Streaming Is Not Ruining Cinema, Directors Are - An Essay

This is something I’ve been wanting to write for a long time. A few years back, in 2021, I actually spent an entire year watching movies—365 of them. Of course, some were films I had already seen. I rewatched favorites around Christmas or my birthday, and others were movies I had only partially seen as a kid in the ’90s—films that I couldn’t remember and I thought, “What the heck was that actually about?” So I went back, rewatched them properly and made up for a lot of things I missed out on.

There were also films I remembered only from posters my sister had in her room. I remembered the casting vividly but had no idea what they were about. And then there were sequels—so many films had sequels I never saw or even knew existed. I was curious. 

As I got into it, I started watching more and more films, including classics. I watched Citizen Kane (1941) for the first time and understood why it’s considered a masterpiece. It’s a brilliant film that honestly still holds up today. But there were others where I definitely hit the speed button—like Gone with the Wind (1939). At one point, I slowed it back down just to hear how the characters spoke, and it sounded exactly the same as when it was sped up. It was ridiculous, and I still laugh thinking about it. Yes, it has iconic scenes, but it’s also a four-hour film…

Side note: when I told my mom I had watched it, she said, “The book is better.” And I just thought, “Oh, mother, there are entire communities on the internet that would cherish you.” That memory always makes me laugh.

After watching 365 films, I realized something: every three-hour movie could be two hours, and every two-hour movie could be 90 minutes. It’s ridiculous how long movies have become.

Now, don’t get me wrong—I love movies. I think storytelling in film is exceptional. I love focused, intimate stories, and I also love chaotic, multi-thread narratives. I enjoy Christmas films, sci-fi, action—everything. And honestly, I feel like action movies are being overlooked. Films like Ballerina (2025) and The Running Man (2025) were phenomenal. I had such a great time with them. Sometimes the films I expect the least from end up surprising me the most. Twisters (2024), the sequel to Twister (1996), was incredible. I even brought friends to see it in the cinema multiple times. It’s refreshing to watch films that aren’t trying to reinvent the wheel—they just tell a story, look good, and deliver action. That’s enough. I don’t need constant reinvention. I’m tired of people trying to redefine genres instead of simply making enjoyable films.

I once attended a talk by an old cinema projectionist. He told incredible stories about working with film reels—rewinding them, transporting them between cinemas, even running them through hallways to screen multiple films at once. It was fascinating. He also explained that movies became popular partly because they became shorter—around 90 minutes—allowing cinemas to show them multiple times a day, as they managed to rewind the reels much much faster. That efficiency helped grow the audience.

So what happened exactly, besides difficulties caused by covid, that lead to a somewhat decrease in the success of cinema? Well, people blame streaming, but I don’t think that’s the real issue.

From watching so many films, I’ve noticed that length is a major problem. Anything over three hours immediately feels excessive and I find myself actually breaking it up into multiple parts. Streaming came in, and people stopped going to theaters as much, at least they claim, although publishers put movies on streaming way too fast. And not only that, studios keep trying to squeeze life out of dead franchises instead of creating new ones.

Right now, there’s a lack of major cultural franchises. There’s no Hunger Games-level phenomenon capturing younger audiences (even with its spin-offs). Attempts like Divergent failed, it was just too soon and too similar. Remaking Harry Potter won’t fix anything. They already mishandled Fantastic Beasts. Money, money, money, money, money... It’s time to move on. I think perhaps the Fifty Shade films were the last successful attempt, and now Dune is really taking over, finally we have a franchise to look forward to, but needless to say, those are HUGE movies as well, over two hour run times and are massive undertakings of cinematic abilities, with VFX and CGI walking onto newer paths everyday. So I'm not saying that there is nothing good out there, because I also hate people who claim that "They don't make movies like they used to anymore", cause bitch... if you have not seen a single movie from the 80s, 70s, or the 60s, in your attempt to go back to the good old days, then you are just complaining to complain, and you have not had a single smart thought in years. 

The industry is going ahead and there are a lot of good things out there, yet cinema is... struggling. 

The number one problem that I identified is that marketing is terrible: I follow multiple trailer channels and still miss releases entirely. Then studios wonder why people don’t show up... Meanwhile, platforms like Netflix I think excel at marketing. They create interviews, extra content, and even original YouTube shows that interact with the shows and films made for their service. That’s smart promotion. HBO and Paramount can hate on Netflix all they want, but they are doing some very smart things. All these platforms are creating a lot of shows that they don't even keep on their platforms anymore because of mistakes in copyright, it's truly ridiculous. I am not saying that streaming services are without fault, but I would also not blame them blindly.

Then comes the big question: how do you bring people back to theaters?

Apparently—popcorn buckets. I have seen a lot of silly ones, I got a cool Godzilla one myself, and the Mission: Impossible one was insane, it was super expensive as well, but people love to collect these and despite the prices they are being sold with huge success. (Read about here.)

And honestly, I’m not surprised. But the real issue is film length.

Studios give massive creative freedom to directors like Tarantino, Scorsese, and James Cameron, and they produce films that feel endless. I’m not paying a fortune to sit through a four-hour movie while trying not to drink water.

And yes, the prices of tickets is also a factor of the problem that cannot be ignored, because I personally might feel better about missing a bit of the film to run to the toilet, but for the price I'm paying right now, I would rather not miss anything.

Give me a two-hour theatrical version and release the extended cut on streaming. It worked for The Lord of the Rings, we had solutions before, and I want to emphasize that example because DVDs are not around anymore. So if we are going to revolutionize DVDs then it is time to provide a space for director cuts and extended cuts as well, and that is not necessarily on the big screen. Add director commentaries and behind the scenes to streaming platforms as well! Even if I personally did not like the Justice League (2017) movie, I still have to admit that as a good example, that the Snyder cut was better having only been released on streaming, it really benefited from this approach.

Let audiences enjoy long versions at home, where they can pause.

This issue is even being mocked in shows like The Studio, where the producers are too afraid to challenge big directors. That’s the problem—no one edits them anymore. There was an episode with Ron Howard making a film, everybody loving it, but then at the very end his film had an almost one hour of extra materials, plot wise insignificant, of people just pensively looking into the wilderness, and that's it. And the whole joke was that nobody had the courage to tell Ron Howard that he shouldn't do this, because... he is f*cking Ron Howard. This one episode already zoomed in on the issue that the essay focuses on, that some big names have been given an immense amount of artistic liberty in order to "save cinema" and it isn't working.

Take Avatar—visually stunning, yes, but narratively repetitive. And then I understand the behind-the-scenes work of people who deal with CGI and VFX—these artists demonstrate fantastic craftsmanship when it comes to how films are created digitally. I understand the need for movies like Avatar, but then give that responsibility to someone who actually wants to write a compelling story. Maybe—just maybe—it would be nice if we actually had a plot in the movie. That’s something audiences still need every now and then, because otherwise all these graphics, CGI, and VFX elements could just as well exist as side projects or be used in short films. You could even create competitions, with people participating in the same types of challenges—I’ve seen things like this on YouTube. People there are incredibly talented and creative, yet developers refuse to invest in new creative voices. Instead, they keep putting money behind the same big directors, and those big names are old—very old.

They have these huge scripts in front of them—projects they wrote ages ago, knowing they would never get made because people kept telling them, “It has to be a hundred pages or shorter. We can’t make this.” And now it’s finally their time. But the material isn’t polished. It’s not the greatest thing they’ve ever written. It’s not nothing—it’s a good film, because these are talented directors with strong ideas. But at the same time, it’s just not good enough. It simply isn’t good. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) by Tarantino: I loved the concept of this alternate history with a tragedy being prevented, but... did we really need extended scenes like watching Brad Pitt drive home for minutes on end? What does that tell me? What did we learn from this? 

These films often feel indulgent rather than necessary.

Blaming streaming ignores reality. Look at Zootopia 2 (2025)—a shorter, accessible film that performed incredibly well last year, truly beating any and all expectations. People still go to the cinema when the experience is enjoyable, and they bring the whole family!!! Prices are insane now and not only whole families got tickets for a cartoon, I'm sure they also bought the popcorn buckets and the oversized coke to go with it. 

I recently watched Project Hail Mary (2026)—a great film, but it could have ended 30 minutes earlier. When audiences are thinking, “This could have ended sooner,” that’s not a good sign. (Visually stunning, so make sure you see it! I'm sure it is a very good adaptation, but not every book translates as well when adapted.)

Even classics like The Godfather Part III could have been shorter, because the first two had a lot of story that justified it's length. Nonetheless, my local cinema did screen the first film again, but even if I love it... I couldn't bring myself to watch it, for that price? Knowing I will have to go to the bathroom anyway? No.

And I went to the movies 17 times last year, that is how much I love movies. I went to old screenings, I saw things twice, I saw them in original and sometimes dubbed. I f*cking love films. I want to go more. but the length of Dune and Doomsday is not getting me excited at all.

So, I am a sucker for the movie theater. I went and took my mom to see My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 (2023), and we had a blast. I went to see The Running Man—highly recommend it. Twisters and Ballerina from the last couple of years were fantastic. I love Mission: Impossible (2025), and that’s exactly the kind of film you have to see in theaters. Honestly, I didn’t feel it was too long—I loved it, just before you assume that I have some issue with a film that is over two hours, not at all. My issue is when that length adds nothing to the plot. A lot of people didn’t react well to Episode 8, but I don’t care. It was right up my alley, and I really loved the casting, the choices, the story, and how it was made. And Tom Cruise is going to Tom Cruise his way through a movie, no matter what. Think of the immense success that Barbie (2023) was because there was a proper marking behind the film. 

Truly too many big names are given liberties.  I have written my dissertation on old films by Scorsese, but the new ones I just refuse to see. I don’t need to watch them in theaters because I already know—from a mile away—what they’re going to be about, and I know they’ll be much longer than they need to be. So is giving this kind of artistic freedom to directors really the answer to saving Hollywood? Is it popcorn buckets? Or is it perhaps actual marketing—real marketing where you see normal trailers that don't spoil an entire film? Wouldn’t that be a faster and more effective way to reach audiences?

I don’t know—you tell me. Tell me what’s wrong. But I was not surprised by the success of Zootopia 2, and I am fairly certain that nobody truly enjoys a film if their bladder is about to explode.

But I’m far less interested in new films from Scorsese or Tarantino if they continue this trend of excessive length. And I am scared that more directors will follow this trend, simply because nobody will say not to Christopher Nolan film, or another Marvel super movie for that matter, no matter the cost or the final minute count.

So what’s the solution?

Better marketing. Smarter editing. Respect for audience time.

Make shorter theatrical cuts. Release extended versions on streaming. Create new franchises instead of recycling old ones.

Because people still love movies. Streaming hasn’t killed cinema—it’s just exposing what doesn’t work anymore. 

And honestly, no film is worth bursting you bladder for!