Paramount says it could get antitrust approval for WBD before Netflix
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
No matter how corrupt this merger ends up being, and no matter who wins in the end, consumers will lose either way. We’ve already dropped all things Paramount/CBS and will have no problem adding WBD to that list, especially if any deal involves a Trump, a Kushner, an Ellison, or the Saudi PIF. And the second Netflix or any other company pays the bribe we all know is coming to complete this merger, they’ll be added to the list.
Thankfully there are these great things called books, of which there are literally millions to choose from, and I’d much rather give authors my money. No monthly subscription required.
Thankfully there are these great things called books, of which there are literally millions to choose from, and I’d much rather give authors my money. No monthly subscription required.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Well WBD shareholders will be happy as the WBD share price more than tripled from before Ellison made his first bid.
Otherwise I can see the benefits for Netflix doing this.
Netflix spends upwards of $6 billion a year on library content (from $16-20 billion a year total content spend) from the majors who are willing to licence and by buying WBD they could reduce that significantly and instead put it all in new content, new content made by their new WB production studios rather than over paying for third party production companies to make it like now.
I can also see why Netflix decided to jump in this time. Since Netflix has been licencing content there has been both a lot of consolidation and bullshit with licencing from the big legacy studios and going from 6 before Disney bought 21st Century to just 4 if Paramount or Comcast won WBD would hurt Netflix in the long run.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Personally, I don't care about killing movie theaters. I don't actively hate them or wish them any harm, but let me watch it from home, as well. Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to a two-day exclusivity window for theaters, either. But three months? That's not necessary.
Upvote
-1
(8
/
-9)
I would prefer good movies. The fact they are shit doesnt really change where to watch them. i am not going to bother watching shit at home either.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
If Paramount were to buy WB, licensing fees would likely skyrocket. And due to a lack of competition I think we'd be looking at even less originality and even more dreck coming out of Hollywood.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Not just that (and Saudi Arabia), but the Ellison dynasty, too. They've already publicly promised to 'overhaul' (read: shift to right-wing) CNN if they win the bid.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I long to live in your world, where making something easier makes people less likely to do it.
On the main topic, I despair of Hollywood. I go to the cinema sometimes, though I'm not really a franchise fan so the high-earning content isn't aimed at me. Ditto for essentially every Netflix original movie I can think of, all of which seem to be algorithmic to a fault — blandly forgettable stuff that exists purely to fill time, the epitome of light it plain and decide in post.
Netflix feels like the less-hurtful choice, but either way Warner Bros. is done for as a creative force.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Historically, the only consistent long-term winners in a merger or acquisition of any substantial size are the shareholders of the company being acquired, assuming they cash out at the time of the merger. And yes, those who exact their pound of flesh as a transaction fee. There are, of course exceptions.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Yup. I've been through half a dozen corporate takeovers. First you insist nothing will change. Then the company will try some desperate bid to radically increase profits, which will either work, or grievously wound the company. Then when it doesn't work, more corner cutting and layoffs. Then comes some short term financial shenanigans, then the company's husk is sold to some other sucker. Leveraged buyouts almost always spell doom.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
As I alluded to in the post above yours, the purpose of a leveraged buyout is to allow larger shareholders of the acquired company to maximize the value of their investment in a company that is heading in the wrong direction. Any current holders of WB stock should be looking to cash out as soon as this deal closes, if not right now. Take your money and run. Let that debt from the transaction be someone else's liability.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The netflix acquisition is better. It’s not great, not by any measure, but it’s better than Paramount. For one thing the news gets spun off, not merged into what’s basically targeted to become a state media conglomerate.
And in general while the netflix deal is the banal run of the mill evil of a megacorp in the stages of under-regulated market consolidation that’s still vastly better than the targeted MAGA flavored fascism evil that is an option run by David Ellison and Jared Kushner.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
We can already. They've started using betting odds and reporting them as if they are election polling, so they're already propaganda and not news anymore.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I feel like I might be living on a completely different planet, because IME the theater experience is miles better these days than it was a decade ago. Most of the cinemas in my area have undergone upgrades and renovations so that the seats are arguably better than what I have at home, the food options are pricey but still pretty good, the screen/sound is better than what I own/can afford, and since I don't go to opening night showings I tend to avoid the worst of the mouth-breathing crowds. And to top it off, the ticket prices aren't really any higher than they already were a decade ago, so it's not like I'm paying any extra for the improved experience.
Take that away, and my movie consumption falls off a cliff. The improved theater experience has had me seeing more stuff in theaters than I did pre-COVID.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Exactly how I feel. With streaming releases often only a few days after theatre releases, for the first time in my life theatres have to actually compete and provide a nice service for the money. For a major movie release, I'll gladly go to a theatre now.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
There's a reason Orban attended CPAC. He's taught the Republicans how he did it.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Here is the link to the article I had alluded to earlier in the thread. Where before the Netflix acquisition announcement the HBO Max CEO alluded to the brand being a premium service as opposed to Netflix's model.
You can kiss that premium model goodbye once Netflix takes over.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...n-casey-bloys-hbo-ip-max-original-1236432357/
You can kiss that premium model goodbye once Netflix takes over.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...n-casey-bloys-hbo-ip-max-original-1236432357/
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Perhaps this is a big YMMV situation, and I've been unlucky with what's available in my area. I have two bigish theatres near me, both owned by the same company. They did the recliner seat upgrades at some point in the past ten years and that's about it. The screens are fine, but my OLED is better, especially in dark scenes. The only place they have me beat is audio volume. The food is still junk and absurdly expensive. I paid over $60, just for the tickets, to take my family of four to see Zootopia 2 on the weekend. That would have been less than $10 if it was available digitally. There are two or three other small theatres, but they still have the old style seats and their screens are even worse. Maybe if I was going to movies by myself the value wouldn't be so bad.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Not in this case... It's all about what is best for those who can approve or block the deal.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I bet your kids will remember you taking them out to see Zootopia 2 as apposed to just sitting them on the couch and telling them have at it.
I still remember the day I went to see Star Wars back in 1977. I still remember the day me and my friends from high school went to see ROTJ when it came out in the mid 80's. Hell I even remember going out with my friends to the late night showing of Shocker at my local downtown theater post high school back in the 80's. Terrible movie but great memories.
You don't get that by plopping down on your couch.
Attachments
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
You comment presents that the home experience is not together, that the parent always turns on the movie and walks away. The together-ness is the important part and doesn't require "the theater experience". Yeah, it's fun to go to the theater sometimes, but it's not really the important part of the memory. I have great memories of renting movies with my friends and watching the all night at one of our homes... memories made "by plopping down on (a) couch". My kids (15 & 8) have fine memories of watching movies together from a couch, with popcorn and candy, as they do watching movies in a theater. With the elder, we enjoyed catching up on MCU thru Avengers: Infinity War from the couch, because it was together. We watched Star Wars 1-9 and director's cut of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. It was a family event, not "sitting them on the couch and telling them have at it."
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
HBO hasn't been Premium since they tacked the MAX wart onto it. Now they have to earn that title back. Maybe start by dropping the advert infested tiers.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I think that all of the potential bidders for Warner Bros Discovery, either with the Discovery piece (as Paramount wants) or without (as Netflix and Comcast want), can't complete a deal without making significant divestments.
For Netflix, the big concern is their potential dominance of streaming. But simply adding the subscriber counts doesn't fully answer the question because many of those subscribers may be the same people. A correct analysis would require access to confidential data at the companies so we could determine how many NEW subscribers Netflix would add. Netflix could address that by spinning off HBO Max, with the new owners getting a non-exclusive license to WB and HBO content for some number of years. (Netflix wants to be able to show the HBO content itself so they're not going to be interested in granting an exclusive license.)
For Paramount and Comcast (which also owns NBC Universal), the big concern is merging two major movie studios. The government let Disney absorb Fox a few years ago, but I suspect there is not much interest in seeing additional consolidation of the business. They might address the issue by selling off the studios, perhaps even to Netflix, which could use the facilities because its own are very limited. (They rent studio space and make coproduction deals.)
A second concern is merging two major news outlets, CNN and the network news operations of the TV networks owned by the bidders. (Comcast's cable news networks, MSNBC and CNBC, are already part of a spinoff of Comcast's cable networks as Versant.) I don't see any simple answer to that for Paramount; Comcast might be able to make CNN part of the Versant spinoff.
Paramount and Comcast also own streaming networks, Paramount+ and Peacock. But there isn't much antitrust concern there because both are far smaller than Netflix and Disney+. Merging either of those with HBO Max would produce a company that could compete will with those two larger services, but not one that approaches monopoly power.
For Netflix, the big concern is their potential dominance of streaming. But simply adding the subscriber counts doesn't fully answer the question because many of those subscribers may be the same people. A correct analysis would require access to confidential data at the companies so we could determine how many NEW subscribers Netflix would add. Netflix could address that by spinning off HBO Max, with the new owners getting a non-exclusive license to WB and HBO content for some number of years. (Netflix wants to be able to show the HBO content itself so they're not going to be interested in granting an exclusive license.)
For Paramount and Comcast (which also owns NBC Universal), the big concern is merging two major movie studios. The government let Disney absorb Fox a few years ago, but I suspect there is not much interest in seeing additional consolidation of the business. They might address the issue by selling off the studios, perhaps even to Netflix, which could use the facilities because its own are very limited. (They rent studio space and make coproduction deals.)
A second concern is merging two major news outlets, CNN and the network news operations of the TV networks owned by the bidders. (Comcast's cable news networks, MSNBC and CNBC, are already part of a spinoff of Comcast's cable networks as Versant.) I don't see any simple answer to that for Paramount; Comcast might be able to make CNN part of the Versant spinoff.
Paramount and Comcast also own streaming networks, Paramount+ and Peacock. But there isn't much antitrust concern there because both are far smaller than Netflix and Disney+. Merging either of those with HBO Max would produce a company that could compete will with those two larger services, but not one that approaches monopoly power.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Alas, tiers that are infested with advertising is where everybody is going now, including Netflix (after many years of saying they would never do that). Most of them are heavily pushing the "with ads" options; recent promotions from them have not included deals on the no-ads tiers. Paramount+ is a notable exception; they recently offered half off an annual subscription that covered both with ads and ad-free tiers. Peacock even admits that they make more money on their with-ads tier than on ad-free subscribers; they have been particularly successful at targeting and selling ads.
One reason I fear it is that it will change the movies and shows that get made. Producers will be expected to build ad-friendly break points to their shows, and shows that have corporate-unfriendly viewpoints may become impossible to make because nobody will want to buy ad time on them. Imagine pitching remakes of Network or Max Headroom in that environment...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Some of the cost savings are legitimate. For example, if Netflix wins they're likely to eliminate HBO Max and fold it into Netflix. (Even if they keep HBO Max alive as a separate service, they would likely eliminate the HBO Max infrastructure and make the back end part of Netflix.) They won't need some of the existing staff if they do that. Paramount would do the same, except that they would probably fold Paramount+ into HBO Max rather than the other way around.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Or option 3: Hollywood dies and opens the door for the rest of the world to replace its creatively bankrupt bean counter driven franchise machine with creative content.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
And thats why they are no longer Premium. Now HBO is an also ran. AppleTV has firmly taken the Premium title, and they did it by traveling the trail that Home Box Office blazed 30 years ago.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
That'll happen around the same time Raytheon pivots away from producing missiles and after the Coca Cola company goes bankrupt.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
It's already happening, actually. Indies have even been pushing mega-budget studios aside in the Academies.
Hollywood is already dying while the global demand for more stuff to watch is continuing to surge unabated. It's just a matter of time at this point, though it seems like the big studios are trying to hasten their own demise because they haven't seen the looming iceberg in front of them.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Here's my problem with the primaries:
If you live in a state that doesn't vote early in the primaries, all the Candidates that you might like may already have resigned their campaigns. The last time I remember having a primary that was still contested by the time I got to vote was Obama v. Clinton.
My state is also not a swing state, so my vote also doesn't have any influence on what President or Congress people get selected. I still vote, but I basically feel like the system has rendered my vote essentially meaningless.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
I feel the same way, because it's true. And it's also by design; partly because the swing states are only relevant as a direct result of election rigging. Were it not for the election rigging the comparatively small populations in the swing states would render them electorally irrelevant for the most part, as should be the case in a democracy. Instead, a relatively small minority of voters decide for the entire country, which is minority rule, not democracy.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
Oh, but there is. In this case, two different groups of 0.1%ers want it. One of them has direct ties to the President through their Private Equity, the other has reach that, in the past, has allowed them to even overcome governmental bureaucracy. So now we get to see which group of privileged few gets to win, or if it all gets destroyed in the fighting.
Part of me thinks this is all really about Ellison and Kushner buying John Oliver though.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
You're looking at a different thing to what I'm looking at.
You're thinking of the primaries in the sense of "who will be our candidate for the Presidency?".
I'm thinking of the primaries in the sense of "who will be our candidate for this particular Senate seat? For this particular seat in the House of Representatives?" That's where it really matters. And that's also where your vote has a huge influence, because, as I understand it (as somebody who is neither resident in, nor a citizen of, the United States), the turnout for the local primaries is extremely low.
And then there's all the local stuff that helps direct and shape the State-level politics (rather than the Federal level.) That stuff is the feeder for the Federal level, and in that respect matters even more, in the long run, than the Federal stuff.
Get the votes flowing in the right way at the state level (or even more local; I'm not familiar enough with US politics to know how many levels there are), and that will feed into Federal politics over time. The GOP understands this; they've been working to corrupt and distort the lower levels of politics to make it easier to get hold of the Federal levers of power for decades. You're not going to fix Federal politics by focusing on it - you need to start at the foundational levels and work your way up from there.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
There are degrees of badness to the slate of billionaires in the world, and so long as we have to deal with them we should try to favor the less evil. That being said, there's still no such thing as an ethical billionaire.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Case in point: there are now decades of Fox programs, many of which can be considered progressive or even leftist in philosophy. That doesn't magically make Fox News anything but a far right propaganda machine.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Many movies aren't filmed in Hollywood anymore because other states have offered some ridiculous tax breaks for the studios to go there. It has nothing to do with unionized workers. If a picture is being made by one of the Big Five, it's using union staff regardless of where it's being made.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)