If Netflix Gives Greta Gerwig’s ‘Narnia’ an Exclusive IMAX Release, It Risks Annoying Everyone Else

Netflix may have found the movie that forces it to break a cardinal rule, but that doesn't mean theaters are obliged to play along.

Ted Sarandos may be about to step through a wardrobe and into a wild, unpredictable world: the authentic theatrical release.

Netflix has been steadfast in its plan for members to watch its original movies on Netflix, not in theaters. Then again, Netflix was once steadfast in its stance against commercials. Platitudes were made to be broken, and the anti-theatrical attitude may be next to fall.

Greta Gerwig and Netflix are in discussions on a potential compromise that would get Gerwig’s upcoming adaptation of the “Chronicles of Narnia” book series into theaters ahead of the holidays. Netflix is in talks with IMAX to release “Narnia” on up to 1,800 screens (Puck reported 2,000 screens, but IMAX has just shy of 1,800) for as many to three to five weeks, which could allow a Thanksgiving theatrical release to be a Christmas streaming debut. A source close to the discussions confirms to IndieWire that these early conversations are taking place.

Gerwig would get another chance at box-office glory (she didn’t get IMAX for “Barbie;” Christopher Nolan got the screens for “Oppenheimer,” much to Tom Cruise’s chagrin), and Netflix can offer a “premium experience” for arguably its best franchise IP without going all-in on theaters. Win-win, right?

Rival studios won’t necessarily welcome the competition. But in theory, exhibitors would love the extra blockbuster and the vote of confidence for the theatrical window; audiences will appreciate being able to see “Narnia” the way Aslan intended; and IMAX, which would likely get the film exclusively, would really love it.

Then again, exhibitors might not be as thrilled as you think. IMAX operates approximately 400 domestic screens, almost half of which are run by AMC. Unlike other premium large-format screens (PLFs), IMAX controls the programming on those screens and takes a revenue share, so some theater chains, such as Cinemark (just 15 IMAX screens), prefer their own PLFs and putting the movies they want on them.

If “Narnia” goes into actual wide release on say, 2000 or more screens, exhibitors can program it as they please. However, one studio distributor told IndieWire that an IMAX exclusive “screws everybody else in exhibition” that doesn’t have enough of an IMAX footprint to make money off an exclusive run of “Narnia.” They added: It “becomes riches for the few and excludes everybody else.”

Would IMAX be willing to risk alienating other partners who may very well have their eyes on IMAX for the premium holiday corridor? Among the IMAX-hungry titles now mapped to the Thanksgiving window: “Wicked: Part 2” (2025), a new “Hunger Games” prequel from Lionsgate (2026) and Disney’s “Frozen III” (2027). Booting a movie from a regular partner would be bad enough; doing it for a company that actively avoids providing films to theater owners is, well, insulting.

It would also set a difficult precedent for Netflix: Certainly other filmmakers would demand the “Narnia” treatment. However, the distributor also believes it’s unlikely Netflix and IMAX would reach a one-off deal; Netflix would have to reach some sort of understanding about certain titles going theatrical in the future. You can’t put the witch back in the wardrobe.

Netflix, which acquired rights to adapt C.S. Lewis’ books series for TV and film in 2018, declined comment.

Last month, chief content officer Bela Bajaria dispelled rumors that Netflix would change its compensation model for talent. But she did mention two “bespoke deals” for films that gave the filmmakers more traditional back-end. Gerwig’s film could be one of them.

Netflix may also be pushed toward bespoke theatrical by the competition. Amazon is pushing more of its films to theaters and is reportedly tinkering with its own compensation strategy. Warner Bros. beat out Netflix’s bid for Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” film because it offered theatrical and more marketing dollars than Netflix, which opted for more money upfront. “Wuthering Heights” isn’t the first or last film that will prefer theatrical release.

If “Narnia” does lands in theaters, what’s the Netflix marketing commitment when that means paying to send subscribers and potential subscribers to not Netflix? Doing this screams to audiences that “Narnia” should be seen in theaters — not on Netflix. Studios pay upwards of nine figures to market tentpole films. IMAX’s own branding and marketing could give “Narnia” a boost, but “Oppenheimer” made $975 million worldwide; only $183.2 million came via IMAX.

Netflix does release movies in theaters. Many see a modest theatrical release for awards purposes; some, like “Red Notice” in 2021, even hit as many as 750 screens. But Netflix doesn’t report box office figures, so no one really knows how they perform.

The exception was 2022’s “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery,” which spent a week in about 700 theaters to gross $13.2 million. That was the first time AMC ever played a Netflix film, and the conventional wisdom is Netflix left millions on the table — but the movie is still on the streamer’s all-time Top 10 list.

For Gerwig’s film, the stakes are higher. In 2005, Disney’s “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” made $745 million ($1.39 billion in today’s dollars); “Barbie” made $1.44 billion. Those are dollar signs that even Netflix may be unable to ignore.