Good morning. It’s getting harder and harder for big-screen chains to lure audiences away from their couches. Earnings today from Cineplex Inc. bring the new dynamics of the movie business into focus – plus, why more Canadians are layering debt on debt.

Trade: Prime Minister Mark Carney said he had a positive conversation with Donald Trump and played down tensions over the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

Epstein files: Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is suspending its dealmaking with longtime partner DP World Ltd. after revelations the CEO of the logistics multinational shared messages about his sexual experiences with the disgraced financier.

Travel: WestJet and Air Transat are joining Air Canada in cancelling flights to Cuba. (If your plans have been affected, we want to hear from you.)

With a slate of big-budget films on the horizon, Cineplex’s earnings report today may strike an optimistic tone. But Project Hail Mary carries a very particular weight for the country’s largest theatre operator. I spoke with The Globe and Mail’s Barry Hertz, whose recent book Welcome to the Family chronicles the rise of the Fast & Furious franchise, about how the economics of moviegoing are shifting.

The fortunes of companies like Cineplex and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. seem tied to a shrinking number of blockbuster releases. Has that always been the case?

Exhibitors have always hinged on tent poles. In 2024, there were simply fewer theatrical releases because of the strikes. That was the primary factor. In 2025, things steadied somewhat, but there were still disappointments. The volume just wasn’t there in the way exhibitors are used to relying on, and that makes everything feel more precarious.

What have you noticed about how even the biggest-budget movies are performing now?

Avatar 3: Fire and Ash, by most metrics, did really well, but it was also the third-highest-grossing film of the year, when historically Avatar films occupy the very top tier. The first two are among the highest-grossing films of all time, and this one isn’t going to approach the top 10.

And the Marvel movies are underperforming consistently. Last year’s Fantastic Four, Thunderbolts and Captain America: Brave New World didn’t reach the highs that would once have been expected. Those movies are supposed to offset weaker performances elsewhere. When they don’t, it becomes a much bigger issue for exhibitors.

When even those big movies start to show signs of weakness, what does that say about the business?

People have gotten used to watching things at home and waiting not all that long for big titles to appear on streaming. That fundamentally changes viewing habits. It raises the bar for what gets people out of the house, and it means that fewer movies feel like must-see theatrical experiences.

Does that leave theatres dependent on big, explodey films to justify their existence?

Not necessarily. Spectacle alone doesn’t guarantee attendance any more. You still see movies that aren’t explosive break through. Sometimes it’s timing, sometimes marketing, sometimes perception. When audiences are aware that there’s genuine excitement around a title, they will make the effort to break their viewing habits and leave the house to go to a theatre. That just used to happen much more regularly than it does now.

Meaning, the idea that filmmakers like Christopher Nolan or Tom Cruise are “saving” movie theatres isn’t quite so simple?

There’s some truth to it, but it’s overstated. There are certain filmmakers who have become ambassadors for the theatrical experience. Nolan is one of them. He’s very insistent that if you want the full heft of a movie, you need to see it on a big screen, ideally IMAX. What’s interesting is that Oppenheimer wasn’t an explosive movie. (Ed note: When pressed on this characterization, Barry patiently explained that he obviously meant it was an epic story told with ambition and scale, but without the pyrotechnics you might see in an instalment of Fast & Furious.)

Paul Thomas Anderson is another filmmaker who really pushes the value of theatrical viewing. And you also see smaller films break through – Marty Supreme, for instance, or The Housemaid, which is pure pulp and really resonated with audiences looking for that kind of experience.

When something works, it works. But it doesn’t happen often enough to carry the entire system.

What would further consolidation like a potential Netflix–Warner Bros. deal mean for the big screen?

Netflix says it would keep the Warner Bros. theatrical business, but there’s nothing legally binding about that. Netflix’s goal has always been a direct-to-consumer model driven by home subscriptions. Theatrical releases help with downstream awareness and prestige when titles hit streaming, but Netflix has no real incentive to keep movies in theatres for long windows or to give them full marketing campaigns.

What they really want is the Warner machine and its catalog – Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Superman, Casablanca, HBO series, sitcoms. It’s about scale and content ownership.

You’ve used the phrase “illusion of choice” to describe streaming libraries. What do you mean by that?

For the big streamers, it’s about gobbling up content. [Former Netflix chief executive] Re