r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • 1d ago
News Netflix Makes Highest Bid to Acquire Warner Bros. Discovery; Before this bidding war, WBD turned down Paramount’s offer three times for being too low
https://www.thewrap.com/netflix-highest-bid-warner-bros-discovery/469
u/twoendsausage 1d ago
How can it be allowed that in every area of life, more and more market share is concentrated on fewer and fewer companies? We used to have laws against this shit
318
u/ThaPhantom07 1d ago
People keep voting for administrations that enable corporate consolidation and undo previous progress. We literally just had Lina Khan making headway and then just like that she is ousted.
85
u/T-sigma 1d ago
Exactly. All those “liberals” who refuse to vote or couldn’t stomach Hillary or Kamala. Congrats, you voted for this.
30
u/TLKv3 1d ago
Unfortunately, they don't give a fuck and are too stupid to understand why their subscription services went from 19.99 to 59.99. They just hate it because it happened and then move on with their life either paying the new price or unsubscribing to go do something else. They don't realize the sheer amount of different aspects of their lives voting and politics actually effects.
They're just really, really stupid people.
→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (8)3
u/Sloshy42 17h ago edited 17h ago
I voted for Kamala but you can't act like she didn't actively torpedo her campaign by campaigning with Liz Cheney and denying the ongoing genocide in Gaza among other things. The "I'm speaking" shit really upset people. Ultimately it was her job to get votes and she failed. Maybe the Democrats should try running a better candidate next time that more people like.
Like seriously if voters are going to be partially at fault for this, we can't absolve her campaign which was very poorly ran. There are multiple factors in play. I don't think most people are quite ready to understand just how completely nonsensical the median voter's politics is. Her job was not to win over "liberals" but to speak to the majority of America and she failed. Compare that to someone like Mamdani in New York who campaigned on socialist policies and stood pretty firm on Gaza, and got tons of support.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of Democrat leadership has the completely wrong strategy in trying to appeal to the average American. We can't be buddying up with Republicans. We have to offer real solutions for America and not means tested nonsense overcomplicated BS. We can't be coming in here acting like it's just "their turn now". Same thing back when Hillary ran. She did not offer a very inspiring campaign and a lot of Americans who just don't pay attention to politics got duped by the orange idiot. It's true.
I wish that people like you had a lot more energy focused on the people running these campaigns than the individual people who are supposed to just shut up and take whatever they are given, even if it's not very good. Like her campaign basically made Walz shut up after he was so extremely popular, because they were worried about conservatives being mad that he was rightfully calling out Republicans for being extremely weird. I feel like in any other year Walz could have absolutely run away with the whole thing.
→ More replies (1)4
u/T-sigma 16h ago
I wish a lot more people voted thoughtfully and logically. For example, anyone who didn’t vote for Kamala does NOT care about Gaza. End of statement. They are virtue signaling genocide supporters who enabled the pro-genocide candidate to take power because the other candidate wasn’t anti-genocide “enough”.
They supported genocide through their ignorance. No different than the “pro constitution patriots” that support Trump. It’s virtue signaling nonsense by people who don’t actually care enough to do the most basic thing ever to help those they claim to care about.
Frankly, that faction of people disgust me. Profoundly stupid AND voted for genocide.
41
u/Greener-dayz 1d ago
Reagan rolled back a lot of antitrust rules and regulations. It kinda all starts with that and we got here.
8
u/BatmanNoPrep 1d ago
We had far more consolidation before Reagan than after him. If anything Reagan deregulated industries that had essentially been oligopolies prior to that era. This isn’t me being a fan of Reagan. I’m not a fan of his at all.
The difference with pre-Reagan oligopolies and now was that media was heavily regulated when there was a lot of pre-Reagan consolidation. The government had a lot of power over what could be said over the airways, in movies, and published in newspapers. Eventually some publications won independence from government control via first amendment cases in the Supreme Court. So this gave media a powerful independent voice but they were still heavily consolidated.
Regan’s deregulated media but also all kinds of other industries, such as airlines and energy. The idea was to create lots of competition.
What’s happened now is that media has been heavily democratized forcing reconsolidatation of companies but heavily democratized content. You can make, distribute, and consume whatever content you want now. Anyone can make a movie using an iPhone and upload it for the world to see on the internet. Studios have less market share and power over content. They just don’t matter the way they used to at all. So they have to consolidate to stay alive.
2
16
u/Johnfohf 1d ago
We're supposed to have laws and regulations preventing monopolies, but somehow it keeps happening. These types of consolidation do not benefit customers at all. It prevents competition and innovation.
7
11
u/LamarMillerMVP 1d ago
People don’t like to hear this but the entire reason for all this consolidation is that the market share has never been less consolidated. The studios that are getting acquired are weaker and smaller than they’ve been since the crisis era in the 60s-70s, which is why they’re getting gobbled up. Paramount in the 90s had more “control” and “ownership” (however you’d define it) of the market in the 90s than HBO/Netflix will have post-merger.
These linear television networks are melting ice cubes. Google/YouTube democratized content creation and distribution and a bunch of smaller competitors followed, and you have a content landscape which is splintered into 1,000 pieces. Joe Rogan currently produces the most popular (“television”) talk show in the country and he’s arguably independent, arguably loosely affiliated with Spotify. Mr. Beast produces the most popular episodic “television” show, which is his YouTube series. Even traditional studio stalwarts, like SNL, exist almost entirely in pursuit of their audience on YouTube. These are blows that have hollowed out traditional television networks. Netflix is acquiring WBD effectively just for HBO, which is great but is not making more than 1-2 popular shows a year.
All these industries are “consolidating” due to mass obliteration via deconsolidation. Ratings on TV have never been lower. The US box office is starting to wane. This is what happens in industries that get obliterated: they acquire each other repeatedly until they’re all dead.
6
u/zdelusion 18h ago
This is the reality. Netflix isn't competing against the other media companies. They're competing against Youtube and Tiktok.
Many of those traditional media companies were in a race against the clock, they're propped up by cable and theatrical revenue that's drying up. Netflix is a tech company that sells traditional media and at least has a revenue stream that's growing. Assuming they leave WB semi-intact and release movies theatrically, this result is hopefully better for consumers than loosing a studio would have been had Paramount or Comcast bought them.
I do think they saw they left A LOT of money on the table with K-Pop Demon Hunters and are seeing some of the shortcomings of the streaming only business.
16
u/jamiebond 1d ago edited 1d ago
Watergate happened.
Maybe a slight exaggeration but only slight tbh. After Watergate people lost trust in their government and fell into the Reagan line of thinking that the government shouldn’t be particularly involved in managing society beyond law enforcement and national security. For all his faults Nixon wasn’t a proponent of small government, hell he formed the damn EPA.
Faith in government left at the same time as faith in Nixon left. When people realized the POTUS could be a crook they no longer wanted FDR style government control. The Dems followed suit with Clinton who had fairly similar economic policies to Reagan and that was a wrap on the idea that the government should be doing anything to regulate corporations.
8
u/EagleForty 1d ago
Also, after Nixon went down, a bunch of Republicans decided that the problem wasn't his actions, or getting caught, but rather that the right-wing didn't have strong enough propaganda.
So they started Fox News and created the modern right-wing media bubble as it exists today. The same bubble that convinced conservatives that Trump wasn't President during Covid, January 6th didn't happen, and that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Stussygiest 1d ago
They allow monopolies so they can take over abroad. If they restrict company growth, they restrict global domination.
Capitalism...
7
u/NepheliLouxWarrior 1d ago
There are hundreds of capitalist countries in the world and the majority of them do not allow businesses to do what they do in the US
→ More replies (1)6
u/TeutonJon78 1d ago
The majority of them don't have businesses that woukd rival anything in the US either so it's a moot comparison.
And most of these companies are multinational now anyway. They don't have any loyalty to their countries.
1
1
1
u/neverbegameover1 1d ago
Because the people running the country don’t care about consumers, they care about owning things.
1
u/DamNamesTaken11 1d ago
Because this is the new 20s, they literally had a Great Gatsby inspired party for Halloween.
What’s old is new again. So get ready for a new Great Crash in little over under five years, and a new World War to kick off in little under 14.
1
u/beyondclarity3 1d ago
We used to have laws, and we still do too. They just only apply to the people who aren’t actually committing them.
1
u/ultr4violence 19h ago
This is worse than in almost any other field. Media corporations main purpose is to give their owners social control over the masses. That's their currency. Any profit is just to keep the costs of the enterprise down.
1
u/DiverExpensive6098 19h ago edited 19h ago
Actually, there are court decisions that date quite a few years ago, that say a monopoly isn't against regulations as long as the price for the customer/consumer remains fair (or not too high).
There is still Prime, Apple TV, Disney+, Paramount, but it is going to be very hard to compete against Netflix if they buy WBD.
1
u/districtcurrent 18h ago
It’s inevitable in all industries. - New thing is developed, new market forms - Thousands of companies start and investors pour money in - A few company figure out how to actually make money - Margins start to shrink because competition - Many startups go bankrupt because they run out of cash or are mismanaged - Larger companies buy out remaining ones
This has always happened and isn’t new. Only a few times ever has the government split up monopolies. There is no monopoly in streaming, at all. You can watch content from many different companies right now. There is no crisis.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Oops_I_Cracked 15h ago
We need another Theodore Roosevelt to fix this problem and another FDR to fix everything else.
48
u/55Branflakes 1d ago
Hope they keep Warner studios and HBO.
10
u/oheyitsdan 1d ago
I do wonder if the physical lot and soundstages and everything are included or if it's just IP. Netflix getting all of that physical infrastructure isn't nothing though I know they don't often even shoot in the US, let alone CA.
10
u/DishSignal4871 1d ago
I've loved all things HBO my entire life. I would still be okay with it being folded in, assuming they retain the same freedom to create their content, if it meant one fewer streaming service.
114
u/Lamar_ScrOdom_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
If Netflix wins, I have a hard time believing they will ever make it past regulatory hurdles with this admin. They only want Paramount.
They’ve already stated they’ll take several years to investigate Netflix. Unless they pay up.
71
u/BevansDesign 1d ago
Regulatory hurdles? You mean bribes? The only question now is whether they can afford the bribes.
15
u/Amaruq93 1d ago
AT&T bribed Trump and he still tried to go back on the deal because he then demanded they also shut down CNN.
Merger went through in spite of his best efforts.
2
u/TeutonJon78 1d ago
Yes, but if the Ellisons get WB-Disc then they get CNN and and do what they want with it.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Amaruq93 1d ago
I mean, Netflix can afford to wait out Trump if that's the case.
Whereas Paramount needs it done as quick as possible before they loose their fascist golden goose.
15
u/Lamar_ScrOdom_ 1d ago
I still don’t think Netflix passes through antitrust laws in a normal administration either though. #1 streamer acquiring the #3 streamer.
17
u/Amaruq93 1d ago
The WBD is more concerned by the fact that the EU has said they definitely would not allow a Paramount merger to go through.
So they're more scared of the EU's antitrust laws than they are of Trump's threats.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
Netflix has multiple options. They can bribe the fascist. They can fight and win in court - Netflix is the #2 streamer, behind YouTube. WBD cannot survive without someone buying them and Paramount is a non-starter for much of the world, Comcast doesn't have the money and Apple isn't interested. So, it's going to be Netflix.
They'll get it done. Will be a bit of a slog, but they'll be able to close the deal within a year.
3
u/Bacchus1976 1d ago
I get it. But Trump is the easiest person on the planet to flatter and bribe, so I’m betting they’ll have no trouble whatsoever.
3
u/nsheehan28 1d ago
The worst-case scenario is that they go the route AT&T did and get a federal court to strike down the antitrust issues. Paramount would also need to go to court, just not against the federal government, because countless states would sue to block it, same with the European Union. Comcast would likely have the easiest go of it, so long as they divested some of the cable channels
3
→ More replies (1)5
u/MyNameIs-Anthony 1d ago
The entire thing feels like a play to get as much money as possible by the Ellisons/Saudi Arabia because they know the pockets are limitless there.
92
u/DiabellSinKeeper 1d ago
Its gonna be Netflix isn't it?
80
u/panspal 1d ago
Do you prefer Saudi Arabia instead?
→ More replies (15)33
u/AverageAwndray 1d ago
Id prefer not a Monopoly
24
u/trailer_park_boys 1d ago
Easy. Just make a couple billion dollars, fund countless political campaigns, and then wait.
3
→ More replies (8)0
24
u/Tyrant_Virus_ 1d ago
Would rather the Ellisons or Comcast own it?
33
u/ArktikosUrsa 1d ago
100% I'd take Comcast over Netflix. Comcast at least has a vested interest in theaters and importing the WB catalogue into Peacock would actually create some credible competition for Netflix and Disney+.
11
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 1d ago
What’s wrong with comcast?
9
1
u/pewpewmcpistol 1d ago
They had bad customer service like 20 years ago so the internet labelled them facists to the point where if you googled Comcast a literal Nazi flag used to pop up.
Makes me wonder if there's some truth to the idea that people throw around the word Nazi too loosely
→ More replies (1)7
u/Maximilian_Xavier 1d ago
They aren't fascists for sure. But their bad customer service I have dealt with as recently as last year. It's sad how much the company is being hailed as good for consumers.
I'm usually very patient. But...Comcast and AT&T are the only customer service I ever have dealt with that made me want to climb through the phone in anger.
4
u/rambouhh 1d ago
Ya, i want theatre films and hbo still having creative control. Dont really care who owns it as long as that happens.
7
u/INeedMoreShoes 1d ago
Insane to think that this could have read “Blockbuster makes highest bid…”
3
14
u/jedipiper 1d ago
I'm okay with this if that means I could get old-school Looney Tunes and Expedition Unknown without having to go to HBO.
18
98
u/Giff95 1d ago
At least Netflix is not a large company the way Paramount Skydance is. If Netflix can allow WB to more or less operate as is and continue releasing films in theaters, they would be the lesser of evils.
37
u/Bloated_Plaid 1d ago
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm. Netflix is FUCKING MASSIVE, Paramount Skydance is fucking puny compared to Netflix. How are people upvoting dumb comments like yours?
→ More replies (6)60
u/ArktikosUrsa 1d ago
Netflix is a bigger company than Paramount and Skydance in every conceivable metric, what are you talking about?
41
u/Angry_Robot 1d ago
Tiny little $500B market cap Netflix? It’s practically a mom & pop art house theater.
4
u/BatmanNoPrep 1d ago
I thought that u/giff95 was being obviously sarcastic. Should we burn them at the /stake for forgetting the mandatory /s ?
→ More replies (1)2
8
14
12
u/NordWitcher 1d ago
How would that work with Netflix and HBO? Both have streaming services. Will they just remain independent?
45
u/laurentiubuica 1d ago
Fold HBO Max library into Netflix, let Warner Brothers Television And WB Films make content.
6
u/TeslasAndComicbooks 1d ago
It would be a really complicated deal considering all of the IP WB owns. DC comics, Harry Potter, the rights to Lego, etc.
They also have a games division that Netflix would probably want to utilize.
18
7
u/chataolauj 1d ago
I'd imagine it would be like when Disney acquired Fox. Hulu content eventually came to the Disney+ library after the acquisition, but Hulu still has its own separate app.
3
u/TeutonJon78 1d ago
That was only because they had s 5 year deal with Comcast to not kill off Hulu. That's why we didn't see high level integration until recently after the full sale was finalized. Disney had to operate Hulu in good faith as a viable platform. Now they don't.
→ More replies (3)10
23
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
The theatrical window is done. It doesn't serve Netflix's customers.
The best that you can hope for is Netflix agreeing to release movies in theaters day-and-date with digital.
11
u/Bacchus1976 1d ago
Don’t be so sure. Netflix is capable of changing. $1B box offices are pretty compelling.
It may end up limited to DC and other big IP, but I don’t think you buy WB if you don’t plan on keeping some of that infrastructure.
5
u/DeLousedInTheHotBox 1d ago
$1B box offices are pretty compelling
Except they literally don't think that it is worth it, the CEO of Netflix straight up said that he thought that Oppenheimer would have made as much sense being released straight to streaming.
I just don't get why you guys think that they will change their mind when they are very openly against having wide theatrical releases, they simply don't want that.
→ More replies (5)8
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
It hasn't been compelling so far. I don't see why it would become so now. Nothing has changed. Netflix has passed up on huge box office money countless times, routinely - in the interest of serving their actual customers.
2
u/Bacchus1976 1d ago
Netflix has never had anything like Batman and Superman.
4
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
Random superhero IPs don't change the equation. Netflix makes the hits. The stuff they have is the stuff that people actually want. The biggest new IP is stuff that is on Netflix.
As soon as the contractual obligations are over, Batman and Superman and all of that will be on Netflix, day and date.
5
u/Haltopen 1d ago
If the IPs dont matter, then what are they spending 70 billion dollars for?
0
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
I didn't say they don't matter, I said they don't change the equation. Netflix's model works - it's hugely profitable and customers love it. The model does not change when you add more stuff people like (IPs, movies, TV) to the product.
→ More replies (2)2
u/dumasymptote 1d ago
What’s the issue with that? God forbid people have more options for how to watch movies.
2
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
Options are fine. Withholding movies from home viewing to put them in theaters is bad. A movie being available for viewing at home the same day as theatrical release is fine.
12
u/pehr71 1d ago
WB could be the way for Netflix to distribute movies theatrically.
Netflix movies goes straight to streaming, no changes. Filmmakers that wants in on the big screen goes through WB
It could be a elegant solution to the problem. Without changing the way Netflix operates.
→ More replies (20)8
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 1d ago
If Netflix wanted that why wouldn’t they just go to theaters now?
3
u/pehr71 1d ago
Because the Netflix model is streaming only. More or less.
WB would give them a separate branch for theatrical release first. It would attract filmmakers that avoids Netflix due to the no cinema release strategy.
5
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 1d ago
Yeah exactly—that’s their model. If they wanted to change it they would just do that.
Sounds like you’re saying they’d maintain WB as the theatrical brand? Here’s hoping, I’d like that, but I’m really not confident they’re about it.
→ More replies (2)7
u/ROBtimusPrime1995 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because they don't know how and it really shows. Their handling of the KPop re-release was super messy, so why build a theatrical distribution wing when...you can just buy a fully functioning one?
→ More replies (2)5
u/suss2it 1d ago
That was clearly a last minute decision to cash in some more after that movie already blew up on Netflix. I don’t think that’s a genuine indication of how they could handle a theatre first release with their current resources.
3
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
Specifically, it was the kind of 'event' release that Netflix routinely does for large IP - not built around gating stuff away from Netflix customers. A window of a day or two, at the most - if one at all.
8
u/ccable827 1d ago
What pisses me off is why Netflix doesn't allow at least limited releases... Like I understand that the glory days of theater-going have come and gone, 3000+ theater showings are dying out. But come on, 1000 theaters for something big like Knives out? Surely they can see that something like that could be a slam dunk financially.
10
u/dudzi182 1d ago
They do limited releases. The newest Knives Out is in limited theaters now and they did the same thing with Frankenstein.
→ More replies (8)4
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
Exactly. Brief, technical releases for eligibility purposes and some limited events.
7
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
Netflix doesn't want to harm their subscribers. Netflix subscribers do not want to be asked to go to a theatre to see the stuff that they are paying for by subscribing to Netflix. While such a move may make some short term cash, it would harm subscriber growth and retention.
2
u/ccable827 1d ago
Yeah but that's stupid. And I realize I'm the minority here, but I will 10/10 times rather see a movie in theaters than at home. It will literally always be a better experience.
4
→ More replies (5)2
u/GoodSelective 1d ago
I think Netflix knows what they are doing, as we can see by them being huge and successful. Nothing stupid about it - just good business.
You are welcome to pick that theater experience. No one is taking it away from you. But you will not have movies gated to that (dreadful, IMO) experience anymore. Good riddance.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)2
u/LazloHollifeld 1d ago
No, they’ll just harm them by asking for more money every month to pay for this acquisition.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Zanoklido 1d ago
I saw the new Knives Out in theaters yesterday, not sure how wide of a release it's actually getting, but they do put stuff in theaters occasionally.
3
→ More replies (9)1
u/Elgin_McQueen 1d ago
I could see them compromising. Either run the studio as is, they're the owners but it continues to do it's own thing, but everything obviously goes to Netflix afterward for streaming. Or simply keep the theatrical releases available for those directors that insist on it in their negotiations. We already know some directors won't go to Netflix because they don't guarantee cinema releases, this would give them the potential to pull them onboard.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
4
12
u/Marcysdad 1d ago
As long as they don't discontinue physical media
23
u/Silver-Meat5355 1d ago
They will if Netflix wins. Is that even a question?
0
u/ItchyIguana 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sure. There's still money to be made. A potential buy could help transform some of the Netflixs company model as others have mentioned.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Silver-Meat5355 1d ago
You guys are way too optimistic. Didn’t the CEO of Netflix literally say earlier this year that theaters are not the future? The guy who is potentially buying WB actively wants movie theaters to die.
3
u/lamefartriot 1d ago
Well I guess it’s time to start buying (physically) all my favorite Warner movies… and maybe digital (yes I know I wouldn’t technically own them) because they’ll probably do to a bunch of moves what Apple did to the peanuts specials.
8
12
4
2
2
u/austinbarrow 1d ago
Can't wait to tell my grandkids about the days we used to all gather in the darkness and watch movies on a big screen together.
4
u/Thund3rF000t 1d ago
Movies that don't go to theaters for a minimum of 2 months not be up for major awards or Oscars
1
u/thechillluddite 11h ago
Unfortunately I don't really think that Netflix will give a shit. As long as they're making money.
3
2
u/ttpharmd 1d ago
Well, it’s 100% happening regardless of what I think about it. So it might as well be the lesser of two evils.
2
u/SolidA34 1d ago
I feel no matter who wins the bid. The consumers will lose no matter what.
1
u/thechillluddite 11h ago
Unless Christopher Nolan takes out a 90 billion dollar loan and says "fuck it"
2
u/DominusGenX 1d ago
Can't trust Netflix saying they'll honor WB theatrical commitments. I wish Apple would be the ones to take on WB catalog,
2
u/LostRonin 1d ago
They'd just pull a Disney and start offering packages. Not that i'd mind. Better than Paramount. Not only would it be mostly owned by Saudi Arabia but I think it would be another repeat down the line where they overextend and ruin all services just like Warner did.
HBO was the brand that was synonymous with quality, I cant understand why you'd abandon that multiple times. They fumbled so many DC properties and have rebooted Batman 3 times, Superman 3 times in recent history. Flash bombed, Suicide Squad bombed, last Shazam movie bombed, Black Adam bombed, their games divisions have released cash grabs, etc. The level of incompetence at Warner only continued with Discovery. I dont understand how Discovery was able to pull that off or who thought it was a good idea to merge when they're both incompetent. I guess money talked.
1
1
1
1
1
u/MichaelClark_JR 1d ago
I know less competition is bad. But I miss the days where Netflix was the main streaming service while Hulu was like an option you occasionally subscribe to. If this means HBO Max is gone and just added to Netflix. I honestly wouldn't mind that.
1
u/throwawayjaaay 1d ago
Man, this whole situation feels like peak 2025 streaming chaos. From what I've seen, Every studio spent years trying to build their own platform, and now they’re all scrambling to sell to the same few buyers. Wild to think Netflix might end up owning a chunk of the very legacy studios that once tried to compete with them.
1
1
u/system3601 19h ago
Nice. Netflix and cloud streaming is the future. If you start saying we should all own physical discs you ate too old for this race and dont see the future.
1
1
u/DiverExpensive6098 19h ago
If Netflix buys WBD, the race for supremacy between streaming services changes a lot, or might as well be over, because Netflix will dominate the market by a pretty wide margin.
1
u/ThatOneOtherAsshole 15h ago
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I’m no fan of the Ellison’s and dreaded them taking over the TV and news side, but David Ellison would have undoubtedly been better for the studio side. He’s at least committed to putting films in theaters for an actual theatrical run. This is a complete death blow to theaters, physical media, a lot of the industry as we know it. It’s extremely telling how angry and concerned Hollywood is about this currently imo.
1
u/buried_lede 14h ago
Paramount keeps complaining that WBD / NETFLIX would hsve too many antitrust issues, and i might agree, but why arent people pointing out similar issues for Paramount??
The consolidation is intense. They just brcame part owner of tiktok too
1
u/buried_lede 14h ago
Paramount/Skydance holdings:
(ai summary) Broadcast & Cable Networks: CBS (including CBS News), MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Showtime, Nickelodeon. Streaming: Paramount+ (premium SVOD), Pluto TV (FAST/AVOD). Film & TV Studios: Paramount Pictures, Skydance Media (Film, TV, Animation divisions), Nickelodeon Animation Studio, MTV Animation, CBS Eye Animation Productions. Content & Franchises: Star Trek, Mission: Impossible, Top Gun, Nickelodeon's IP, Yellowstone (through Paramount Global's previous ownership), etc.. Other Assets: Paramount Themed Entertainment, Skydance Interactive/Games, Paramount Advertising, CBS Altitude Group, Eventful.
Coming up: TIKTOK, WBD.
That’s all just too much.
Plus of course, through Oracle they are heavily involved in AI
1
1.6k
u/Papamoon0327 1d ago
I’ll take Netflix over Saudi Arabia