Is Streaming Fatigue Driving Audiences Back to Cinemas?
By Dan Bremner - October 21, 2026
There was a time in the 2010s when streaming felt like pure liberation. New films and entire seasons of television appeared on the sofa at the press of a button. No more waiting, no more late fees, no more arguing with the bloke at the counter about whether the disc was scratched when you rented it. I fell for it hard. Then the novelty wore off, the catalogues filled with sludge, and the whole enterprise started to feel like a polished con. These days I keep Apple TV mainly because their hit-rate of actually good shows still puts most of the industry to shame, and Amazon Prime largely for the beautiful Reacher series and whatever Mike Flanagan is doing with Carrie. Everything else can wait. Audiences are finally catching up to the same realisation: the streaming model is soulless, empty and increasingly vapid.
How Did Streaming Lose Its Appeal?
Netflix began the shift in the late 2000s when it moved beyond posting DVDs and started offering films and television directly online. The real statement of intent arrived in 2015 with Beasts of No Nation, a real film with actual craft that happened to premiere on the service. For a brief window it felt like the future. Then every major studio scrambled to launch its own platform, convinced that owning the pipe was more important than what flowed through it. The result was a gold rush that produced more content than anyone could watch and less that anyone particularly wanted to.
COVID accelerated everything. With cinemas closed and the population stuck indoors, streaming became the only game in town. Films that had been destined for theatres were delayed, dumped onto expensive Premium VOD, or, in Warner Bros’ infamous case, dropped day-and-date onto HBO Max. It was the bleakest period modern cinema has endured. People consumed whatever was put in front of them because there was no alternative. The numbers looked healthy on paper. The long-term damage to theatrical habits was harder to measure at the time.
One of the more promising prospects of streaming, and its seemingly bottomless pockets, was the brief window when it became a destination for beloved directors to get passion projects made with enormous budgets and almost no studio interference over final cut. For a few years the model delivered: Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, David Fincher’s The Killer, Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma, Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein. The films were acclaimed and dutifully pushed toward awards. Most of them, however, never pulled the viewing figures required to justify the spend. Many big-name directors have since jumped ship from Netflix or migrated to platforms that still promise meaningful theatrical windows. The auteur boom on streaming has slowed dramatically. It is good that those films exist, yet the muted audience response also proved a simple point: when serious directors make serious work, most people still sense it belongs on a big screen, not as another thumbnail in an endless scroll.
Has Streaming Sacrificed Quality for Quantity?
There was a moment when a new Netflix original still felt like an event. House of Cards (disgraced lead and all), the early seasons of The Mandalorian, even Beasts of No Nation itself carried a sense of occasion. That aura has evaporated. Shows now routinely lose half their audience between seasons. Long gaps kill momentum. Quality control seems optional. The original films are even more telling. Netflix will trumpet the viewing figures for something like Red Notice, The Grey Man or The Electric State as if they were cultural phenomena. Ask around in real life and you will struggle to find a single person who actually finished them. Sequels and spin-offs were announced with great fanfare on release weekend, years later most of them have quietly vanished. If these titles were genuine successes, the public would be demanding more. The silence is instructive.
One quieter casualty has been the movie star. Actors who spend too much time in the soft-focus glow of streaming start to look like people you already see at home for free. Mark Wahlberg is the clearest example. The man has churned out so much disposable streaming product that when he occasionally shows up in a theatrical release it barely registers. Audiences have been trained to treat his face as background furniture. The big-screen event quality that once attached to certain names has been steadily eroded by the sheer volume of forgettable work.
The practical problem is simpler and more annoying. Everything is now scattered across Netflix, Disney+, Max, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple TV, Prime and a dozen smaller services. You subscribe to three of them and the film you actually want is on the fourth. Prices keep rising while the libraries feel thinner. It is a pain in the arse by design. The old cable-bundle complaints have simply been repackaged with better graphic design.
On the technical side, the picture quality these services actually deliver is simply not good enough. Low bitrates, heavy compression and frequently mediocre HDR implementation mean that the “4K” and “Dolby Vision” badges are more marketing than reality. Even on a high-end OLED with a strong connection, a streamed film rarely approaches the clarity, depth or stability of a 4K Blu-ray. In many cases it struggles to match a well-authored standard Blu-ray, which is itself already a compromise compared with a properly projected cinema image. Fine detail turns to mush in movement, dark scenes fill with banding or noise, and the overall image has a soft, processed flatness that becomes more obvious the larger the screen. You can spend a fortune on the display and the speakers: the service will still bottleneck everything. The depressing part is how few people seem to notice or care. An alarming number of viewers never switch off the motion-smoothing setting on their televisions, so even a carefully photographed blockbuster ends up looking like an episode of Coronation Street shot on the world’s most expensive soap-opera camera. If you visit older relatives over the holidays, do them and the film a favour: find the remote, hunt down the motion settings, and turn that garbage off.
Are Audiences Finally Returning to Cinemas?
Over the past few years cinema has been quietly recovering. Mid-budget original dramas still struggle, but horror and big franchise filmmaking have come roaring back. The same voices that spent years insisting “nobody goes to the cinema anymore” have been unusually quiet while The Odyssey sailed past $1.7 billion with IMAX screens still selling out months later, and Spider-Man: Brand New Day joined the rare two-billion-dollar club. Low-budget horror has been even more outrageous. A million-dollar film like Obsession clearing $500 million, or the YouTube-derived series adaptation Backrooms doing $400 million on a modest budget, suggests audiences will still leave the house when the proposition is clear.
Why Can't Streaming Compete with the Big Screen?
Premium formats have become the quiet weapon. 3D was a post-Avatar fad that mostly trained people to avoid the upcharge; the booking data still shows it lagging far behind other premium options. IMAX and premium large-format screens, by contrast, are thriving. Not every film benefits, Digger managed only $20 million against a reported $180 million cost despite the VistaVision push and IMAX push, but when the combination of scale and spectacle lands, it lands hard. Oppenheimer, Sinners, One Battle After Another, Project Hail Mary and The Odyssey all proved that a properly presented 70mm or IMAX engagement can still feel like an event no living-room setup can match. Studios have noticed. Shawn Levy’s Star Wars: Starfighter, an untitled J.J. Abrams project at Paramount, Ryan Coogler’s next Black Panther, and even a 50th-anniversary remaster of the 1977 Star Wars are all leaning into the 70mm IMAX format.
Is Cinema Back?
For a few years the answer looked uncertain. A combination of factors has shifted the mood: the visible mediocrity of much streaming product, the exhaustion of juggling too many subscriptions, the simple pleasure of an event film, the superiority of premium projection, and the irreplaceable feeling of watching something with a room full of strangers. Streaming will always have a place for the films and shows that nobody needs to discuss the next day. For anything that still aspires to be an occasion, cinema has reasserted itself as the proper venue. Even with Netflix’s “we are a streaming company” motto, they have begun to adjust, granting Greta Gerwig’s big-budget Narnia a wide theatrical rollout and giving David Fincher’s The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth an IMAX run before it eventually lands on the service. I'm thinking yeah, cinema's back.
For more features, reviews, and deep dives into film and TV, keep it locked to Film Focus Online.
Dan Bremner
Writer
Dan is a writer from Guildford with a love for all things genre, schlocky, and thoroughly '80s, and a part-time philanthropist.
Want your film or TV show reviewed by Dan? Contact us.
