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

Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#21

Post by bko »

happymellon wrote: post #20
bko wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…

> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.

Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#22

Post by bko »

toymin wrote: post #18
bko wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…

It's interesting that you bring up Netflix. While their initial offering of having a good selection of movies in one subscription was very attractive, their expansion and eventual entry to public stock market caused it to be pretty much synonymous with "slop" in TV and movie circles, which I think makes a very good case that "big production studio" != "good quality productions". Warner Bros specifically, while still…

Netflix completely changed the game. They paid huge amounts to produce original content. Direct to TV used to be an insult now you have triple A content direct to steaming. You forget what the market looked like pre Netflix. Sure you don't like their content now, but that's not the point

Comedians for instance get 10 - 25m per special, they were getting a fraction of that before Netflix. They had to sign on shitty sitcoms to make any money

What are you talking about?

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#23

Post by bko »

pjc50 wrote: post #15
bko wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…

> bigger company = worse movies? Less competition.

[flagged]

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#24

Post by bko »

watwut wrote: post #16
bko wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…

> What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Monopoly => lack of competition => enshittification and abuse. > Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. As much as I like Netflix, permanent ownership of movies and series on my side, after one time payment would be hugely desirable. Overall, I dont like this "you just…

[flagged]

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#25

Post by bko »

master_crab wrote: post #13
bko wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you really comparing youtube with theatre movies? Yes I'm comparing youtube to movies. They're direct competitors. My decision on Friday night is often do I go to the movies or do I watch something on YouTube. > Do you really think a monopoly is going to improve anything for anybody? They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category. Sometimes companies go out of business because the economics are s…

They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category. By that reasoning I could have a monopoly on peanuts and it’s alright because consumers can choose from hundreds of other foods.

Birdsong and Golden Peanut together have controlled roughly 80% of U.S. peanut shelling, with Olam holding another 10% or more.

Warner Bros. releases roughly 20-30 wide theatrical films per year, or about 8-12% of all U.S. theatrical releases (counting independent films as well).

Paramount Pictures releases roughly 10-20 wide theatrical films per year, or about 3-7% of all U.S. theatrical releases.

Hope this helps

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#26

Post by Ukv »

bko wrote: post #21
happymellon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.

Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?

Observationally, larger companies already in the lead seem prefer a safe X% return for their shareholders and don't need to take large risks. Smaller companies trying to make it don't have the liberty to rest on their laurels, and often will be risking it all on some idea being a massive hit.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#28

Post by G0lg0thvn »

bko wrote: post #23
pjc50 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bigger company = worse movies? Less competition.

[flagged]

“This isn’t Reddit.”

Proceeds to insult every response without actually countering. The irony is palpable.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#29

Post by G0lg0thvn »

bko wrote: post #24
watwut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Monopoly => lack of competition => enshittification and abuse. > Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. As much as I like Netflix, permanent ownership of movies and series on my side, after one time payment would be hugely desirable. Overall, I dont like this "you just…

[flagged]

Again, incapable of a middle school level intelligent response. The irony.

Seems like this conversation would be more productive if you put any thought into your counter-arguements rather than just insulting every response for the gall of answering you.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#30

Post by master_crab »

bko wrote: post #25
master_crab wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category. By that reasoning I could have a monopoly on peanuts and it’s alright because consumers can choose from hundreds of other foods.

Birdsong and Golden Peanut together have controlled roughly 80% of U.S. peanut shelling, with Olam holding another 10% or more. Warner Bros. releases roughly 20-30 wide theatrical films per year, or about 8-12% of all U.S. theatrical releases (counting independent films as well). Paramount Pictures releases roughly 10-20 wide theatrical films per year, or about 3-7% of all U.S. theatrical releases. Hope this helps

That’s not good either. It’s the same with poultry, many types of fruit, etc. This just makes the case further.
Post reply on HN