Live data from Hacker News

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

cnbc.com

231–240 of 424 posts

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#231
post #220

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.

So essentially less than the cost of two tickets to see a movie in theaters today. The horror.

Subscriptions add up + you will see ads and have to pay for "premium" content.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#233
post #188
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what is going on. Everyone at WB management knows that the Ellisons want to weaponize CNN before the midterms runoffs start in spring.

Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here

Netflix and those involved hasn't conclusively metamorphosed into a Larry Ellison-esque state of Lawn Moweriness.

Make no mistake, it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp; on the humanity scale, it scores quite low, but not lawn mower low. They're still outside the Ellison event horizon.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the reverse breakup fee is ~2.6B I believe, but the Paramount takeover doesn't have to succeed for that fee to kick in. WB just has to back out.

Right, but if it does succeed, does it then kick in?

Yes

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#235
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real people work in this industry, though. A merger of this size is bound to come with some layoffs and canceled projects. It's not as bad as food scarcity, of course. But it can do some collateral damage.

That, plus fewer studios mean less creativity goes to the mainstream. If you thought AI slop was bad, go re-watch Star Wars Episode 8.

I mean, 8 was easily the most functional of the new trilogy, if a somewhat overly ambitious muddle, so that's a bad example.

There is a real problem with too many sequels and adaptations though.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in life A bit too condescending if you ask me. People are free to choose to spend time on things they find entertaining and that has no bearing on whether you find it "junk food" or whether the company producing the entertainment is trying to squeeze every penny they can out of it.

People are given a choice on what they eat as well and many also eat junk food, despite it largely being agreed upon that junk food is not good for you. Both cheap entertainment and junk food cede your autonomy to large corporations whose main goal is to make you addicted to their product and extract the maximal amount of money. This is purely subjective, but I believe that the path to personal fulfillment does not i…

As someone who has begun to fall into the "Machine Zone"[1] with gaming and stream watching (and trying to get back out) I'm feeling many of the things you're describing.

I struggle with defining the line for myself because a lot of my own hobbies and goals are creative - making music, building a video game, performing improv comedy. And those things are naturally in want of an audience.

Does it mean that I'm part of the problem in wanting to create entertainment, because I'm essentially asking an audience to indulge in the "junk food" that I create? I don't know.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that question because your ideas seem to be well-articulated. My current thinking is that there is a distinction between:

- "So good" and "So good I could watch it for hours"

- "The artistic content" and "The platform moderating your access to it"

- "Pro-social" and "Anti-social" encouragement / culture of various media (the medium is the message, etc).

Making good quality, non-addictive, pro-social art, independently seems to be an ideal outcome, but then your art - while also being extremely expensive to create and distribute - is in competition with highly visible, well-established, strongly addictive... McDonald's franchises.

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

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#237

All I can say is welcome back to torrenting. This perpetual "same shit deal for consumers, different corporation" problem doesn't end until copyright kicks the media into public domain. Until then, you can play their content reindeer games[1] or you can download a copy of Reindeer Games[2] and watch it without worrying about ownership foofaraw. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/reindeer-games [2] predb.me

The problem here isn’t as simple as torrenting. It’s the narrowing of what culture is created and promoted and what isn’t. Paramount is overtly a right wing organization now under the Ellison’s. Part of their bid to WB is “it’d be a shame if trump killed this deal of yours”. Netflix’s groveling or Paramounts success might mean we see less art critical of the government and more that panders to its interest

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#238
post #237

All I can say is welcome back to torrenting. This perpetual "same shit deal for consumers, different corporation" problem doesn't end until copyright kicks the media into public domain. Until then, you can play their content reindeer games[1] or you can download a copy of Reindeer Games[2] and watch it without worrying about ownership foofaraw. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/reindeer-games [2] predb.me

The problem here isn’t as simple as torrenting. It’s the narrowing of what culture is created and promoted and what isn’t. Paramount is overtly a right wing organization now under the Ellison’s. Part of their bid to WB is “it’d be a shame if trump killed this deal of yours”. Netflix’s groveling or Paramounts success might mean we see less art critical of the government and more that panders to its interest

Has WB or Netflix ever been critical of the government?

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#239
post #238
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here isn’t as simple as torrenting. It’s the narrowing of what culture is created and promoted and what isn’t. Paramount is overtly a right wing organization now under the Ellison’s. Part of their bid to WB is “it’d be a shame if trump killed this deal of yours”. Netflix’s groveling or Paramounts success might mean we see less art critical of the government and more that panders to its interest

Has WB or Netflix ever been critical of the government?

[deleted]

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#240

I just realized that the netflix ceo is a big-time democratic party donor, and that paramount is supposedly being supported by larry ellison (big-time republican/trump donor) and saudis? I'm sensing a strong political/influence angle here by the billionaires.

Larry Ellison is also a very public supporter of Israel and the IDF, as recently as a few months ago speaking in support of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

He’s the largest individual donor to the IDF.
Post reply on HN