As 2025 comes to a close, I find myself reflecting on the state of the entertainment industry, both hopeful and nervous for what’s to come in the new year.
Something that will likely change the landscape of Hollywood for years to come and, depending on who you talk to, could spell the end of the theater-going experience all together, is the intense battle waging between Paramount and Netflix over ownership of Warner Bros. Discovery, which itself was the result of a merger between AT&T’s WarnerMedia and Discovery Inc. in 2022.
The media conglomerate initially announced a deal with Netflix on Dec. 5, but it wasn’t long before David Ellison’s Skydance Media, which bought Paramount this past summer, threw a wrench in the whole thing by attempting a hostile takeover.
That bid, according to a report from the BBC, is worth $108 billion and includes backing from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and a fund started by President J. Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
If Netflix secures the acquisition, it will own Warner Bros. Pictures, HBO, HBO Max, DC Studios, Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Games, New Line Cinema and TNT Sports (International), leaving CNN, TNT Sports and Discovery, HGTV, and 18 other channels for another buyer.
By contrast, Paramount’s bid would give it control over the entire company.
To say creatives in Hollywood are panicking over this would be an understatement. Afterall, the movie industry has been dealing with the cannibalization and dismantling of iconic, once mighty studios for years now, a slow death that was only hastened by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many have argued that the merger would violate anti-trust laws and give either Netflix or Paramount a monopoly on the industry that would hurt filmmakers and consumers. Given Netflix’s strange aversion to theatrical releases, and its statement that it would scale back release windows for Warner Bros. movies — which it has since walked back — many are also concerned that the sale would devastate the theatrical experience.
And then there’s the connection with the Trump family, which has raised ethical questions and fears of censorship and government overreach.
Artificial intelligence
The looming threat of AI is also on my mind going into the new year. Disney’s landmark $1 billion licensing agreement with OpenAI would allow Sora to “generate short, user-prompted social videos that can be viewed and shared by fans, drawing on more than 200 Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars characters.”
Art is made by human beings — fullstop — and I don’t want to see that creativity replaced by soulless, AI slop. It is an insult to the craft that I love so much, that so many people have put blood, sweat and tears into for over a century.
As the Writers’ Guild Association said, “Disney’s announcement with OpenAI appears to sanction its theft of our work and cedes the value of what we create to a tech company that has built its business off our backs.”
Still, there is hope. After all, Hollywood survived the Paramount Decision of 1948. It survived the collapse of the studio system and the advent of television. I have to believe it’ll survive all of this, too. It just might look a little different.
We’ve also suffered some heavy losses this year, none more heartwrenching and shocking as the deaths of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, photographer Michele Reiner, who were found stabbed in their home on Dec. 14.
I was in shock when I heard the news. I couldn’t believe it. I still don’t.
Reiner, apart from being lovingly remembered for his role in the 1970s sitcom “All in the Family,” was also the celebrated director of “This is Spinal Tap,” “The Princess Bride,” and my personal favorite, “When Harry Met Sally.”
He also played Jess’s dad on “New Girl,” one of my favorite TV shows of all time.
Watching “When Harry Met Sally” this New Year’s Eve, as I do every year, will look a little different. A movie that has always made me feel hopeful for love and life will now surely be clouded with deep sadness.
Its screenwriter Nora Ephron passed away in 2012. With Reiner’s death, both of the main creatives behind such a wonderful work of art are now gone.
While trying to remain positive amid grief and uncertainy, here are three films I’m looking forward to seeing in 2026.
‘Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping’ (Nov. 20)
To say I am a fan of the “Hunger Games” series is a bit of an understatement. My sister Katie and I saw the previous film, “Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes,” in theaters four times.
So, yeah, I’m more than a little pumped for the next movie to come out, which is based on the novel of the same name by Suzanne Collins. It takes place 25 years before the first novel during the 50th annual Hungers Games, the 2nd Quarter Quell, in which Haymitch Abernathy is reaped and forced to enter the arena and fight his fellow tributes to the death.
Haymitch, if you remember, is Katniss and Peeta’s mentor in the original series. In the previous films, he’s played by Woody Harelson and now, newcomer Joseph Zada (who was fantastic in the Prime series “We Were Liars”) will take up the mantel, portraying a 16-year-old version of the character.
The trailer for “Sunrise on the Reaping” was released about a month ago and quickly became the most watched trailer of all the films, which shows how popular this series has remained more than 10 years after the first movie was released. Fans have been begging for a movie about Haymitch’s games for a while now and it’s so cool to see it finally happening.
Luckily, Francis Lawrence, who directed four of the five other movies, and producer Nina Jacobson, are returning for “Sunrise on the Reaping,” which fills me with confidence that this will be just as good as the previous ones.
Lawrence, who recently directed“The Long Walk,” an adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, is a master at epic storytelling. His films feel so dynamic, his composition is always strong, and manages to serve the storytelling in a way few modern genre filmmakers are able to.
He and Jacobson truly understand what Collins’ novels are about. In adapting them for the screen, they somehow always know what elements to remain faithful to and what needs to change for the good of the film. I’m so excited to see another one come to life while in their capable hands.
‘People We Meet in Vacation’ (Jan. 9)
This is a movie I’ve only recently felt excitement for. Even though the Emily Henry book it’s based on was released in 2021, I just read it this past summer while I was at the beach. (It just felt appropriate, you know?)
I think I finished the book in under 24 hours. I immediately fell in love with Henry’s writing; for me, she’s the perfect balance between romance and literary fiction. I also just felt incredibly endeared to her main characters, Alex and Poppy, and I’m hopeful watching their romance unfold on the big screen (or small screen, because Netflix refuses to release it in theaters) will affect me just as much as the novel did.
In the book, Alex and Poppy, polar opposites, don’t like each other when they first meet while in college at the University of Chicago. But just like Harry and Sally, two iconic rom-com character Poppy and Alex are clearly inspired by, they become best friends. Every year, they take a summer vacation together, until one year when everything goes wrong. Desperate to fix things with Alex, Poppy pursuades him to go with her on one last trip to Palm Springs together. The novel goes back and forth between the present and the past, charting their friendship over the years and what led to their falling out.
I’ve said before that I think the rise in popularity of romance novel of Booktok, the literary focused corner of TikTok, might be able to inject new life into the romantic comedy movie, which has been making a modest come back in recent years.
I don’t want to hang all of my hopes and dreams for the rom-com on this movie, but it’s hard not to have high expectations when the book was so good. Plus, Emily Bader and Tom Blyth are so perfectly cast and exceedingly charming actors. I can’t wait to see them light up the screen.
‘Wuthering Heights’ (Feb. 13)
We’re gonna end this list with a movie I’m not as much excited for as I am morbidly curious. Judging by filmmaker Emerald Fennell’s previous movies, “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn,” I expect her adaptation of Emily Brontë’s novel “Wuthering Heights” to be a lavish spectacle with as much depth as a kiddie pool.
Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong. Maybe third time’s the charm for Fennell.
“Wuthering Heights” has, historically, been a difficult story to adapt for the screen. Even some of the most successful versions, like the one made in 1939 by William Wyler, only adapt the first half of the novel, which I’ve always thought was a shame, as the second half is crucial to understanding what Brontë is trying to say about generational trauma.
Other versions, like the one made in 1998 starring Mr. Dracy himself, Matthew Macfayen, as Hareton Earnshaw, manage to tell the whole story, but completely disregard the framing device.
In the novel, the tragic story of Cathy and Heathcliff is told from the perspective of the housekeeper Nelly Dean. Everything we know about them is from second and third hand information. It leads the reader to wonder if what we’re being told is even the truth, which I think is something the movies never explore.
The trailer for “Wuthering Heights” has not quieted any of my doubts. Its visual aesthetic is stunning, don’t get me wrong. Linus Sandgren is a fabulous cinematographer, but I need more than provocative imagery to get invested in a story.
I don’t necessarily care if Fennell’s version of “Wuthering Heights” is a faithful adaptation of the novel or if it’s loosely inspired by it. I don’t care what she wants to say with this film. I only ask that she actually says…something. Anything.
My hope for 2026 is that I actually watch an Emerald Fennell movie I enjoy. Will that be possible? I don’t know, but either way, you’ll be hearing from me.
In Frame is a weekly arts and entertainment column focusing on everything from pop culture and new movie releases to the local arts and culture found right here in NEPA. News reporter Margaret Roarty contributes to this column.