[HN Gopher] Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros
___________________________________________________________________
Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros
Previously: _Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros_ -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)
Author : gniting
Score : 185 points
Date : 2025-12-08 14:16 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| magicalhippo wrote:
| I brought popcorn, who are we rooting for?
| Larrikin wrote:
| The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the
| streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the
| siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services
| competing on experience because they all have access to the
| same catalog.
|
| The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not
| getting what he wants.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if
| anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered
| off
| Spivak wrote:
| 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 repeat of cable. They want all content to be
| exclusive by default to their own streaming service.
| andsoitis wrote:
| 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.
| ndiddy wrote:
| 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.
| account42 wrote:
| > and for there to be multiple streaming services competing
| on experience because they all have access to the same
| catalog.
|
| That's a weird way to write "and for us to go back to owning
| copies of movies instead of just renting them."
| aomix wrote:
| I want Netflix to lose. After living with their binge release
| schedule for however long now I think we're all worse off for
| it. So I want less of the industry to use it.
| figmert wrote:
| You are not forced to buy their product, or to buy into their
| schedule.
| almosthere wrote:
| 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.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > 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 current combined cost, it'd be a better argument
| against mergers. Arguing against something because it's a
| better deal is just strange.
| almosthere wrote:
| thats not how most people do streaming, they consume
| everything on netflix - when the content gets stale, they
| cancel, move to P+, consume for a few months, stale, d+,
| stale, A+, etc.... 1 at a time
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That's what some people do, the average household (per
| polling) has 4+ video service subscriptions.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.)
| indigodaddy wrote:
| It will be $50 soon enough if this goes through
| teeray wrote:
| You can only vote with your feet if you can step somewhere
| else. We are watching locations for your feet to go shrink
| in real time.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| You don't need the streaming service though, you can just
| do without or find other methods of obtaining their
| content. It's not like food, electricity, or water where
| you may have no actual options or very limited options.
| Movies and shows are wants, not needs, and people can
| walk away and fill the time some other way.
| teeray wrote:
| Saying everyone should just quit streaming and go touch
| grass or read a book is not a productive recommendation.
| It's been tried for decades and fails because people
| really like TV and Movies. Given that, the discussion
| here needs to start from the assumption that people will
| continue to watch TV and movies and suffer meaningful
| quality of life impacts when they do not.
| whateveracct wrote:
| definitely not Ellison Jr lol
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Ah that Ellison, didn't make the connection.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I'm never paying any of them, anything, ever again, but I'm
| sure we'll all get a little fucked somehow. I do hope it
| triggers more in-fighting amongst the scum of the earth.
| mistercheph wrote:
| https://archive.is/d71qC
| walthamstow wrote:
| > [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"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| They're both at least trying to play [1].
|
| The wild move for Ellison would be to bid for one of Trump's
| crypto projects if the shareholder vote looks like it could
| fail.
|
| [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/netflixs-
| sarandos-w...
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| (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...
| jaredhallen wrote:
| Stranger than fiction.
| pwillia7 wrote:
| I can't wait to see how Chris Tucker plays it
| miohtama wrote:
| Trump dislikes Paramount, thought?
|
| https://deadline.com/2025/12/trump-paramount-60-minutes-davi...
| jm4 wrote:
| He did until they paid him off, fired people he doesn't like
| and his buddy bought it.
| stopbulying wrote:
| Like Comcast (Philadelphia) acquired NBC/SNL in 2011?
|
| Wasn't there a former Comcast employee as CEO of "X"
| initially?
| xfil wrote:
| Trump stated this today:
|
| > My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ
| traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes,
| Paramount, would allow a show like this to air. THEY ARE NO
| BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of
| Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President,
| ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten
| WORSE! Oh well, far worse things can happen.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Goes to show that paying bullies only buys temporary
| relief.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Kushner is involved in the money for the Paramount bid
| josefritzishere wrote:
| For a large enough "donation" the current administration will
| approve any merger.
| grandpoobah wrote:
| Not even large. Trump is cheap.
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-makers-turbotax-gave-trum...
| josefritzishere wrote:
| Maybe we're all doing it wrong. Americans could instead be
| making "donations" to get the legal outcomes they want under
| this regime. We're not accustomed to the 3rd wold paradigm
| though it's well established elsewhere.
| AndroTux wrote:
| FIFA just had to pay for a little trophy
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Does WB have to pay the breakup fee to Netflix if a Paramount
| hostile takeover succeeds?
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| 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.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Right, but if it does succeed, does it then kick in?
| mcoliver wrote:
| Warner breakup fee is different. 2.8 billion.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It looks like it. $2.8bn by Warner Brothers to Netflix [1].
|
| If the vote looks close, Paramount would be expected to raise
| their bid to cover that cost.
|
| [1]
| https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525...
| _8.3(a)_
| dabockster wrote:
| The failed merger and similar clawback clause between Kroger
| and Albertsons is currently destroying a significant part of
| the supply chain for food in the Pacific Northwest. Grocery
| stores that have been open for 50-75 years - stores where
| whole neighborhoods and towns were built around - are closing
| forever, leaving those areas as food deserts.
|
| Either way, this entertainment merger is going to get ugly.
| Consumers are absolutely going to get harmed either way with
| that clawback clause.
| thisisnotauser wrote:
| Except you need food to live and tv shows are an
| artificially scarce resource that's actually free to
| distribute in unlimited quantities, so the harm is very
| different.
| hopelite wrote:
| I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, groceries that sell
| food on one hand and a brainwashing and propaganda delivery
| system (see History of criminal, industry/advertiser, FBI,
| CIA, Pentagon, and foreign nation direct ties to the
| industry) masquerading as "entertainment" on the other.
|
| You don't have to be "harmed", just do not pay them your
| money. Problem solved. If the prospect of not being
| "entertained" fills you with anxiety and frustration, maybe
| that's something to reflect on.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Isn't this submission about Warner Bros Discover, which is a
| different entity? Seems to be about TV, not movies. But maybe I
| misunderstand, I did spend a whole of 20 seconds to skim the
| article...
| VanTheBrand wrote:
| It's all one entity with subsidiaries for tv and movies, etc.
| burnte wrote:
| No. Breakup fes are for when the buyer backs out or theere are
| external forces that prevent the merger. You can also have a
| breakup fee if the buyee wants out but that's a different
| thing. In this case it's Paramount saying "we'll up out
| government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is
| saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go
| through.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Thanks, this was more the gist of my question.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _in this case it 's Paramount saying "we'll up out
| government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is
| saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go
| through_
|
| No.
|
| Paramount has nothing to do with these numbers, which both
| come from the Plan of Merger among Netflix, Warner and others
| [1].
|
| Paramount's bid constitutes an Acquisition Proposal under SS
| 6.2(c). It is a "proposal, offer or indication of interest"
| from Paramount, a party who is not "Buyer and its
| Affiliates," which "is structured to result in such Person or
| group of Persons (or their stockholders), directly or
| indirectly, acquiring beneficial ownership of 20% or more of
| the Company's consolidated total assets."
|
| Given it "is publicly proposed" after the date of the Plan of
| Merger and "prior to the Company Stockholder Meeting," it is
| a Company Qualifying Transaction (8.3(D)(x)).
|
| If 8.3(D)(y) is then satisfied (a condition I got bored
| jumping around to pin down-if thar be dragons, they be here)
| and Warner consummates the Company Qualifying Transaction or
| "enters into a definitive agreement providing for" it
| (8.3(a)(D)(z)(2), the Buyer can terminate the Plan of Merger
| under 8.1(b)(iii). That, in turn, triggers the Company
| Termination Fee of $2.8bn, which is separate from the
| Regulatory Termination Fee of $5.8bn Netflix would have to
| pay Warner if other shit happened.
|
| [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312
| 525...
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the Netflix bid.
|
| Warner bros is being divided into the cable TV stations +
| discover channel stations and the movie studio and the backlog
| is separate.
|
| Netflix wants the movie studio + tv back catalog
| indigodaddy wrote:
| The article bullet point referencing WB Discovery could
| mislead some into thinking that this takeover is only for the
| Discovery portion, but that's not the case. $30 would not be
| for Discovery only (as Netflix's bid is $27.75), it's for the
| whole kit and caboodle. Yes there are two entities, but/and
| Paramount wants it all, and the takeover intent is for both.
| kenjackson wrote:
| I've heard that what Kushner wants is CNN. If they could
| make CBS+CNN lean conservative like Fox, they pull off a
| potential to swing the country via news media.
| KumaBear wrote:
| That's a shitty gamble when online media is where it is
| at now a days. These big media networks are dinosaurs
| hanging on by a thread.
| kenjackson wrote:
| It might be. But if you're doing a short-term political
| power play (rather than a business investment), it could
| be a good tactical spend. And it might be a smart
| business investment if the political power play works in
| such way that you can politically bend the business
| environment in your favor.
| whycome wrote:
| 2028 is closer than you think. Dinosaur media still
| connect with dinosaur-voting audiences.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Online media where they have x and Facebook already?
| mywittyname wrote:
| The people who vote are the people also glued to 24hr
| news.
|
| Plus, they already own all of the online media. The
| important bits, anyway.
| fyrabanks wrote:
| Netflix also wants HBO / HBO Max. They're just leaving the
| Discovery stuff.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| the split is hbo+streaming platform on one side and pretty
| much everything else on the other (discovery, cablechannels,
| cnn)
| bsimpson wrote:
| That's conventionally called "studios+streaming" because
| the Warner Bros studio/brand is one of WBD's crown jewels.
| The way you've written it, someone could infer everything
| but HBO Max was going into "other." That's incorrect.
| hinkley wrote:
| Because WB owns what is left of Newline, that would include
| LotR and The Hobbit.
| bsimpson wrote:
| "What's left"?
|
| New Line has been part of Warner since they merged with TBS
| in the mid 90s.
| hinkley wrote:
| No, Newline was its own division of WB, but during the
| financial bubble bursting, and shortly after Golden
| Compass lost $100M they gutted it and drastically reduced
| their scope of operations. It's still technically its own
| division but now it's more of a sock puppet.
|
| The Hobbit for instance is a WB production, not Newline.
|
| Apparently sometime shortly before they got the axe they
| paid Susanna Clarke a 7 figure sum to option Jonathan
| Strange and Mr Norrell. I don't know a whole lot about
| options but 7 figures sounds like about 8-16x what people
| usually do especially for a 3 year old book by an unknown
| author. IIRC, that's more than Andy Weir got for The
| Martian. And more than Lev Grossman is worth today, and
| he got five seasons out of three books.
|
| That option expired unused and BBC One and Cuba Pictures
| made it into a very good miniseries. Does feel a bit like
| a pattern of financial exuberence.
| ternus wrote:
| The BBC Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell miniseries is
| _excellent_. One of those times (others might include the
| original LOTR films and early Game of Thrones) where a
| genre adaptation wildly exceeded my expectations.
| VanTheBrand wrote:
| That's not correct. Paramount wants everything (including the
| parts Netflix wants). Netflix wants just tv and movie studio.
| So the paramount hostile bid would be for the part Netflix
| wants and the part they don't.
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| I can't even use Paramount+ at home. Have network wide ad and
| tracking filters on (simple NextDNS presets, nothing crazy), and
| while others work, Paramount+ doesn't. Makes me wonder what they
| are doing to get blocked. Kind of wish neither were getting WB.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Most likely as simple as "they use the same servers for content
| and ads/tracking so you can't block just one part as easily".
| ssimpson wrote:
| I've had the same issue and go so far as to remove the
| streaming stuff from my Pihole to make sure it wasn't a DNS
| filtering issue. Paramount+ app still is sketchy as hell
| sometimes. Usually won't work on my AppleTV, but works on
| phones and stuff.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Paramount bids $30 all cash for all of Warner Brothers Discovery.
| Netflix bids $27.75 "for Warner's studio and HBO Max streaming
| business" only [1]. ("$23.25 in cash and $4.50 in shares" [2].)
|
| The latter leaves behind "sports and news television brands
| around the world including CNN, TNT Sports in the U.S., and
| Discovery, top free-to-air channels across Europe, and digital
| products such as the profitable Discovery+ streaming service and
| Bleacher Report (B/R)" [3]. (Paramount is effectively bidding
| $5.9bn for these assets.)
|
| Note that Zaslav, Warner's CEO, is a prominent donor to Democrats
| [4], as is Reed Hastings, Netflix's co-founder [5]. (Ted
| Sarandos, Netflix's co-CEO with Greg Peters, is mixed, leaning
| Dem [6]. No clue on the latter.) Ellison is a staunch Trump ally.
| The partisan tinge will be difficult to ignore.
|
| [1] https://www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-makes-
| hostile-t...
|
| [2] https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-to-acquire-
| warner-...
|
| [3] https://www.wbd.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-separate-
| two-...
|
| [4] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-
| lookup/results?name=david+...
|
| [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/reed-
| hastings...
|
| [6] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-
| lookup/results?name=Ted+Sa...
| CSMastermind wrote:
| I must be thte only one who like Paramount+
|
| Honestly would rather have the Warner Bros content over there
| than on Netflix.
| coldpie wrote:
| Eh, I liked it, but canceled my service after they made a bribe
| to the current president to approve one of their acquisitions.
| I like Star Trek plenty, but not enough to support anti-
| American businesses like Paramount.
| silon42 wrote:
| I subscribed to SkyShowtime (Euro joint venture from
| Paramount) for a few months (it was cheap) ... then I
| realized it doesn't work on Linux... cancelled.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Once they ended 'Lower Decks' I was out.
| noahbp wrote:
| The Paramount+ user interface on my Samsung TV is horrendous.
|
| It frequently crashes after displaying ads, forcing me to re-
| open the app and watch ads again.
|
| When watching ads does succeed (all 3 minutes of them...) and
| playback of my show begins, it shows the enormous pause button,
| the giant fade-to-black bars at the top and bottom of the
| screen, and covers up the subtitles, as though I had pressed
| 'Play'.
|
| And trying to pause requires you to press the pause button
| TWICE.
|
| I tried to play a series, but instead of starting from the
| last-played episode + 1, it always plays the most recent
| episode since it's a rewatch. This happened every time until I
| got caught up.
|
| So I strongly disagree. If only to be able to watch all of this
| content without all of frustrating design flaws.
|
| EDIT: They also end each episode with 2-3 minutes of ads. So
| you had to exit the show, then re-enter to not get hit with two
| ad breaks in a row.
| mingus88 wrote:
| IMO no 3rd party app is worth using on those devices.
|
| My parents pay over $300/mo for an Xfinity bundle. It
| includes everything (phone, internet, and all streaming
| services on one bill)
|
| The paramount+ app on the Xfinity box took TEN MINUTES to
| load a show. This is after crashing three times back to the
| logo.
|
| Xfinity warns that it's a 3P app and they aren't responsible
| for it but it should be criminal to take the money and
| subject elderly people to this under spec hardware. Even live
| sports will pause and stutter.
| jimbokun wrote:
| It has really strange bugs like with an hour left of a
| Champions League match it thought it had reached the end
| credits of the show and tried to automatically start showing
| something else. Was confusing figuring out how to tell it I
| wanted to really watch the "end credits" which was the last
| hour of the soccer contest.
| dylan604 wrote:
| That's interesting as the Champions League is the most
| compelling thing for me to consider P+ subscription.
| Unfortunately for P+ it just hasn't been compelling enough. I
| feel for the Peacock subscription to watch EPL, but even with
| that subscription there are matches only on USA and maybe
| also on Telemundo. I can only imagine P+ doing similar, and
| I'm just not here for it
| jimbokun wrote:
| So far all the Champions League games have been available
| on the app. Serie A is a nice bonus, with a few other
| competitions as well.
|
| EPL requiring both Peacock and a cable subscription to
| watch all of the games is extremely annoying. But I do it
| anyway.
|
| All of those combined let me watch all the Arsenal games
| except FA and Carabao Cup.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I believe a combined Hulu+Disney+ESPN gets those, maybe.
| I know I've seen something via ESPN, but those would be
| the last 2 I pay attention
| linhns wrote:
| Sounds like Paramount bosses are bidding in anger.
| observationist wrote:
| They tilt like everyone else - maybe the chaos and mayhem
| behind the last few years of this industry mean the old guard
| is finally failing, and we'll see meaningful copyright reform
| and sanity in our lifetime.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _and we 'll see meaningful copyright reform_
|
| Are you betting on the content conglomerate bidding tens of
| billions, or the nepo baby LBO shop wearing the corpse of a
| movie studio as a salmon hat to spur copyright reform?
| awongh wrote:
| Paramount is dead?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Paramount is dead?_
|
| Paramount broke its tradition of barely treading water
| [1] in 2023 by booking multibillion cable losses [2]
| before being acquired in a _de facto_ LBO [3] at half the
| price it traded at in 2005 [4]. (90% off its 2021 peak,
| though that may have been meme-y.)
|
| Paramount Skydance-the one bidding for Warner-has $15bn
| of debt on $600mm operating cash flow supporting $15bn of
| equity trading above book value while still posting
| losses [5].
|
| It's not dead. But it's at least necrotic.
|
| [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/cbs:us:net-income
|
| [2] https://www.filmtake.com/distribution/paramounts-
| financial-t...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Skydance
|
| [4] https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/para/history/
|
| [5] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PSKY/key-statistics/
| bnjms wrote:
| How does one learn to think about companies buying each
| other. It's counterintuitive to me for an entity with
| stock to buy stock in another entity which could itself
| own stock in the first.
|
| The way you write it I can't see why WB would be allowed
| to sell itself when it makes the most sense for Patamount
| to go bankrupt some time from now and be split up amongst
| US media; Netflix/HBO/Disney/Peacock
| vel0city wrote:
| You're missing the key part. The Paramount deal includes
| billions in Saudi money funneled through the President's
| son in law.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| > we'll see meaningful copyright reform and sanity in our
| lifetime.
|
| I think there is a better chance of the state collapsing than
| there is of seeing meaningful IP reform
| collingreen wrote:
| The state collapsing might effectively be copyright reform
| at the same time though so there's that?
| staplers wrote:
| we'll see meaningful copyright reform and sanity in our
| lifetime.
|
| That seems wildly naive... _gestures broadly at world_
| Levitz wrote:
| The rest of the world is the one thing that gives me hope
| in this regard, really.
|
| It feels like year by year, Asia, even China, is becoming
| more and more culturally relevant. Western media is just
| too damn stagnant.
|
| Hollywood used to be known as possibly the most important
| cultural powerhouse history has seen. It might still be
| that, but it certainly doesn't feel like it anymore.
|
| Or maybe I'm just getting old.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _year by year, Asia, even China, is becoming more and
| more culturally relevant_
|
| And powerful export sectors.
| moffers wrote:
| I think the political angle of this should not be discounted
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean it's not even politics in the way most people think
| about it--like this is just blatant corruption. Trump moved
| in and said this is my swamp.
|
| We're not even gonna get a good investigative journalism
| podcast about the corruption because it's just right there in
| front of you. There's not much to uncover.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| We need some kind of independent anti-corruption agency,
| like the one we told Ukraine they had to have to receive
| aid.
| perihelions wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46000977 ( _" Larry
| Ellison discussed axing CNN hosts with White House in
| takeover bid talks (theguardian.com)"_)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048351 ( _" Larry
| Ellison Met with Trump to Discuss Which CNN Reporters They
| Plan to Fire (techdirt.com)"_)
|
| Viewing this acquisition in terms of simple revenue alone is
| like positing Musk bought Twitter for its ad revenue. Total
| information control is priceless.
|
| (In case anyone hasn't kept up with the plutocratic oligarchy
| in the US: Oracle's Larry Ellison currently owns Paramount
| (since July 2024), and Warner Bros. Entertainment owns CNN.
| This isn't explained in the CNBC OP: David Ellison is Larry's
| son and the token CEO).
| next_xibalba wrote:
| > Total information control is priceless.
|
| Except there is robust competition in media --be it news,
| social, etc.
|
| I think the political angle in terms of motivation is
| overstated. In terms of closing the deal though, it's huge.
| David Ellison has been producing movies for quite some
| time. So his desire to become a big time player in that
| space would be a believable motivation. But he can use his
| father's connections to Trump to sink the Netflix bid (or
| create enough FUD to convince shareholders to favor his
| bid).
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Except there is robust competition in media --be it
| news, social, etc._
|
| As of a few years ago, there were six corporations owning
| 90% of US media: NewsCorp, TimeWarner, Comcast, Disney,
| Viacom, Sony.
|
| * https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/fs5g0b/mor
| e_tha...
|
| * https://techstartups.com/2020/09/18/6-corporations-
| control-9...
|
| Add to that local channel ownership (like Sinclair)
| concentration:
|
| * https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/media-
| consolidation-me...
|
| * https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-
| map
|
| * https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/broadcasters-urge-
| fcc-to-h...
|
| This is especially true when it comes to investigative
| journalism, where it may take weeks or months to run down
| leads and information.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Sure, I would call this robust competition.
| caned wrote:
| Much like you also have a robust choice of cereals at the
| supermarket.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| I think it gives Netflix an advantage. When it comes up in
| front of a judge he'll note the obvious conflict of interest
| and Trump's idiotic pronouncements, like the fact that he
| said he will be personally involved, and rule for Netflix.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| HA hardly. Balance that against two of the top four
| streaming platforms (youtube, hbo, disney, netflix) trying
| to merge, probably should worry about some anti-trust
| there, but not under this administration.
| zoeysmithe wrote:
| This will go to SCOTUS, which typically gives the
| administration preferential treatment. The US's current
| level of corruption is way too high to assume your
| scenario.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| The political angle is the whole ball game
| pwillia7 wrote:
| always has been
| clumsysmurf wrote:
| 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...
| kulahan wrote:
| 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.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| are executives breathing? then there is corruption. start
| following the money and you'll find it, we're in the new
| gilded age
| brandensilva wrote:
| The dark side of all this is a propaganda network.
|
| The government and who runs it should not be in business
| I'm sorry. This isn't free markets, it's manipulation and
| corruption.
| taurath wrote:
| This really isn't the free market, this is de facto
| cartels when like 90% of media properties are owned by 3
| or 4 companies.
| baq wrote:
| This is what happens in markets without a functional
| regulatory body - when the regulator turns into a market
| participant. It's closer to a jungle than anything else.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Stage AGs have a strong role to play in anti-trust law. And
| the other party they're suing _isnt_ a Federal agency this
| time.
|
| Now maybe nothing matters. But conflicts of interest will
| come up in those cases. Trump doesn't win _everything_. Trump
| wins at places where the Supreme Court is using him for their
| own project of reworking the constitutional order. Basically
| Trump shoots up a volley with some absolutely batshit PoV,
| they interpret the topic in some saner (still crazy) right
| wing legal idea. And the Supreme Court fast track's these
| cases about executive power.
|
| This case would be State AGs having independent standing to
| challenge major M&A.
|
| It will drag things out at a minimum, in a way the Supreme
| Court's rapid resolution of executive branch cases is not
| dragged out.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| One can only wish to have that amount of money to bid in anger.
| askvictor wrote:
| Don't worry, it's other peoples' money.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| they snoozed they losed
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| 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 used
| to be lots of more flops but lots of really good blockbusters as
| well. Now there are a lot less of both, it is profitable but
| enshittified.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| sippeangelo wrote:
| But who's gonna produce that once Paramount owns HBO?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Apple TV will buy it from Sony.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.)
| alephnerd wrote:
| Don't sleep on the A24 or NEON model. I think we'll see a
| boom in independent film production and distribution
| companies over the next few years, especially with the
| inevitable dry powder from either deal.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The US has freedom of speech, so anyone who wants to spend
| money producing a tv show or movie about Paramount's sale,
| regardless of HBO's ownership.
|
| I think it would be quite boring, though
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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
| believe Skydance is less wrong of a steward for Paramount than
| Paramount was before the consolidation. But a lot of that
| opinion comes from bias as a Star Trek fan and Skydance's
| approach seems to return to the semi-broken idea that Star Trek
| seems to be better as a film franchise than a TV franchise.)
|
| Skydance owning both Paramount and Warner Brothers might be
| very concerning in terms of IP consolidation alone.
| bsimpson wrote:
| 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...).
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Right. Also the weird part of the Skydance Lasseter drama
| is not just that is happened once, there, but that it
| happened at nearly the same time but worse at Annapurna.
| Annapurna games division that had done _so well_ last
| decade got purged by rehiring someone to oversee it who had
| been fired the first time for the "overly affectionate"
| types of problems just before Annapurna's "Golden Age" and
| was hired as much to better align the games division with
| making movie knockoffs rather than producing indie darlings
| (which was a "distraction" for a company trying so hard to
| be a movie company). (You can almost excuse "hired someone
| Disney fired for this reason", but how do you excuse "we
| already fired once for this reason"?)
|
| The Ellison family's willingness to be tied to serial
| harassers, and in the case of Annapurna in direct _expense_
| of being a beloved media producer, makes you wonder what
| worse skeletons that family has in its closet if this is
| already just the open awful stuff they want us to know
| about their close associates.
| VanTheBrand wrote:
| David Ellison was an intern at Pixar in college and has a
| personal relationship with Lasseter. Annapurna games was
| under his sister and has no management connection to
| Skydance.
|
| I guess if there is any common denominator it's a
| familial default to loyalty vs fear of public perception?
| Not the worst trait in the world despite leading to this
| outcome.
|
| Also to be fair Lasseter's "serial harassment" (while
| real and I'm not trying to discount) consisted of his
| insistence that everyone hug him when greeting him. So
| while you can make the argument his firing had merit, his
| "issue" is pretty easy to prevent at a new firm: No hugs
| policy
| afavour wrote:
| 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.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| And probably also right.
| stopbulying wrote:
| "Jared Kushner is part of Paramount's hostile bid for Warner
| Bros. Discovery" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46195014
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _curious how often tactics like this work_
|
| Hostile takeovers hit their zenith "in the 1980s" [1], when
| about 50% of attempts succeeded [2].
|
| Since then, Delaware courts have become more Board friendly
| (specifically, friendly to takeover defences), antitrust made
| "it more difficult for companies with large market shares to
| acquire competitors without some level of cooperation from the
| target company," and stocks became more expensive [1]. (I'm
| struggling to find recent literature on frequencies.)
|
| Compared to the 1980s and pre-Covid hostile takeover zenith,
| stocks remain expensive. But money is chaper, particularly for
| the politically connected. Antitrust is a wild card. And Warner
| has reduced takeover defences given it's already in the market
| for a sale ( _Revlon_ duties).
|
| So...somewhere below 50%?
|
| [1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/11/08/the-comeback-
| of-h...
|
| [2] https://faculty.fiu.edu/~daiglerr/pdf/hostile_takeovers.pdf
| bhelkey wrote:
| >> We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than
| the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix
|
| > It seems the main thrust of the pitch is "we're friends with
| Trump therefore more likely to win approval"
|
| It seems to me that the main thrust of the pitch is more money.
| ngcazz wrote:
| No matter who wins, we lose.
| postexitus wrote:
| Alien vs. Predator Whoever wins... We lose...
| WorldMaker wrote:
| The Alien and Predator are now both Disney Princesses. IP
| consolidation came for them already.
| glimshe wrote:
| If you like going to a physical theater, a Paramount victory
| could be slightly less bad.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Maybe? Paramount was already deep in shuffling a lot of
| movies to Paramount+ exclusives, and new parent company
| Skydance seems to have first-look deals with both Apple TV
| and Netflix who may or may not ask for movie projects to be
| streaming exclusive.
|
| (Apple TV is _nearly_ as bad at theatrical runs as Netflix,
| though admittedly some of Apple 's biggest "mistakes" are in
| presenting things beyond Oscar-bait such as Argyle that "box
| office flopped", but yet it is far better for physical
| theaters that they _tried_ and as a fan of physical theaters
| I want to keep seeing them trying.)
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| I have seen several aspects of entertainment in my life get
| squeezed for money (Magic The Gathering, movies, TV streaming,
| video games) and I have decided to basically quit any form of
| entertainment which is solely controlled by large corporations.
|
| People get extremely angry when Magic The Gathering charges
| more money, for more exclusive products, in more frequently
| occurring releases. Rage, grief, and sorrow over an aspect of
| your life that you allow a singular company to control. It
| doesn't have to be this way. You can walk away , and find more
| fulfilling activities that you control.
|
| This is what the kids call "touching grass".
|
| At this point I don't watch TV, I don't watch movies, I don't
| play Magic The Gathering, I only play video games over 10 years
| old.
|
| As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is
| junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in
| life. Humans now more than ever have the opportunity to learn
| and do anything, but instead they spend it squandered on a
| shadow of real life.
| petersellers wrote:
| > 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.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Eh, I feel like I lose less if Netflix wins
| feb012025 wrote:
| 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 pushed
| off to the side.
| pphysch wrote:
| Economic consolidation is one thing, consolidating under a
| malign foreign ideology is another. Definitely worrying.
| pwillia7 wrote:
| 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
| neogodless wrote:
| https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2025/12/03/how-the-ellis...
|
| > How the Ellison Empire is Killing America's Democratic Media
| btown wrote:
| Don't forget that the Ellisons have a 15% stake in TikTok's
| American business as well!
| imbnwa wrote:
| Yes, and he will control CNN just prior to the first midterms
| runoffs, this is all part of a plan.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| I feel like at some level, it will be much easier to just pir....
| I mean... train LLMs based on their content. Yeah. LLM training.
| That's acceptable. So it really doesn't matter who wins, we'll
| just perform LLM training.
| an0malous wrote:
| I'm LLM training right now!
| Computer0 wrote:
| Larry Ellison is my named enemy
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| larry ellison is guilty of all of the things they accuse soros
| of doing
| 9dev wrote:
| Ever played Horizon: Zero Dawn? He's like a real-life version
| of Ted Faro
| Sam713 wrote:
| The success of a Netflix>WBD acquisition would consolidate a
| third of US streaming markets under one roof, which should
| receive anti-trust scrutiny. Despite this, there is still a
| strong appearance of conflict of interest in Trump's public
| remarks regarding denying Netflix acquisition the necessary
| regulatory approval, in conjunction with his son-in-law Jared
| Kushner being one of the financial backers for Paramount's cash
| bid.
|
| (1)https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/trump-netflix-wbd-
| paramount....
| (2)https://www.techradar.com/streaming/netflix/trump-says-
| the-b...
| ls612 wrote:
| My guess is that if it went to trial Netflix would win tbh.
| That's why Paramount is having to raise its bid substantially,
| they can't rely on getting Trump to serve WB up on a platter.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| 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.
| imbnwa wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > the midterms runoffs
|
| Do you mean primaries? Runoffs are a thing in some elections
| in the US, but not a thing that would start in spring for the
| congressional midterms.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Netflix isn't buying CNN though, Paramount can just pick up
| Discovery on the cheap when its split off. There's no reason
| for them to even be trying to do a hostile bid either. I
| think this is just purely an ego/power trip thing.
| bsimpson wrote:
| There's no "supposedly."
|
| His kids are nepobabies that each run their own media company.
| His son is running Paramount, and his daughter has Annapurna.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| The President's son-in-law is involved in the hostile bid
| through his private equity firm Affinity Partners.
| https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-war...
| NickC25 wrote:
| >supposedly
|
| My man, you don't have to mince words here. This hostile bid is
| backed by Jared Kushner, who is the President's son in law. One
| Rich Asshole owns Paramount, and is most certainly supporting
| the bid here.
|
| This deal would also leave CNN in a very vulnerable position
| (they are owned by WB), which is exactly what Trump wants.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-08 23:01 UTC)