Why Watching Movies at Home Is the Future

I agree with Netflix’s core philosophy that most people, when given a real choice, would rather watch movies at home.

I understand the nostalgia attached to the movie theater because I grew up with it. Friday nights meant packed seats, previews rolling, and the feeling that you were part of something shared, and that experience mattered because it shaped how many of us first fell in love with movies. It still carries emotional weight, but nostalgia on its own is not a strategy for the future.

The world has changed, and the way people consume movies has changed along with it, which is why the case for theaters today is driven far more by emotion than by practicality. Watching a movie at home is no longer a compromise or a lesser option. For many people, it is simply the better experience. Large screens are common, sound systems are good enough for most living rooms, and viewers control the environment, the timing, and the interruptions. Being able to pause, rewind, or start a movie late, to watch with family or alone after a long day, fits naturally into how people actually live.

Most audiences already behave this way, even if the industry is reluctant to admit it. People wait for movies to hit streaming platforms, skip theatrical runs entirely, and watch when it fits their schedule rather than reshaping their lives around a showtime. This is no longer a niche preference or a temporary trend. It is the default behavior for a broad audience.

The theatrical model also limits its reach by design. Geography determines access, ticket prices filter who attends, and release windows are narrow and unforgiving. If a movie does not perform immediately, it is often written off before most people ever have a chance to see it, regardless of its quality or long-term appeal.

Streaming works in the opposite direction by removing friction instead of adding it. A movie released on a major platform can reach millions of people on the same day, across regions and time zones, without asking them to leave their homes or adjust their schedules. That kind of reach fundamentally changes how movies find an audience and makes it difficult to argue that theaters should remain the primary gatekeeper.

From a business perspective, this model is also more resilient. Streaming allows films to build an audience over time rather than living or dying by an opening weekend, and it replaces artificial pass-or-fail moments with a longer runway where word of mouth can actually matter. A movie can grow slowly instead of being declared a failure before it has a chance to breathe.

None of this means that theaters disappear or become irrelevant. There will always be movies that benefit from a theatrical setting and audiences who want that experience, especially when spectacle and scale are part of the appeal. Certain releases will still feel like events, and that has value.

What has changed is that theaters no longer need to sit at the center of the industry. They can exist as one option among many rather than acting as the primary gateway through which every movie must pass.

Netflix recognized this shift early and made a straightforward bet to meet people where they already are, respect how they live, and remove barriers instead of defending tradition for its own sake. That bet worked because it aligned with reality. People are busy, schedules are tight, and attention is fragmented, which means convenience is not a sign of laziness but a rational response to modern life.

I do not see the move toward home viewing as a loss for movies. I see it as an adjustment that has allowed more people to watch more films than ever before, with stories traveling farther, audiences becoming broader, and access becoming easier.

The future of movies is not defined by a building or a location but by reach, and right now the place where most people want to watch is at home.