but semiotic space.” Other brands will demand their identities remain preserved and data firewalls maintained. Technical fluidity favors Netflix over Disney, and juggling that many agendas would challenge any corporate umbrella. 

Disney’s higher-ups know that this aggregation pipedream is unlikely to come to fruition. But converting the company’s brand power into digital engagement is crucial for its future as it evolves from pure storytelling to ecosystem building. 

ESPN serves as Disney’s “most immediate conduit to live cultural relevance,” Mandell said. The company doesn’t just want you to watch games and then sever your connection. It wants you to watch the NFL, play fantasy football, bet on the Washington Commanders through ESPN Bet, ingest analysis from its NFL reporters, buy merchandise, and live and breathe all on its own platform for as long as it can keep you. This transcends just sports entertainment. Disney pursues the goal of developing habitual lifestyle patterns. 

So, what does success look like for ESPN’s streaming future? Schreiber estimates that streaming ESPN can get 100 million subscribers in its first three years. In the medium term, or five years out, we’ll want to get a strong grasp of platform stickiness and integration into daily routines. Success will no longer depend solely on how many customers sign up, but on how long ESPN retains them and how long they remain on-platform. 

At the 10-year mark, “ESPN should aim to become a meta-platform, shaping the norms and logics of how live sports are accessed, discussed, and monetized,” Mandell said. This would represent a “symbolic dominance” that stretches beyond just revenue and subscriber figures. This is akin to Netflix’s position as the default streaming entertainment service. 

A new course for sports media

Live sports are the primary reason remaining pay-TV subscribers haven’t cut the cord. But the launch of ESPN and Fox’s upcoming streamer, Fox One, suggests that traditional pay-TV faces a more definitive end. However, whether streaming can truly replace the experience of TV is another question entirely. 

“Live sports continues to dominate television – from brands and advertisers to what audiences are showing up to consume on a live basis,” Raquel Braun, co-founder of media consulting agency Mulier Fortis, told Observer. “Therefore, one of the keys will be how frictionless of an experience can ESPN provide to sports fans – whether they’re current cable subscribers who want to access content via ESPN’s new service, ESPN+ users who want a more robust experience, or new customers who are looking for the best and deepest bench of sports content they can find in one place.”

By the same token, can streaming ESPN chart new courses in sports media? Visibility sets the conversational agenda at the national level. “With women’s sports drawing growing audiences but receiving just 15 percent of media coverage, ESPN has a chance to reshape what counts as central in the sports narrative,” Mandell noted. 

Make no mistake about it—ESPN’s transition represents a defining moment for sports media. ESPN’s move to streaming and its consequences will matter at the financial, corporate, consumer and cultural levels. The outcome will help decide who wins in the ongoing battle between the frictionless desires of audiences and the reality of market fragmentation. Whether ESPN can bridge this gap as a true epicenter of sports or whether we’re destined to scramble about to watch everything we want while being gouged by high costs remains to be seen. 

How does a British four-episode limited series not based on any pre-existing intellectual property, with no aliens, magical sorcerers or action sequences become one of Netflix’s most popular shows ever? March’s Adolescence—which follows a family after their young son is arrested for the murder of a classmate—did exactly that, landing behind only Stranger Things and Wednesday despite the absence of any marketable stars (with all due respect to Stephen Graham’s talent) or franchise recognition. 

While the U.S. is famously the largest exporter of entertainment, the U.K. follows closely behind. Streaming has globalized audience tastes, with certain British imports consistently capturing American attention. 

Let’s explore how the U.K. funnels top-tier programming to the U.S. and identify the genres and formats that keep wrangling American hearts and minds. 

British TV and film premieres have more than doubled between 2020 and 2024, according to media research firm Parrot Analytics. Yet this surge primarily rode the wave of the early streaming boom which enjoyed a full-force money hose of resources that have since been pulled back a bit. 

From 2018-2024, the supply of British TV series and films outweighs the audience demand for such content in the US, per Parrot. This suggests investment could be slightly pulled back. The average annual American audience demand share for British TV (5.6 percent) and film (6.7 percent) has remained steady in that span, proving the enduring appeal of British storytelling, acting talent and production quality. But there are specific styles that boast more breakout potential in the U.S. than others.

Scripted dramas and thrillers

We Americans love juicy drama dripping in titillating thrills (and, yes, I’ve appointed myself spokesman for all Americans here). Our content preferences follow suit, particularly with historical and suspense-driven dramas. 

Netflix’s British romantic romp Bridgerton (which debuted its third season last year) claimed the title of the most-watched streaming original in the U.S. for 2024, according to Nielsen. Older series still remained relevant to U.S. audiences, too. Peaky Blinders (gangster drama) and Downton Abbey (period family drama) were both among the top 15 most in-demand U.K. series in the U.S. last year, per Parrot. 

Long-running sci-fi series such as Doctor Who (an optimistic time-and-space galavanting adventure show) and Black Mirror (a bleak dystopian exploration of humanity’s abuse and over-reliance on technology) both maintained high demand. Crime drama Fool Me Once ranked as one of the most-watched U.K. shows on Netflix last year globally, according to the streamer’s engagement reports and FlixPatrol, and the seventh most-watched streaming original in the U.S., per Nielsen.

Clearly, we’ve developed an affinity for British “prestige” dramas with familiar settings, historical connections, genre elements and a heaping helping of quality intrigue. 

Reality and competition formats

Unscripted programming serves as cost-effective, laundry-folding content that ups engagement without breaking the bank. This trend continued last year with shows such as Love Island UK and The Great British Bake Off ranking among the 12 most in-demand U.K. series in America. These programs also featured in Samba TV’s Top 10 weekly streaming charts whenever new seasons launched, indicating a loyal high floor of returning viewers. 

Netflix—the Kansas City Chiefs of streaming—has strategically invested in unscripted British programming. Love Is Blind: UK pulled in a healthy 141.8 million global views in 2024. Game and panel shows contributed as well, with Paramount+’s comedy competition Taskmaster ranking fifth in demand. 

Simply put, American audiences flock to unscripted British series that combine distinctive British humor, romantic competition and gossipy goodness. We’re very simple creatures. 

Kids and family programming

Children’s animation forms an integral genre for the entertainment industry and yet another source of resonant British programming. Long-running preschool franchises such as Peppa Pig, Thomas & Friends and Little Baby Bum all ranked in the top 20 for U.K. content demand in the US. Globally, Peppa Pig generated more viewing hours than any Netflix kids series in 2024, British or otherwise, with Season 6 alone logging nearly 50 million views. Pretty good. 

It’s worth noting that Nielsen’s most-streamed show of 2024 was Australian export Bluey (Disney+), underscoring the general popularity of animated family content. When it comes to U.K. flavors, globally recognizable kids brands continue drawing young U.S. viewers. 

Quirky comedies and other formats

Brits boast a distinct sense of humor and a singular ability to blend the morbid with the joyful. This stretches deep into legacy libraries, where classic hits like Mr. Bean continue to rank highly. It also bodes well for contemporary pop culture. Recent hits such as The Gentleman (crime comedy) and Baby Reindeer (dramedy/black comedy) delivered meaningful viewership in 2024. Both series were among the five most-viewed U.K. Netflix titles globally. The Gentleman enjoyed a seven-week run on Nielsen’s U.S. streaming lists while Baby Reindeer lasted five weeks. 

Even docuseries gained traction, with Netflix’s long-running sports-doc Formula 1: Drive to Survive ranking among the 25 most-watched U.K. series globally and as a top 65 in-demand British import in the US.

Genre blends that lean on humor as well as engaging docuseries (ideally tied to major IP) can help attract U.S. engagement to British entertainment. 

Major takeaways

The U.K. market has long produced high-quality dramas, kids animation, comedies and documentaries with compelling narratives and strong characters. Recent breakout series have demonstrated a unique ability to remix familiar intellectual property, revisit historical time periods with striking creativity, or deliver achingly human stories that are simply outstanding.

Scripted series like Sherlock, Peaky Blinders, The Crown, Fleabag, Doctor Who and Downton Abbey, alongside winning recyclable unscripted formats like Love Island and Love Is Blind: UK, provide roadmaps for other markets hoping to develop and deliver globally resonant programming. Adolescence perfectly exemplifies how quality and innovation collide to produce huge results. 

The confusion is over. Warner Bros. Discovery announced this week that it would be rechristening its streaming service, Max, as HBO Max again after dropping the iconic cable brand from its name in 2022. It’s okay to laugh—the company’s social media team is certainly leaning into the absurdity of it all. But what’s important is that this shift signals larger changes in WBD’s streaming strategy as the business matures beyond its growth-and-volume-at-all-costs era. 

Say what you want about WBD CEO David Zaslav, whom the media has appointed as a public punching bag for reasons both fair and unfair. But at least he’s willing to admit his mistakes rather than chasing a sunken cost. 

“This is a smart course correction—and an admission that the first move didn’t work,” Tim Berney, CEO of VI Marketing and Branding, told Observer. “They wouldn’t go back to HBO Max unless they had to. It’s a common mistake: companies pay a premium for a strong brand, and then dump the name for ego, ‘vision’ or internal politics.” 

In 2022, HBO was dropped from the streamer’s name in hopes of branding a general entertainment service that could compete with Netflix. The move may have made sense when it was believed that the lean-back Discovery portfolio and lean-forward WBD library would boast more synergy. Now that we know that isn’t the case (Max’s global subscriber numbers hover around 122 million, while Netflix has more than 300 million members), returning to a beloved brand intertwined with blockbuster-level quality makes sense regardless of how messy the transitions have been. 

“By reinforcing HBO’s name in its streaming service globally, WBD is signaling that it wants to build long-term brand recognition based on a premium storytelling identity,” Lyric Mandell, Director of Media and Public Relations at brand development and strategy firm Moxy Company, told Observer.

Challenges ahead

The return of HBO is not without its challenges, however. The premium cable network has always been a niche but beloved brand in America. But outside of the U.S., the company spent decades licensing its content to local partners. (Max partners with Foxtel in Australia, Sky in the U.K. and Canal+ in France.) This creates a precarious give-and-take. 

“HBO is highly popular in America, but overseas, it’s not very popular,” Mark Voronov, co-founder and CEO at SocialPlug, told Observer. “Overseas, HBO would very likely be overshadowed by local streaming giants or even Netflix. Reviving HBO Max would confuse some overseas viewers who barely know anything about HBO.”

For WBD to fully leverage its latest rebrand, it must continue understanding its strengths and weaknesses while delivering a steady flow of high quality programming worthy of the HBO brand. Reviving the HBO name alone is not enough to reignite subscriber growth ad infinitum.

For instance, cross-company cooperation is more important than ever. WBD wisely teamed up with Disney to offer a streaming bundle that includes Disney+, Hulu and Max. The results speak for themselves—roughly 80 percent of new subscribers who signed up between July 2024 and September 2024 were still subscribed three months later, per Antenna data. This makes it the best retention-driving streaming offering in the U.S. market. It’s also a sign of how bundling can help sub-scale players compete, as long as the content libraries are complementary, not overlapping.

“This move reveals a sobering shift in the streaming landscape,” Ala Ho, founder of brand agency andhuman, said of Max’s rebranding. “Volume alone doesn’t build loyalty. Brands must mean something. WBD’s decision is an act of brand humility and cultural listening— a rare willingness to say: we misread the moment.”

When President Donald Trump fired off a Truth Social post over the weekend announcing his desire to impose a 100 percent tariff on all foreign-made movies, some Hollywood executives and media members rolled their eyes while others panicked. Both reactions are appropriate. The timing couldn’t be worse for an industry still desperately thrashing about for a life preserver following the Covid-19 pandemic, Wall Street’s reversal on the streaming model, dual Hollywood labor strikes and the Los Angeles wildfires.

The theatrical film industry has been particularly pummeled. Box office revenues remain stubbornly below pre-Covid levels, with global figures dropping from a record $43.3 billion in 2019 to just $30 billion last year.

Domestically, despite hopes for a bounce-back, 2025 projections hover around $9 billion, according to The Numbers—a far cry from the reliable $11 billion floor the industry enjoyed throughout the 2010s. Major studios are collectively releasing 10 to 15 fewer wide releases per year than they did before the pandemic.

All considered, Trump’s proposed tariffs are less a solution than a Hail Mary aimed at an impossible equation.

The myth of the all-American movie

The concept of a purely “American-made” film is about as blurry as a college student’s vision after a frat party. Film industry analyst Stephen Follows’ research reveals the average blockbuster is shot in 1.6 countries, with nearly a quarter of Hollywood studio productions filming at least partially in the U.K. in 2019 and nearly 20 percent in Canada.

Modern filmmaking sprawls across borders by necessity—visual effects from London, sound mixing from Toronto, financing from multiple international partners, and so on. Slapping tariffs on this intricate global ecosystem threatens to destabilize already precarious production economics.

“I’m not a lawyer, but there does seem to be a gap between how tariffs are defined in the law and what could be applied to services,” industry analyst Entertainment Strategy Guy, who recently published an analysis of the trade war’s potential impact on Hollywood, told Observer. “My rule of thumb when analyzing the current administration is: wait until something is done, not just said.”

International backlash brewing

The greater danger may lie abroad. Even before Trump’s post, China had announced plans to further restrict American films—moves that could inspire other countries to follow suit if tariff tensions escalate.

For an industry that relies heavily on overseas audiences, that spells disaster. Before Thunderbolts, the Marvel Cinematic Universe had generated 56.2 percent of its gargantuan $31 billion in global ticket sales from international markets, according to Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. Other franchises are even more overseas-dependent: Fast & Furious (74 percent), Wizarding World (70 percent), Jurassic Park (62 percent), Despicable Me (62 percent), DC (61 percent) and Shrek (60 percent) all rely on international ticket sales for the majority of their revenue. Any reduction, limitation, or slowdown in international theatrical distribution will have damaging ripple effects on an already limping film industry.

Foreign governments have several retaliatory options: increased taxes on American content, tighter quotas or demands for significantly more local-language production in exchange for market access. Europe could impose new levies on U.S. movies and streaming services, while other countries might erect higher barriers for filming approvals.

Alternative approaches

Not everyone sees tariffs as the answer. Actor Jon Voight and his manager Steven Paul have reportedly pitched Trump on expanding federal incentives for domestic production instead—supplements to existing state-level tax breaks, according to Bloomberg.

Entertainment Strategy Guy suggests another approach. “The best way would be to limit subsidies provided by different states so production can benefit from economies of scale in only one to three locations,” he said. “The problem with subsidies is they become a race to the bottom with increasingly higher subsidies provided by different countries.”

While U.S. physical production has declined in recent years, the Motion Picture Association told Bloomberg that America’s entertainment sector maintains a positive trade balance globally, exporting three times more content than it imports. American streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime rely on global audiences to justify their massive content investments.

As Hollywood executives anxiously track developments, the message is clear: in an increasingly interconnected industry where international success determines whether franchises live or die, new trade barriers could devastate studios still reeling from the arsenal of curveballs thrown their way over the last five years. For an administration concerned with American economic strength, triggering the collapse of one of the country’s most valuable export industries would be an unexpected plot twist—and not the good kind.

A24, the chic independent studio that has captivated cinephiles since launching in 2013, maintains an oddly inverse relationship between cultural impact and financial reality. The studio, specializing in low-budget filmmaker-driven artistic stories, has never exceeded 2.45 percent of the annual U.S. box office. Civil War, its highest grossing movie globally, topped out at just $127 million. Yet, A24 has quickly become one of Hollywood’s defining brands, transforming into a multifaceted lifestyle company with a faithfully devoted following. 

Last summer, the famously niche studio secured funding that valued it at a whopping $3.5 billion—much smaller than the publicly traded Paramount’s $8 billion market cap but on par with the mid-major studio Lionsgate’s $2 billion valuation (though comparing private valuations and public market caps is far from apples to apples).

In recent years, whispers around town have grown increasingly louder that A24 is eyeing bigger-budget, broader appeal fare. As its business ambitions grow, essential questions arise: Can the cultivators of cult classics go commercial? What risks and rewards follow? And what is A24’s ultimate endgame? 

Living up to a $3.5 billion valuation

A24 typically operates in a profitable lane of low-budget productions with short paths to break even. Its average theatrical budget ranges between $15 million and $20 million and it never breaks the bank on marketing. This approach will likely never produce Marvel-sized box office results, but it minimizes risk and creates a recyclable formula of success. (A24 did not respond to a request for comment). 

“On any given project, they’re only making maybe tens of millions of dollars,” David Offenberg, an entertainment finance professor at Loyola Marymount University and author of Independent Film Finance: A Research-Based Guide to Funding Your Movie, told Observer. “They’re never in a position where they hit a home run and make hundreds of millions of dollars on a title. They’re taking small bites of profit.” 

That’s all well and good for an independent studio investing in boundary-pushing art. Moonlight (which earned $65 million worldwide, per Comscore), Lady Bird ($80 million) and Everything Everywhere All At Once ($111 million) are among the best films of the 21st century for my money. But they don’t make a multibillion-dollar enterprise, which explains A24’s strategic expansion. The studio has grown its TV library with successes such as HBO’s Euphoria, Netflix’s Beef and Showtime’s The Curse. Civil War, at $50 million, represents its largest big screen budget yet and signals more commercially-oriented gambles ahead. (April’s well-received Warfare, for instance, is driven by its harrowing action). 

“When you receive a $3.5 billion valuation, it’s hard to justify that if you’re solely in the auteur cinema lane,” Marc Simon, an entertainment IP attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP, told Observer. “To help justify that very significant valuation requires the shifting strategy we’re seeing to grow revenue streams.”

A24 movies comprise just 0.75 percent of the annual movie supply on average from 2019 to 2024, according to media research firm Parrot Analytics. Yet the studio delivered an average of 1.25 percent of the U.S. film demand share and 1.03 percent  globally in that time span. Punching above its weight in that way warrants further investment. But A24 can’t simply flip a switch and begin delivering blockbusters (just ask Netflix, which struggles to consistently match the movie engagement of its theatrical peers). Its success largely stems from its highly curated, specialized tastes, making this beefy transition a tightrope walk between old and new strategies. 

A24’s streaming playbook

A24 increasingly emphasizes TV as viewing habits evolve. “It’s been the case for some time now, and certainly emphasized by the pandemic, that butts in seats has been replaced by butts on couch watching streaming,” Simon noted. 

Successful episodic content generates significant service fees, covering broadcast access, cable and features like HD and DVR. When A24 owns the underlying intellectual property, it also collects rights fees for derivative works and merchandise opportunities. Partnerships with HBO, Netflix and Apple leverage these possibilities while keeping the A24 brand relevant between theatrical releases and attracting new audience segments that aren’t always leaning into the cinematic output.

“A TV library gives them more stable cash flows whereas a film library melts very quickly,” Offenberg said. “A TV library is more valuable because TV can get renewed for years. Plus, it can be recreated in other countries so you can sell the format as well and not just the content itself.”

TV also serves as both a development pipeline and ecosystem extension for A24’s creative partnerships with storytellers such as Benny Safdie (The Curse), Ramy Youssef (Ramy) and Sam Levinson (Euphoria). 

Can cult classics pay blockbuster bills?

Historically, financing film to make money is about as effective as shooting craps in Las Vegas. A24 began as an indie distributor before moving into self-financing and production. By expanding this approach, the studio is accepting greater risk in pursuit of greater rewards. 

A24 isn’t the first specialty division attempting to pivot into more bankable content. Miramax, New Line Cinema, Focus Features and many others have made similar moves with varying success. Independent studios that pull it off get acquired—Lionsgate scooped up Summit Entertainment and Disney bought Miramax. Those failing to find a consistent audience tend to run out of money. We hardly knew ye, Annapurna Pictures and Open Road Films. A24 has built a sustainable business with a clear brand identity that is synonymous with a specific slice of filmmaking. Leaving that lane runs the risk of destroying the sound foundation. 

“When you branch out, you don’t want to dilute your brand identity and alienate your core followers,” Paul Dergarabedian, a senior media analyst at Comscore, told Observer. “They’re trying to bridge the gap between cinematic fast food and fine dining.” 

A24’s upcoming adaptation of the genre-blending Death Stranding video game exemplifies this strategy. Success will attract new audiences outside of A24’s standard target demo while generating substantial box office revenue (Death Stranding has sold more than 19 million copies). Failure would strain A24’s thin profit margins and raise concerns about the studio’s ability to elevate more accessible entertainment for the masses. Dwayne Johnson’s MMA biopic The Smashing Machine (directed by Benny Safdie) arrives in October and will be followed by Josh Safdie’s $70 million Marty Supreme starring Timothee Chalamet in December. This type of expansion requires A24 to continue marketing in unconventional and smart ways, but with a broader audience in mind. Ideally, the studio can prove to Hollywood that risk is sexy once more, as Ryan Coogler’s Sinners currently proves. (Hot vampires—still popular!)

“If they can create a ladder by which the auteur filmmakers enter the A24 ecosystem and then climb the rungs within the studio to bigger budgets and more commercial content while keeping the je ne sais quoi that makes A24 special, that’s a homerun,” Simon said.

Is an “exit” on the horizon?

Private equity firms such as Thrive Capital, Stripes, Neuberger Berman, Guggenheim Partners and Eldridge have all invested in A24. This is key to the studio’s overarching strategy, which recently points to one clear hopeful outcome for the indie darling. 

“Private equity typically has to sell within five years of making the initial investments,” Offenberg explained. “So they build up the valuation as much as possible so they can get the biggest exit possible. It’s effectively the CEO’s job to make the company as valuable as possible for some sort of transaction.” Though the entertainment media M&A market has cooled during this current industry contraction, swallowing up A24 is undoubtedly an enticing prospect for some. 

Hollywood has always been a copycat league where successful strategies are imitated until every last ounce of value has been squeezed. As A24 attempts to graft its strategy of creatively singular storytelling onto bigger budgeted commercial bets, it will send ripple effects throughout the industry whether you’re an indie studio like Neon or a prestige subsidiary comfortably nestled in the P&L statement of hugely profitable conglomerates. 

“Believe me,” Dergarabedian concluded, “all of these specialized distributors will be looking very carefully to see if they can and should apply this model to their studio.”

2019’s Avengers: Endgame became the highest-grossing film of all time and marked a zenith for the superhero genre. But when its sequel, Avengers: Doomsday, hits theaters in 2026, it will enter a far different Hollywood ecosystem. Doomsday must contend with not only a downturn in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)’s fortunes, but an industry-wide cooling on capes and cowls overall. 

Amid an avalanche of hit-or-miss Disney+ television content and lingering pandemic-related challenges, several MCU films have struggled critically, commercially, or both. The DC Extended Universe mercifully ended after nine consecutive financial disappointments—including megaflops The Flash and Joker: Folie a Deux. Though superhero films account for 13 of the 25 highest-grossing films in the U.S. from 2021 to 2024, comic book intellectual property (IP) no longer guarantees box office success after nearly two decades of steady output.

Since 2016, excluding the Covid-disrupted 2020, the superhero genre has accounted for an average of 21 percent of the annual domestic box office, according to The Numbers. It has become an essential staple of theatrical moviegoing, and further declines would harm an already reeling business. 

The upcoming releases of Marvel’s Thunderbolts* and The Fantastic Four, as well as DC’s Superman, will speak volumes about the health and longevity of the superhero genre. Let’s explore the broader context of these upcoming superhero movies to better understand what’s at stake for the genre and the industry.

Thunderbolts* (May 2)

The MCU famously launched with B-tier characters in Iron Man, Captain America and Thor—comic book staples who long played second fiddle to Spider-Man and the X-Men in the Marvel hierarchy. Obviously, it worked. But is this strategy sustainable? Thunderbolts* follows a group of ragtag C and D-listers and requires audiences to know (deep breath): all four Captain America movies, Black Widow, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Ant-Man and more. That’s a lot of homework for what is meant to be a blockbuster romp, underscoring the strain of the franchise’s interconnectedness at this point.

Thunderbolts* needs to earn at least $450 million worldwide, if not more, to break even with an estimated budget between $150 million-$200 million and a marketing budget likely in the nine-figure range. However, six of the MCU’s last 12 theatrical features have failed to surpass $500 million at the global box office, suggesting over-saturation and inconsistent quality. As of this writing, projections show Thunderbolts* opening lower than Captain America: Brave New World ($89 million) in the U.S., per both The Numbers and Box Office Theory. Two weeks before release, Thunderbolts* also trails Brave New World in awareness and interest at the same point, according to survey data from tracking service The Quorum. 

Failure to turn a profit will illuminate a few unfortunate realities for Marvel and the superhero genre:

• Outside of Shang-Chi, the studio struggles to successfully launch commercially viable new-to-screen characters that can support new franchises;
• This places the burden of reliability on finite legacy characters, many of which are getting long in the tooth (is it any surprise that Doomsday will feature 50 known characters from the MCU?!)

Conversely, success will show improved audience appetite for new superheroes after the underwhelming debuts of Eternals, Blue Beetle and The Flash in recent years.

Superman (July 11)

No blockbuster in recent memory faces more pressure than James Gunn’s relaunch of the Man of Steel and the DC Universe at large. But based on historical track record, Superman may face an uphill battle despite the character’s immense power. 

Man of Steel earned a profit with $670 million at the worldwide box office against a $225 million budget, but failed to meet studio expectations amid internet-shattering polarization. The same goes for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Superman Returns, 2006’s admirable but ill-advised revival of the Christopher Reeve-era franchise continuity, lost money with just $390 million against a $275 million budget! Marvel’s Chris Evans-led Captain America films proved that earnest boy scouts can still resonate with modern audiences. But Clark Kent hasn’t headlined a no-doubt-about-it theatrical hit since 1980. Tell that to whoever covers the box office at the Daily Planet. 

Gunn’s Superman aims to jumpstart a 10-year franchise plan for DC Studios that spans feature films, television series, video games and more. Anything less than universal goodwill and healthy box office returns will not only derail the expansive franchise, but also likely doom Superman as a theatrical brand. (The character continues to thrive on the small screen). To say there’s a lot riding on Superman is like saying carbon is an important element for life on this planet. Much of parent company Warner Bros. Discovery’s perceived value in any hypothetical consolidation stems from the belief that the DC IP is highly valuable. If Superman flops, the fallout will make, well, Fallout look like a paradise. 

The good news is that, as of March, The Numbers projects Superman to generate upwards of $300 million at the domestic box office across its run (subject to change over the coming months). If that holds true and the movie’s U.S. vs international splits fall in line with BvS, Man of Steel and Superman Returns, it should surpass $700 million worldwide. 

The Fantastic Four: First Steps (July 25)

This will be the 21st century’s third attempt to create a workable big screen Fantastic Four movie, but the first under Disney. The 2005 version squeaked out a profit ($334 million worldwide against a $100 million budget). The 2007 sequel was less profitable. ($302 million gross vs $130 million budget). The 2015 reboot, plagued creative differences between Fox and filmmaker Josh Trank, infamously lost the studio $100 million when it grossed just $168 million worldwide on a $120 million budget. Much like Slytherin, there’s a powerful brand stigma to overcome here. 

Is this spotty track record due to poor quality films or because audiences simply don’t view Marvel’s first family as a big screen draw? (Stretchy powers always look silly on-screen, after all).

I’m betting it’s the former. The film’s first trailer, which showcased a delightfully disconnected story from the larger MCU with a distinctive anachronistic aesthetic, was a hit. It rang up 202 million views across all platforms in its first 24 hours, third-best ever for the MCU behind Deadpool & Wolverine (365 million) and Spider-Man: No Way Home (355 million). A star-studded cast full of well-liked names has only boosted pre-release interest thus far. 

Yes, it’ll face stiff competition from Jurassic World: Rebirth and Superman. But fans will be hungry for breadcrumbs that feed into Avengers: Doomsday as the next release on Marvel’s  calendar after First Steps. That halo effect should help push it across at least $200 million domestic. Early box office projections and estimates from various sources and observers are pretty positive. If not, though, it may finally be time to relegate the Fantastic Four to the small screen. Three strikes and you’re out.

Conclusion

The glut of superhero programming across streaming in the post-pandemic world has eroded some of the film genre’s event-level stature. Given the superhero genre’s immense contribution to film engagement recently, audience fatigue or apathy towards new characters and/or new reboots would lower what has been a consistently high floor and high ceiling lane. Without the reliability of the superhero genre, Hollywood must find a new funnel of blockbuster IP. The performance of these three films will likely tell us all we need to know about the short and long-term health of the genre. 

I’ve always been bewildered about how people in the Jurassic Park/World universe keep returning to these dino-infested destinations despite repeated catastrophes. But that’s consumers for you—they like what they like and won’t be told otherwise. Recently, I examined how audiences vote for their preferences with their wallets, which helps explain the success of film and television based on intellectual property (IP)—comic books, novels, video games, historical events, etc. and including remakes, reboots, revivals, prequels, sequels and spinoffs. I followed by analyzing how major franchises such as Marvel use their IP to create entire ecosystems of lucrative content.

Today, I’ll round out this series by exploring how IP delivers value when deployed strategically and why studios obsess over it. 

IP-based storytelling offers tremendous value because it arrives with built-in audience familiarity and interest. You already recognize Super Mario or Dracula. In today’s challenging market, that familiarity represents the closest thing to a sure bet studios can find. But the industry is still refining the formula as it searches for the perfect blend of IP, medium, audience demographic and platform strategy. 

“It’s fair to say that risk mitigation is more prevalent in the marketplace now than it was five years ago,” Marc Simon, an entertainment IP attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP, told Observer. “Right now, consolidation, cost-cutting and overall industry patterns do not propel big and original ideas but rather allows for safer bets.” 

The data backs this up. Across the eight major U.S. streaming platforms in Q4 2024, existing IP-based film and TV accounted for at least 38 percent of customer acquisition and 34 percent of customer retention, according to Parrot Analytics. This means existing IP drove around a third of new subscribers and retained customers. IP-based programming consistently punched above its weight by contributing more revenue than its share of supply. This trend continues to grow as articles, podcasts and short-films are being identified as new atypical funnels of IP. 

“What’s changed is that the medium of that underlying IP has broadened over the last decade,” Simon said. “In a time where executives have so little bandwidth, a long-form piece of underlying IP that used to be necessary to green-light a project can be successfully condensed into an article.” The success of Hulu’s The Dropout and Netflix’s Inventing Anna, which are rooted in investigative journalism, provide a roadmap for shorter-form written content to translate to the screen. Similarly, Amazon adapted Homecoming from the Gimlet Media podcast, while the Oscar-winning Whiplash began as a short film. 

The best IP for the screen: books, real events, manga or video games?

Today’s major franchises span feature films, TV series, consumer products, theme parks, video games, stage plays, comics and other experiences. But which IP types are most prevalent, which mediums suit them best, and who represents their ideal audience?

Literary sources—think Apple TV+’s Presumed Innocent or Netflix’s Fool Me Once—maintain the highest share of IP-based premieres yearly and have held remarkably steady over time, according to Parrot Analytics. Go books! For example, Harry Potter appeals “to all ages and is more easily passed from generation to generation than DC Comics,” Dale Nelson, an IP attorney at Donaldson Callif Perez LLP who has helped grow and protect Warner Bros. IP, told Observer.

Though prequels, sequels, remakes, reboots, or spinoffs have declined slightly recently, they still represent the second largest IP source. (This explains the fourth Captain America movie). 

Manga, the primary source material for Japanese anime, has risen in recent years as headlined by Netflix’s One Piece. 

The share of titles based on real people and events has fallen since 2019, but stabilized just below 10 percent of annual film/TV premieres. True stories typically work better as films rather than TV series. “Most of the real-life stories are not necessarily long-form,” Jason Cherubini, co-founder and CFO of film and media production company Dawn’s Light Media, told Observer. “People know the endings so when you go episode-to-episode, there’s no real mystery.” 

Video game adaptations now enjoy commercial success after three decades of futility. Hollywood has effectively anointed the medium as comic books’ heir apparent for blockbuster entertainment. Interestingly, a clear divergence between family-friendly video game films (The Angry Birds Movie, Sonic the Hedgehog, The Super Mario Bros. Movie and now A Minecraft Movie) and adult-skewing video game TV series (The Witcher, The Last of Us, Twisted Metal, Fallout) has emerged. But unlike the ‘90s button-mashing approach to gaming, this is no accident. 

“Family-friendly stories like Super Mario are just using the IP for awareness but creating their own stories using the characters,” Dawn’s Light Media’s Cherubini said. “A lot of the more mature video games already have cinematic stories of their own and need to be given multiple weeks to achieve the same level of immersion and world-building.” 

While billion-dollar movies, hundred-hour video games and immersive TV dominate traditional entertainment, franchises cannot reach full potential without organic and earned media. Nelson emphasized social media’s importance for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. “If younger generations aren’t seeing it on their phones, then they’re not seeing it at all,” she said. Blumhouse targeted these younger consumers with the video game adaptation Five Nights at Freddy’s, delivering one of 2023’s most profitable films with a sequel on the way. 

How profitable is IP-based content for different streamers?

Different platforms leverage different IP to different effect. Disney+ leads the pack with 45 percent of its library comprising IP-based content, generating more than 60 percent of its estimated U.S. and Canada (UCAN) revenue in Q4 2024, according to Parot Analytics. It’s the most reliant major streamer on IP overall, which isn’t a surprise given the deluge of Marvel and Star Wars shows we’ve seen.

Apple TV+ boasts impressive efficiency as its 32 percent IP-based library delivered 54 percent of its UCAN revenue in Q4 2024—the strongest performance among the eight major U.S. streamers. It’s developed a knack for getting more value out of literary IP than its streaming rivals. 

Hulu shows more modest returns, with IP content (32 percent of library) generating nearly equal revenue (35 percent). 

On Netflix, IP accounts for 34 percent of its U.S. library and 48 percent of UCAN revenue. The market-leader leaves no stone unturned when seeking its next pop culture phenomenon. 

Surprisingly, Amazon Prime Video maintains the smallest IP footprint at just under 30 percent, despite its global scale and ambitions. In this way, it’s the most original-focused streamer. 

“Ultimately, the platforms that succeed are the ones that recognize that not all IPs are created equal,” Christena Garduno, CEO at the performance marketing agency Media Culture, told Observer. “Understanding audience behavior—when they want a one-time event versus a long-term viewing commitment—is key to driving both acquisition and retention.” 

In the 1950s, Walt Disney created a famous flywheel—where each business element drove value to another—that quickly became the decade-spanning strategic model for entertainment companies of all sizes. Today, in our fractured media ecosystem with rapidly changing audience behaviors and unprecedented competition for attention spans, we must delve one layer deeper. If content truly still is king, creators and studios must deliver it across all available distribution pathways—films/TV, video games, books/comics, etc. This requires brands to methodically develop interconnected strategies that keep them competitive on all fronts. 

This challenge resembles teaching your golden retriever to drive. It’s proven nearly impossible for many who have attempted it over a sustained period of time. Yet this approach helped transform the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) into Hollywood’s most dominant franchise—and could potentially help it recover from its current rut. 

Derick Tsai, CEO of the intellectual property development studio Magnus Rex, recently penned an essay about what he calls “medium mapping,” a story-telling approach that strategically pairs specific narratives with the mediums best suited to tell them creatively. Different formats offer distinct strengths and weaknesses, so identifying how specific content enhances the overall IP experience becomes crucial. “When you map the right story to the right medium, you don’t just expand the IP—you make it feel deeper, richer and more intentional,” Tsai told Observer. 

Movies most effectively introduce an IP’s world, themes and characters to the widest possible audience. Television excels at developing long-form character arcs. Video games allow players to live and control decisions within a story. Comics and books enable fans to explore untapped histories, settings and characters within an IP’s universe that may not center stage on-screen.

When executed properly, medium mapping delivers both revenue and fandom. It provides multiple engagement points for fans, creating more access points and entryways into a franchise through new stories and wish fulfillment between major releases. Consider Insomniac’s beloved Spider-Man video game or watching Loki on Disney+. This is key to ongoing fandom development, not just maintaining an existing fanbase. It also extends the brand’s reach and earning potential by creating a varied ecosystem to capture consumer spending. Fans buy movie tickets, subscribe to streaming services, read comics, play video games and buy merchandise. This business model offers higher upside than just producing one-off movies.

“Effective medium mapping turns a franchise into a lifestyle—and that’s where both loyalty and long-term revenue live,” Tsai said. 

Marvel’s success formula

Marvel’s Infinity Saga (2008-2019), culminating in the record-breaking success of Avengers: Endgame, succeeded largely because the studio synthesized decades of comic book material into emotionally resonant content that anyone could enjoy. Studio president Kevin Feige and his creative partners led with a character-first ethos that grounded stories with human stakes that all demographics connected with. 

Other brands, such as the now-defunct DC Extended Universe, deconstructed the superhero mythos and positioned characters such as Superman and Wonder Woman as gods. Marvel, meanwhile, emphasizes its characters’ humanity. Audiences fell in love with Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark, not just Iron Man (as evidenced by the largely out-of-suit Iron Man 3). This character wasn’t just a billionaire with great tech, he was a rich prick who grew a conscience, a classic archetype. Captain America was a man out of time desperately searching for a foothold in a world that had passed him by. Thor was a god learning humility. Marvel scaled these relatable character tenets across multiple mediums, explaining the success of Disney+ shows like WandaVision and Loki, the millions of cosplayers creating elaborate (and expensive) homages, and the popularity of games like Marvel Rivals. Both main and ancillary content prioritized human journeys while satisfying essential storytelling needs. 

It’s no secret that the MCU has hit some creative and commercial turbulence since Thanos turned to dust in 2019. Though the franchise still reaches atmospheric highs (Spider-Man: No Way Home earned $1.9 billion while Deadpool & Wolverine grossed $1.3 billion), its historically elite consistency has faltered. A few tweaks could help restore balance. 

Marvel needs to reclaim its character-first approach. Recent Multiverse saga installments have either shouldered too much world-building burden (like The Marvels trying to connect WandaVision, Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel and the X-Men) or been mapped onto the wrong medium for the story (Secret Invasion needed to be a movie with better writing). Interestingly, Tsai saw Wicked as last year’s best example of a Marvel-type movie—a rousing story about a character with abilities overcoming societal prejudice and inner doubt. Recent Marvel projects have struggled to recreate these emotional beats that were common across the MCU’s franchise pillars in phases one to three. 

Medium mapping plays a key role in building hype, as not all platforms carry equal weight. Introducing Jonathan Majors’ Kang (intended as the Multiverse Saga’s Big Bad successor to Thanos) on Disney+ and expecting audiences to follow him to theaters proved too ambitious. His big screen debut in Ant-Man: Quantumania resulted in the second-largest second-week box office drop (down 70 percent) and ninth-smallest global gross ($476 million) in MCU history. Success depends on matching each story to the right format and following through with the right expansion. 

Immersive experiences now provide a premium (and rapidly growing) frontier for IP expansion. Super Nintendo World and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme parks recreate beloved environments, bridging fans from source material to tangible fantasy. This explains Disney’s expansion of Avengers Campus to include Avengers Infinity Defence and Stark Flight Lab as part of the company’s 10-year, $60 billion investment into parks and experiences. 

“When it works, you get asymmetrical returns—one hit can lift an entire ecosystem,” Tsai explained. The Super Mario Bros. Movie is a great example of a successful film revitalizing interest in other facets of a franchise—game sales, merchandise, and park attendance.

Like all things, of course, there exists a downside. In failure, a single project can be an anchor on commercial prospects. Tsai points out that last year, Hasbro reported a 17 percent year-over-year decline in revenue driven in part by audience fatigue with partner brands Marvel and Star Wars. Quality control across such prodigious franchise content space is massively challenging, as seen with the poor reception and sales of DC’s 2024 video game Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League and the shoddy VFX across Marvel properties recently. As fans grow stale on an avalanche of uneven content, the entire ecosystem falters. 

Marvel’s winning streak couldn’t continue forever—every Hollywood fad is finite. However, this franchise and other ambitious IPs must focus on multi-platform medium mapping to reach new heights. They must be omnipresent without becoming oversaturated, prioritizing strategic content expansion over sheer volume. (The driving Golden Retriever is sounding more believable at this point, right?). As the next layer of Disney’s famous flywheel, this approach remains the most effective way to create a universe that drives fan development, engagement and revenue. Most importantly, it’s a pathway back to great storytelling that satisfies fans. 

The film and television ecosystem revolves around intellectual property (IP)—anything based on pre-existing material such as comic books, novels, video games, podcasts and musicals and including remakes, reboots, revivals, prequels, sequels and spinoffs. This IP-driven industry is propelled forward on the back of its inertia. As much as your Film Twitter bubble and TikTok comments section blame Hollywood for the perceived death of originality, the unvarnished truth remains: the entertainment industry simply gives people what they want. Audiences vote with their wallets, and originality and new-to-screen concepts have lost in a landslide over the last 15 years.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Newness can absolutely still break out in a big way (see: John Wick, The White Lotus, etc.) to become valuable IP themselves. But the recent misfires of pricey originals and/or first-time adaptations across the big and small screens slot into a longer-term data trend. This trend suggests Hollywood should invest even more into IP to feed the desires of its audience. Blasphemous, I know. But it doesn’t exclude creative ambition. 

The widening gap between original and IP-based programming

Hollywood is going through a painful contraction. The number of English language TV series airing each year has dropped every year since 2022; the number of wide theatrical releases from major studios is below pre-Covid levels; and annual domestic box office revenue from 2021 to 2024 runs $2 billion to $3 billion behind 2017-2019. The industry needs more attention and more money. That’s where leaning even deeper into IP helps as the audience craves familiarity.

Between 2020 to 2024, only about 12 percent of new shows and movies were based on pre-existing IP, according to Parrot Analytics. After peaking in 2021, the share of new premieres based on pre-existing IP trended downward for both shows and movies. What does this mean? IP-based TV series and movies don’t account for a major share of the overall supply—yet both punch far above their weight commercially.

Thirteen of the 30 most-watched titles on streaming (licensed series, original series and movies) in the U.S. in 2024 were based on pre-existing material, according to Nielsen. This includes seven of the 10 most-watched streaming originals, including Netflix’s Bridgerton and Amazon’s Fallout. Of the top 66 movies to earn at least $100 million domestically in the last three years, 47 (71 percent) were a part of an established franchise, per analyst Entertainment Strategy Guy (whose newsletter I couldn’t recommend highly enough). ESG points out that just three of the top 50 domestic grossers in that span (Elemental, Migration, Nope) were completely original non-franchise films that weren’t based on real life events or adapted from source material (though Oppenheimer and The Sound of Freedom were, they still qualify as new-to-screen concepts). 

Now is a good time to clarify that we are specifically looking at high-performing titles. Why? Because films that barely register at the box office or TV shows that fail to capture significant tune-in do not move the needle. I loved Sundance Channel’s Rectify and Tim Blake Nelson’s boxing movie Bang Bang, but you’d struggle to find five people outside the entertainment industry to discuss them with.

Interestingly, the global demand share for IP-based movies has fallen slightly over the last five years, while the demand share for IP-based TV series has grown. Yet, IP remains overrepresented among the top ranked titles—and that’s not an accident. If we look at the 100 most in-demand titles each year, around 40 to 50 percent of the top 100 TV shows and 70 to 80 percent of the top 100 movies are based on pre-existing IP, per Parrot Analytics.

Fresh approaches to familiarity

Further embracing intellectual property does not automatically mean homogenizing programming across film and TV. The tone, style and point of view largely depend on the creatives calling the shots. New-to-screen hits can emerge from all manner of sources, providing diverse arrays of potential storytelling approaches. 

Sony, which owns PlayStation, has helped reverse the trend of video game adaptations in recent years. HBO’s The Last of Us represents the rare breed of elevated prestige genre fare that also delivers massive ratings. It’s smart but broad. Peacock’s Twisted Metal occupies the opposite end of the post-apocalyptic spectrum as a wacky action-fueled dark comedy. Uncharted wasn’t my cup of tea, but it made more than $400 million while theaters were still recovering from the pandemic. Universal’s Illumination will surely build out more animated Nintendo adaptations following The Super Mario Bros. Movie’s success. 

Filmmaker Jon M. Chu has leveraged lively Broadway musicals to deliver a critically acclaimed Covid-era flop in In The Heights and the breakout franchise-launching blockbuster Wicked. (I may or may not be destroying my neighbor’s ears with my butchered renditions of “Defying Gravity” right now). Hamilton attracted more than 2.8 million U.S. households in its first 12 days on Disney+. Though skepticism seems warranted, toy company Mattel is developing 19 movies (!) after Barbie demonstrated how a unique filmmaker-driven vision paired with atypical IP can succeed. 

Even 2024’s most-watched streaming originals run the gamut of IP and tone: 

• Bridgerton (romance novels); 
• The Boys (hyper violent comic books); 
• The Lincoln Lawyer (legal drama novels that had already been adapted to the big screen); 
• Fallout (video games); 
• Futurama (a revival of a legacy linear animated comedy); 
• Fool Me Once (yet another successful Harlan Coben mystery novel adaptation); 
• Reacher (action drama novels that also previously received the big screen treatment);
• Let’s also include Young Sheldon and Law & Order: SVU, two spin-off series that made Nielsen’s top 10 most-watched acquired series list for the year. 

These underscore the recyclable formats of sitcoms and procedurals within an IP framework. 

There’s little doubt that an over-reliance on IP results in fertile franchise ground being overexploited: Marvel and Star Wars has lost some luster after a groundswell of subpar streaming products; the Fast & Furious franchise battles waning domestic interest; the Lord of the Rings franchise feels scattered; and the less said about the Fantastic Beasts movies, the better. But these failures stem more from inconsistent creative execution than IP itself. When creative craftsmanship comes first, projects like Top Gun: Maverick and the new Dune films can revitalize older IP. By the same token, originality and new-to-screen concepts will always be critical to Hollywood’s sustained success. John Wick started life as a modestly budgeted original action film. Now, its four films have grossed more than $1 billion, and there’s the spinoff series The Continental and upcoming spinoff film Ballerina. Content development is cyclical as the original gambles of today can become the reliable IP franchises of tomorrow. 

But as the challenges facing the industry compound, IP-based TV series and films tend to boast higher floors. The overall volume of such projects remains low. The track record of success at the highest levels is undeniable. This is what audiences have consistently shown they want based on money and time spent. It doesn’t preclude fresh ideas from reaching our screens, but it may help cut down on costly misfires that damage bottom lines. So before bemoaning Hollywood’s IP obsession, remember: in entertainment economics, audiences have already cast their vote. The industry is simply responding accordingly.