Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 424 posts

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#111

Post by bsimpson »

WorldMaker wrote: post #102
notepad0x90 wrote: post #30

I thought I read somewhere paramount is in survival mode, avoiding risky projects and focusing on reliable projects. This is surprising indeed. Amazon took MGM, maybe netflix can take over paramount after it takes over warner bros? I know people have strong opinions on this, but both from studios like warner and netflix, their quality has been subpar, i don't think this will change much in terms of risk taking. There…

Paramount sold themselves to Skydance who now get referred to as Paramount because Paramount is the older, stabler brand. That sale is generally considered to have pulled Paramount out of survival mode, though it will probably be at least a few more quarters before it the results are seen. (Arguably, Skydance's ideas for Paramount are too similar to the weird Paramount and CBS divorce era, that I find it hard to beli…

Skydance is also known as the then-obscure company that picked up Pixar head John Lasseter when his reputation for being overly affectionate got him pushed out of Disney.

It's one of the Ellison family's forays into media. David's sister/Larry's daughter Megan has Annapurna. Annapurna produced the Spike Jonze's AI romance "Her" and many of the the most prominent indie games of the last decade (Outer Wilds, Cocoon, Stray, Kentucky Route Zero, Sayonara Wild Hearts, Journey, Donut Country…).

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#112

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sippeangelo wrote: post #75
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> thought I read somewhere paramount is in survival mode Paramount's multi-year sale process deserves an HBO miniseries. But at this point, it's a de facto LBO platform for the Ellisons.

But who's gonna produce that once Paramount owns HBO?

> who's gonna produce that once Paramount owns HBO?

Netflix.

If they win, they own HBO. If they lose, they have a beef with Ellison.

(Speaking out of my ass here. But I think there is broad underappreciation of how intensely a lot of Hollywood creatives do not want to work for a rightwinger. I imagine Netflix, Disney and others will have a bit of a bonanza over the coming years of picking up disaffecteds from Paramount et al, even assuming the latter don't wind up in bankruptcy.)

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#113

Post by ndiddy »

andsoitis wrote: post #95
Spivak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content. I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repea…

When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.

In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#115

Post by WorldMaker »

Jtsummers wrote: post #36
almosthere wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be.

> Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be. That's kind of a silly argument. "People are better off paying $100+/month for 4+ streaming services than $25/month for one that has everything." If your argument were that you'd have to pay more than the c…

It's not that silly of an argument when you factor in Blu-Ray as the other side of "won't be able to watch a WB movie without". Right now the only Netflix "Exclusives" you can find on Blu-Ray are the ones they source from Sony, Warner Brothers, or Paramount. If they own Warner Brothers one of those Blu-Ray sources goes away.

Instead of a one-time Blu-Ray purchase for ~$25 for a movie to watch as many times as you'd like, it's an ongoing subscription for $25/month. If you only want to watch that one movie in two different calendar months, you've easily doubled your spend.

(Yes, it is still apples-to-oranges because you may watch more than one movie in a month, but the flipside is that the $25/month is a variable catalog fee. The movie you want to watch may be "vaulted" that second month you want to go watch it. With Blu-Ray you control your film catalog, with Netflix some finance team does.)

(Also, yes, easy to forget Blu-Ray in this debate because Blu-Ray is dying/dead, especially in physical retail with Target and Best Buy dropping its sections. You can also substitute a lot of the same arguments here with arguments for Movies Anywhere and/or iTunes Store.)

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#116

Post by kulahan »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #109
moffers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the political angle of this should not be discounted

Some context: "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing." https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-war...

Thank you, I had no idea how this was politically related, and honestly cannot keep track of all the corruption these days anyways. How does anyone? This is pretty much a genuine question.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#117

Post by WorldMaker »

linhns wrote: post #29

Sounds like Paramount bosses are bidding in anger.

They've just about said as much. They thought they had a friendly bid in the works just before WB announced a more exclusive friendly bidding process with Netflix. Definitely some drama going on there.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#119

Post by pwillia7 »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #27
walthamstow wrote: post #5

> [Paramount say Netflix deal] would lead to “a challenging regulatory approval process.” "Only we have sufficiently greased the current government to get this deal done"

(not a joke) I wonder to what extent the ability to produce a Rush Hour 4 will effect the deal. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/25/trump-pushed-paramount-reviv...

I can't wait to see how Chris Tucker plays it

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#120

Post by pwillia7 »

feb012025 wrote: post #68

The most concerning aspect for me is the obvious and conspicuously-timed consolidation of these companies under David Ellison. Within the past few months he's taken control of Paramount, CBS, The Free Press, and now he's working on Warner Bros. From everything I've seen he's basically an ideologue, and has already re-structured CBS to align with his vision. Just something that seems very out in the open yet kind of p…

Back to the spoils system [1] baby! Hope you have a lot of capital and a tent to camp the White house lawn while you wait for your appointment.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

Post reply on HN