The more and more I'm reading about the acquisition, I don't like it, Amanda Toney. I like that Netflix said it expects to maintain the current operations of Warner Bros. “including theatrical releases for films," but I don't like the idea of shorter theatrical release windows.
Personally, I think it's a bit of a sad move and just sort of a sign of Hollywood eating itself. I mean on one hand, shortening release windows would allow more movies to be in theatres at once, but on the other hand, what's the point of that if the movies aren't worth seeing in theatres? This year, I only saw two films in the theatre, Frankenstein and Five Nights at Freddy's 2(both are excellent btw) and that was because they had the gravitas and the level of immersion that can only be brought to life with theatre-grade equipment(imo). Everything else though seemed not necessarily worth it as stuff like the sound design, the cinematography and visual effects didn't seem worth it to see in theatres.
Who cares who owns what? Warner Brothers had the DC Universe and couldn't make it work while Netflix made a $300M monstrosity The Electric State which didn't seem to wow anybody although, at this time, I don't know if it did the business Netflix was hoping it was going to do. I didn't subscribe to Netflix just to watch that. Netflix also seemed to swing and miss with Zac Snyder's Rebel Moon. They're spending $82.7B on the deal...if they keep making crap, it won't matter what they do. No one in either camp seems to know how to create great entertainment at a consistent level.
All signs point to this being challenged. It must pass muster through an administration and regulatory agencies that are so far casting a jaundiced eye on the merger. In particular, the Department of Justice focuses a microscope on it.
E Langley That would be the same DOJ that of its own accord set aside the Paramount Decrees in 2020, giving its defacto blessing to the studios to re-institute cartel and monopolistic practices - which it has been tolerating ever since.
Hardly its own accord. Leveraged. Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit with President Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris, removing a major hurdle for the deal.
E Langley If you are referring to the DOJ setting aside the Paramount Decrees, you are incorrect. They did this in 2020. It was part of a part of an internal program at DOJ, an ongoing review process that vacates RICO and antitrust orders the DOJ considers no longer relevant. The studios had nothing to do with it and the only parties other than the DOJ itself to speak to it in court were the association of independent cinema owners. Trust me, I wish the studios and networks were behind it - they weren't and even the attorneys involved had no connection to the studios that would imply influence. I looked. Hard.
It must be coincidence the administration held the lawsuit over Paramount's head. A miracle! The merger through when Paramount paid out the 16 mil and made concessions in a "pay-for-play."
This is the widely held understanding. Not a buncha blah-blah-blah.
1 person likes this
Hate it, I personally don't like Netflix, I wanted to make my show for Warner Bros. This news hit me like a bullet.
1 person likes this
Amanda Toney Couldn't care less really. The continued convergence of a cartel to a monopoly since the Paramount Decrees were set aside in 2020.
The more and more I'm reading about the acquisition, I don't like it, Amanda Toney. I like that Netflix said it expects to maintain the current operations of Warner Bros. “including theatrical releases for films," but I don't like the idea of shorter theatrical release windows.
1 person likes this
Personally, I think it's a bit of a sad move and just sort of a sign of Hollywood eating itself. I mean on one hand, shortening release windows would allow more movies to be in theatres at once, but on the other hand, what's the point of that if the movies aren't worth seeing in theatres? This year, I only saw two films in the theatre, Frankenstein and Five Nights at Freddy's 2(both are excellent btw) and that was because they had the gravitas and the level of immersion that can only be brought to life with theatre-grade equipment(imo). Everything else though seemed not necessarily worth it as stuff like the sound design, the cinematography and visual effects didn't seem worth it to see in theatres.
Who cares who owns what? Warner Brothers had the DC Universe and couldn't make it work while Netflix made a $300M monstrosity The Electric State which didn't seem to wow anybody although, at this time, I don't know if it did the business Netflix was hoping it was going to do. I didn't subscribe to Netflix just to watch that. Netflix also seemed to swing and miss with Zac Snyder's Rebel Moon. They're spending $82.7B on the deal...if they keep making crap, it won't matter what they do. No one in either camp seems to know how to create great entertainment at a consistent level.
1 person likes this
“The potential sale of WBD does not sit well with me” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warner-bros-fou...
2 people like this
All signs point to this being challenged. It must pass muster through an administration and regulatory agencies that are so far casting a jaundiced eye on the merger. In particular, the Department of Justice focuses a microscope on it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/12/05/warner-bros-discove...
3 people like this
E Langley That would be the same DOJ that of its own accord set aside the Paramount Decrees in 2020, giving its defacto blessing to the studios to re-institute cartel and monopolistic practices - which it has been tolerating ever since.
1 person likes this
Hardly its own accord. Leveraged. Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit with President Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris, removing a major hurdle for the deal.
1 person likes this
And 10 year later they'll all be broken up by the government ...
1 person likes this
E Langley If you are referring to the DOJ setting aside the Paramount Decrees, you are incorrect. They did this in 2020. It was part of a part of an internal program at DOJ, an ongoing review process that vacates RICO and antitrust orders the DOJ considers no longer relevant. The studios had nothing to do with it and the only parties other than the DOJ itself to speak to it in court were the association of independent cinema owners. Trust me, I wish the studios and networks were behind it - they weren't and even the attorneys involved had no connection to the studios that would imply influence. I looked. Hard.
It must be coincidence the administration held the lawsuit over Paramount's head. A miracle! The merger through when Paramount paid out the 16 mil and made concessions in a "pay-for-play."
This is the widely held understanding. Not a buncha blah-blah-blah.