Live data from Hacker News

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

cnbc.com

241–250 of 424 posts

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#241
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?

> Conservatives Take Aim at ‘One Battle After Another’: “Year’s Most Irresponsible Movie”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/one-batt...

> Netflix's 93% RT Hit Show That Has the U.S. Government Furious Is a Streaming Sensation

https://collider.com/netflix-boots-streaming-success-after-g...

And that’s before we’ve even touched HBO. John Oliver is probably the most obvious example. But I’d say shows like Watchmen count too. Fahrenheit 451. Succession was pretty clearly mocking FOX News and its media ecosystem.

Art that’s critical of the government doesn’t literally have to be shouting “Trump bad”, it can be done through critique or mocking of the values it holds.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#242
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has WB or Netflix ever been critical of the government?

> Conservatives Take Aim at ‘One Battle After Another’: “Year’s Most Irresponsible Movie” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/one-batt... > Netflix's 93% RT Hit Show That Has the U.S. Government Furious Is a Streaming Sensation https://collider.com/netflix-boots-streaming-success-after-g... And that’s before we’ve even touched HBO. John Oliver is probably the most obvious example. But I’d say shows li…

Rewatched Watchmen (show) recently and just wow. It hasn’t aged a day and is truly a masterpiece.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#243
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

The current status quo of Hollywood has extremely narrowed what culture is created and promoted, it is only now starting to open back up.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#244

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…

I disagree with your premise that your non-preferred form of entertainment is equivalent to eating junk food.

I’m sorry that you were addicted to playing video games (truly) but I think your past experience is preventing you from thinking rationally about this.

People can find fulfillment from many different things, including the ones that you personally don’t find fulfilling. One's fulfillment is also irrelevant with respect to whether the product they are consuming was designed by a corporation to extract maximum profits (though I sympathize with your anti-corporate stance, despite the fact I find this point of yours to be irrational).

You admitted your view was subjective, yet you are prescribing it as a general view that applies to everyone which is both elitist and dissonant.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#245

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.

More than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic" and that he would be "personally involved in the decision of approving it". He's trying to shakedown Netflix to pay fealty.

> More than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic"

Adding Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn815egjqjpo

> He's trying to shakedown Netflix to pay fealty.

I am not a supporter of most things this admin is doing, but also wouldn't be too sure on this one. I found it interestingly odd that out of nowhere he makes a comment on the deal after attending an event dealing with celebrating music and film. A regular shakedown would have happened before the deal when he met with the Netflix CEO recently, which the added link article mentions and was a person who Trump liked.

And now we see the Paramount thing that leads me to think it fits more with the suggestion that he takes the side of the last person he speaks with, which was probably someone at the same event on the paramount side.

I wouldn't rule out that he now plays them against each other in order to get something from it, but don't think it was the original reason for helping to throw a wrench into it

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#246
post #37

I'm curious how often tactics like this work. It is essentially asking the Warner stockholders to act against the wishes of their elected board. It seems the main thrust of the pitch is "we're friends with Trump therefore more likely to win approval" which is so deeply gross but also probably persuasive to many. Jared Kushner is involved in the Paramount bid so you know they're greasing the right wheels.

Their case for approval is much stronger than Netflix's regardless of who is president. Netflix is the largest streaming service in the country right now. It is 4x larger than Paramount+ in terms of total subscribers. Netflix acquiring Warner Brothers is naturally going to receive more scrutiny for this reason alone.

Sure, but Netflix is the non-nepotism and non-cronyism option. I'll take that over the corruption we are witnessing right before our eyes with free markets disappearing.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#247

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…

>large corporations whose main goal is to make you addicted to their product and extract the maximal amount of money.

I wasted thousands of hours in the 1990s reading Usenet. The part of Usenet I used (i.e., not the binary newsgroups) never made anyone any money and was never intended to make money by the people who built and administered it.

The software I used to read Usenet, namely Wayne Davison's trn, was likewise never intended to make any money: since its license had a clause prohibiting commercial use, it technically did not qualify as open-source software, but it was freely redistributable, i.e., basically given away (along with its source code).

But trn was designed for addiction. Hitting the space key always brought up a new screenful of text. Whenever I got bored with a post, the n key would skip the rest of the post and show me the first screenful of the next post. Once I'd been shown all the posts in one group, trn would automatically start showing me the next group with unread messages. In summary, the path of least resistance (namely, repeatedly hitting the space key till bored, then hitting the n key) caused a continuous "waterfall" or firehose of text to scroll by on the screen.

Moreover, it was difficult to use trn reflectively: e.g., if I found myself returning in my thoughts to a screenful of text I saw a minute ago, there was a good chance that there was no practical way for me put that earlier screenful back on the screen unless I was still reading the post in which the desired screenful occurred, in which cause I could scroll backward using the b key. (The early web, when the back button still reliably returned the user to the previous page, was a big improvement over trn in its support for reflective use.)

Point is that we should put the blame for the addictiveness of modern life on the right cause: not large corporations, not even the profit motive, but rather the technological progress that has accumulated over the centuries, which enables the creation and the delivery at an affordable price to the average person of experiences that are much more potent or pleasurable than anything available to an average person in the environment in which we evolved.

Yes, sex and eating good food with interesting people were always potent experiences for people, but in past centuries, it took a lot of effort, expense or risk to obtain those experiences in contrast to the ease, cost-efficiency and safety with which potent experiences can be arranged on the internet. And if a person carries around a smartphone, these cheap easy-to-arrange safe potent experiences are available at almost every waking moment.

For me the Usenet of the 1990s was a potent experience because I was strongly motivated by curiosity and learning. (1990s Usenet was full of conversations between very smart people.) Comedian and talk-show host Arsenio Hall joked in the 1990s that the internet was cocaine for smart people. This was true even before the US government lifted (in 1993 IIRC) the ban on using the US internet backbone for any commercial purpose.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#248
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?

It's more about how the buyers intend to use the media themselves.

The Ellisons are personal friends of Trump and Netanyahu. Netanyahu has spoken repeatedly about media as a weapon, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3tdrO8bA7rs. Ellison is the largest individual donor to the IDF. Trump handed Tiktok to Ellison.

The bid is backed by Kushner (i.e. Trump) and their Saudi allies.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#249

Reading the comments -- it is amazing how quick it takes to from allegedly a democracy governed by a rule of law to a corrupt oligarchy. I personally understand the reasons, but it's a bit "funny" given all the grand-standing before about the founding fathers, checks and balances etc.

The mercenary values become quite plain sometimes. They have told us who they are, these people who are now brazenly about money and power.

It's up to us not to forget, and to vote accordingly, and to call BS when we see it.

Otherwise we lose our democracy.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#250

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

I don't even care anymore. There have been so few TV shows or movies that I've wanted to watch in the past decade. Books, podcasts, YouTube, music, and older movies for me. I got sick of the Marvel movies somewhere around the first Avengers movie. I don't think anything currently on TV interests me other than Bob's Burgers
Post reply on HN