Connect with us

Business

Netflix might put Greta Gerwig's 'Narnia' in Imax theaters. Will it create a streaming blockbuster?

Published

on

Netflix might put Greta Gerwig's 'Narnia' in Imax theaters. Will it create a streaming blockbuster?

When Netflix releases big movies, even the ones that resemble Hollywood blockbusters, its approach is consistent: Get people to watch them on the streaming service, not in theaters.

In the cases where Netflix does put its films in cinemas, it does so in a limited fashion, primarily to build buzz or get awards consideration.

Could Netflix be poised to make a big exception?

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based streamer is in early talks with cinema tech provider Imax Corp. to bring its upcoming adaptation of “The Chronicles of Narnia” to its giant screens, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. The highly anticipated movie is based on the popular C.S. Lewis novels and directed by “Barbie” co-writer and director Greta Gerwig.

Discussions between Netflix, Imax and Gerwig, who has been a driving force on the issue, are preliminary at this stage, the people said. A deal may not happen. If an agreement solidifies, it would be Imax’s first deal for a theatrical window for a Netflix feature film.

Advertisement

The talks represent a potentially delicate balancing act for Netflix.

Netflix wants to work with the best filmmakers in the business, and many of them, including “The Irishman” director Martin Scorsese, want their movies shown on the big screen. But Netflix’s priority is its streaming service, which has nearly 283 million subscribers globally and generates billions of dollars in annual subscription revenue. Whenever Netflix executives are asked about whether they’ll do more in theaters, the response is the same: They like their streaming-first model.

Netflix and Imax declined to comment.

The discussions were earlier reported by Bloomberg and Puck News’ Matthew Belloni.

Some analysts and industry observers have been critical of Netflix’s movie strategy over the years, arguing that its films have struggled to enter the cultural zeitgeist in the way its TV shows have. Some felt Netflix left money on the table by only showing “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery,” Rian Johnson’s sequel to his popular murder mystery “Knives Out,” in just 700 theaters for a few days in 2022 before it became available for streaming.

Advertisement

Traditional movie studios put their movies in theaters for weeks and sometimes months before making them available for home viewing. When big studio movies are released early for digital consumption, it’s often as a $25 rental.

It also can be hard for a movie to break through the streamer’s large library of content. Netflix’s top movies of all time are action flick “Red Notice,” dark comedy “Don’t Look Up” and sci-fi movie “The Adam Project,” all movies released two or three years ago. Recent hits on the platform include Jeremy Saulnier’s “Rebel Ridge,” a relatively low-budget thriller. Netflix also does well with movies it licenses from other studios, including Universal Pictures.

“They’re trying to play catch-up with movies, and they’re 100 years behind,” said Michael Pachter, research analyst at Wedbush Securities. “And they’re never going to catch up.”

While Netflix has won a significant number of awards for its films, it has yet to win an Academy Award for best picture. It bought and restored the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood from the American Cinematheque in an effort to win over cinephiles and filmmakers. Netflix also owns the Bay Theater in Pacific Palisades, where it screens its own movies.

“Some of these films, in the context of that massive bandwidth of Netflix, you’re like a drop in the ocean,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “When a movie is in a movie theater, you’re not competing with unlimited hours of content, unlimited titles on a small screen you can scroll through.”

Advertisement

Domestic theatrical revenues are down significantly from pre-COVID-19 levels. But last year, movies like “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer” and romantic comedy “Anyone but You” received a significant boost in theaters as audiences kept coming through word-of-mouth and the hype of social media. Particularly with “Barbie,” fans dressed in pink to see it in theaters, making it an event.

This year has seen a strong showing for family-friendly films, with the box office success of animated movies such as “Inside Out 2.”

“The Chronicles of Narnia” fits into that genre as an epic tale with Christian undertones about a magical world and the four siblings who discover and rule it as kings and queens. The last three Narnia films, released theatrically in 2005, 2008 and 2010 by Disney and 20th Century Fox, generated $537.7 million in the domestic U.S. and Canada market, according to non-inflation-adjusted data from Comscore.

“If you look at Narnia, the depth and breadth of the fantasy world that it inhabits — having that level of detail … having that imagery presented in Imax is huge,” Dergarabedian said. “For a movie that is expected to be a visual extravaganza, such as Narnia would present, Imax is a perfect home for that.”

If Netflix were to partner with Imax, it would put Gerwig’s cinematic vision on screens highly coveted by filmmakers and studios. Imax has roughly 2,000 screens globally, with screens typically about 65 feet wide and 85 feet tall. Its biggest screens stretch to more than 125 feet tall. Imax specializes in “event” movies, often in the action-adventure genre that benefits from huge screens.

Advertisement

Over time, Netflix has sought to build excitement for its shows and movies through social media, consumer products and its live programming. The streamer has hosted balls themed around its romantic series “Bridgerton,” helping sustain excitement in between seasons, and has hosted other fan events to support shows like “Outer Banks.”

Netflix executives have defended its movie strategy. Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos said in an earnings presentation earlier this month that the streamer’s top 10 films that launch on Netflix have more than 100 million views.

“It’s our desire to keep adding value to our consumers for their subscription dollar,” Sarandos said. “We believe that not making them wait for months to watch the movie that everyone’s talking about adds that value.”

“The Chronicles of Narnia” will be one of the major movies on Netflix’s slate after naming Dan Lin as its new film chief earlier this year. Lin took over the position from Scott Stuber, who left in January to start his own company. It was Stuber who had pushed Netflix executives for theatrical releases of major films. Lin, who produced films including “It” and “The Lego Movie,” is not an evangelist for the theatrical model.

Under Lin, Netflix restructured its movie department to be grouped under genres instead of by size of budget.

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending