I’m going to start this feature by admitting that part of the reason for writing it is annoyance (albeit I had been planning to write a similar feature for a while). I watched Alex Garland’s Annihilation on Netflix last week and I am annoyed. I am annoyed that I didn’t have the option to see the film in the cinema, and subsequently to have missed out on what I believe would have been a much more enhanced experience.

One of the biggest film debates that has arisen in the last few years is that of the impact of streaming services. It began with the argument that as people gained access to so many titles at their fingertips, they would be less likely to venture out into the cinemas, as chances were they could easily choose from a variety of films they hadn’t seen before without leaving their house (or paying additional money). The conversation has evolved, however, with the rise in original output from these streaming services. Original TV shows essentially lose nothing that they would have if they were actually on TV (some are even serialized now too, so the binging concept has become a much smaller part of the conversation), but as the number of original films has grown, it has posed an even greater threat to traditional cinematic viewing.

Whilst some films may be released in cinemas and be given a streaming release within a shorter timeframe than a DVD one, with many films now audiences are being cheated out of the option of seeing the film on the big screen at all. This can seriously reduce the spectacle of a picture; films are made for the big screen and that is often the best place in which to view them. One of the biggest issues lies amongst the films that were made with the big screen in mind, and it is only in the distribution phase that they have now found themselves to be ‘Netflix Originals’, for example. This is what happened with Annihilation, and part of the reason that made its relegation to the small screen so disappointing. It is a film with big ideas, and brilliant visuals, that the small screen just doesn’t do justice. The scope of the cinema screen, and the more immersive experience you generally tend to have in that dark, quiet room would have serviced this film so well. The fact that Garland made it with this experience in mind, means that we aren’t given the chance to see the film as the filmmaker intended, and thus are likely getting an inferior experience (the film was still incredible, but I can’t help but feel it would have been one of those unforgettable cinema trips). When films are made specifically for streaming, we are seeing the filmmaker’s vision as intended (even if, as an audience, we would have preferred the chance to see it on the big screen), otherwise a film is being made and then lost to a different medium that the one it was meant for.

That being said, one of the upsides of streaming services, such as Netflix, funding projects to become their original films, is the apparent creative freedom that the filmmakers receive. It seems to be the case that Netflix is more trusting of someone’s vision, and less likely to interfere (perhaps due to a decreased risk in not relying on ticket sales). This says something about the current state of the industry, and the overbearing nature of studios which seem primarily and increasingly focused in only investing in various cinematic universes. However, this presents another problem in widening the gap between the blockbuster (probably a superhero film or other franchise fare) and everything else. When the latest Marvel-type film already takes over cinema screens with countless showings a day, squeezing smaller-budgeted offerings into one showing a day, the rise of streaming services as the place to nurture mid-budget films may mean that soon they disappear from our cinemas altogether (and it isn’t as if all-female ensemble-led cerebral sci-fis are found in abundance anyway). This would cause a huge loss in variety, not to mention a drop in cinema audience numbers. However, perhaps the output of streaming services will serve as a kick to other distribution models to ensure they don’t lose all but the franchises to these platforms.

One of the big arguments on the side of promoting straight-to-streaming is that you’re more likely to get more people to potentially watch your film. Without the effort required to venture out to the cinema, people may watch the film that otherwise wouldn’t have. Likewise after the endless scrolling through Netflix, someone might settle on your film that just has a passing interest, rather than outright desire to see your picture. However, many get lost in the maze of films available, and some arrive with little-to-no fanfare – it isn’t like the cinema where there are months of trailers in the build-up to a release – plus, your audience is restricted to the pool of Netflix users. So, while, yes, streaming services may boost the chances of your film finding an audience, it is also just another one added to the thousands present on each platform, without the benefit of immediate word-of-mouth carried over from a cinematic release.

There are continually arising questions surrounding the ‘prestige’ of straight-to-streaming films also. Mudbound broke new ground in being nominated at the Oscars this year in some of the big categories (it had a very small theatrical release to qualify, but is still a ‘Netflix Original Film’), suggesting that the industry is moving with the times, and not looking down on these films as an equivalent to the much lamented and mocked ‘TV movie’. However, Cannes Film Festival has famously had issues with showing streaming originals (an ongoing feud), and a lot of straight-to-streaming films don’t get reviewed or covered alongside cinematic releases in film literature, indicating a lesser sense of importance or significance. However, the surprising announcement that cinematic giant Martin Scorsese’s next film is to find its home on Netflix suggests that the rift around streaming vs theatrical releases is one at the heart of the industry itself, not merely between companies enacting the former or latter model. We are in the early stages of original films being produced by multiple streaming services, so it seems as though we’ll have to wait to see which way favour falls.

There are pros and cons to the straight-to-streaming model, but it appears that the biggest issue floating around the conversation at the moment is the threat this poses to cinemas and filmmakers, as it seems to be taking us ever closer to the decline of the big screen experience.