~ Devanshu Mittal
Delhi : The recent shift in the ownership of Warner Bros taken over by Netflix is being celebrated in global financial circles as a landmark business deal. Valued at over 80 billion dollars, it brings together Netflix, one of the world’s largest streaming platforms and Warner Bros, one of the most influential legacy film studios. For investors, this merger promises scale, efficiency, and market dominance. But for filmmakers, writers, exhibitors, and audiences—especially in the non-west periphery—it raises serious and troubling questions. It is a cultural shift with deep consequences for storytelling, creativity, and the future of cinema as a shared public experience. Bhartiya cinema, with its diversity of languages, regions, and narrative traditions, stands vulnerable in this new age of consolidation. This consolidation brings the one-size-fits-all approach to the centre and directly threatens creative freedom and cultural diversity. Moreover, it challenges the ambition of Aatmanirbhar Bharat, even in the entertainment sector.
From Competition to Concentration
Earlier, Netflix and Warner Bros existed as two distinct creative entities. Warner Bros represented a century-old studio culture rooted in theatrical cinema, long-format storytelling, and strong creative unions. Netflix, on the other hand, symbolised speed, data-driven decisions, and global streaming dominance. With the merger, these two entertainment cultures will be forced into one uniform corporate structure. The danger lies not in collaboration, but in concentration. When multiple creative buyers are reduced to one giant decision-maker, diversity of taste and risk-taking declines. Filmmakers no longer pitch to different sensibilities; they pitch to a single algorithm-driven mindset. Director Vivek Agnihotri argues that like a forest, a healthy cultural ecosystem needs many players, many voices, and many entry points. A single giant, however powerful, blocks the light for smaller plants to grow.
The Age of “Walmart Storytelling”
This merger sets forth the arrival of what Vivek Agnihotri called “Walmart storytelling.” In this model, stories are treated like mass-produced goods. The Walmart stories are standardised, predictable, and designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. Global platforms often aim for a universal viewer. But in doing so, they flatten cultural complexity. Nuance, local specificity, and a so-called discomfort are slowly removed. What remains is safe, repeatable content tested by data rather than lived experience. This model does not censor stories openly. Instead, it quietly sidelines originality and dissent by rewarding sameness. Over time, films and series across cultures begin to resemble each other in tone, theme, and structure. The result is not global culture, but global uniformity.
What this means for Bhartiya Storytelling
From ancient epics and folk narratives to regional cinema and contemporary independent films, stories of Bharat are deeply rooted in culture, philosophy, and social reality. Despite nearly a decade of Netflix’s presence in Bharat, critics point out that very few original productions truly reflect thecivilisational depth. Most popular shows focus on urban crime, nihilism, or westernised youth narratives. These stories and characters may be set in Bharat, but they often lack Bhartiya worldview. The merger risks worsening this trend. When a single global giant controls content pipelines, Bharat’s stories will be filtered through global market logic. Regional films, social dramas, family stories, political narratives, throughout linguistic domain of Bharat already appear financially insignificant in comparison to global franchises like Harry Potter or DC films. When one company owns all the tentpoles, it no longer needs smaller tents.
The Decline of Theatrical Cinema
Another major concern raised by filmmakers relates to the future of theatres. Netflix has consistently shown limited commitment to the cinema-first model. Its theatrical releases are often brief and symbolic, designed mainly to qualify for awards rather than to build long-term audience engagement.Statements by Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos, where he previously described traditional theatrical releases as an “outdated concept,” have alarmed cinema owners worldwide. Although Sarandos later softened his stance and acknowledged that theatres and streaming can coexist, the platform’s business practices remain steadfast on the original statement. Many filmmakers argue that cinema is not just about content delivery, but about collective experience. American filmmaker Gregory Orr has emphasised that watching a film in a theatre is fundamentally different from watching it alone at home. In an age of growing isolation, the shared darkness of a cinema hall becomes socially and psychologically important. Renowned filmmaker James Cameron has gone even further, calling the takeover “a disaster.” According to Cameron, the value of cinema lies not just in the image, but in the intention behind its creation.
A New Company Raj?
Several critics have compared the dominance of American streaming platforms in Bharat to a modern-day Company Raj. Today, most major content in Bharat is controlled or distributed by a few global giants—Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Sony. Bharat built digital infrastructure and creative talent, but failed to build a global storytelling platform of its own. As a result, Bhartiya stories now travel through foreign-owned pipelines, governed by foreign priorities. While any streaming platform has not acquired or invested in any Bhartiya film studio but its policy of acquiring intellectual property and production partnership in Bhartiya films establish west-controlled narratives. This raises a crucial question of cultural sovereignty.
Why Aatmanirbhar Bharat Must Include Cinema
Cultural confidence and medium of conveying the cultural narrative are prerequisites for a Bharat that aspire to become Aatmanirbhar. Hollywood did not dominate the world by outsourcing its stories. Korea did not build its soft power by handing over its narratives. Cinema is soft power. Stories shape how nations are seen and how citizens see themselves.If Bhartiya filmmakers are forced to tailor stories for foreign algorithms, Bharat risks becoming a content supplier and consumer rather than a cultural leader. Aatmanirbhar Bharat cannot exist if stories of Bharat are owned, filtered, and monetised elsewhere.
Even in America, the merger has drawn strong reactions from the industry who have expressed concern over the shrinking number of powerful buyers in the industry. For creators and technicians, consolidation means weaker negotiating power, fewer opportunities, and greater job insecurity. A global monopoly further marginalises independent voices and pushes creators to conform to platform expectations. These concerns are equally relevant in Bharat. The Multiplex Association of India has warned that the merger could lead to reduced theatrical windows or even direct-to-streaming releases for major titles. This would severely impact distributors, technicians and the entire film economy that depends on cinema halls, especially in Bharat, where theatres are still central to film culture.
The Need to Rethink
The Netflix–Warner merger reminds us that culture cannot be treated purely as a commodity without consequences. This moment demands serious discussion. Policymakers, filmmakers, and audiences must ask hard questions:
1. Who controls Bhartiya stories?
2. Who benefits from cultural consolidation?
3. What happens to regional cinema?
4. Where does Aatmanirbhar ambition stand in a global monopoly?
If Bhartiya cinema values its plurality and sovereignty, it must invest in independent institutions and encourage diverse platforms. Resistance does not mean rejecting technology or global reach. It means demanding balance, regulation, and creative sovereignty. It means ensuring that Bhartiya stories are told in Bhartiya voices, not merely packaged for global consumption.
The world does not need more content. It needs more cultures.Cinema grows in freedom, not factories. Only if concerned sections of the society act with awareness, there is hope to preserve the richness of Bhartiya cinema. This merger is not just about who controls entertainment. It is about who controls imagination, and culture in long run. And that question matters to every society that values its stories.
(Writer is a Doctoral candidate at Indira Gandhi National Open University.)