Good Lord, dude, you keep twisting my words.

Of course Zaslav wanted to sell. That's public knowledge/was all over the press.

The point I'm obviously making is he didn't HAVE to. The company wasn't/isn't struggling. They're in the black, second place globally in terms of box office, have some of the most valuable franchise IP in the world, currently have the two Best Picture front runners, etc, etc, etc.

They're doing GREAT.

Meaning the company doesn't need to be saved by firing thousands of employees.

Rather, Zaslav stands to make $567 MILLION DOLLARS in the sale, while shareholders will of course do great as well. In other words, some obscenely wealthy people are simply going to become more wealthy at the expense of thousands of people losing their jobs. And look, that's capitalism, I totally get it, I'm not arguing the system, etc. Just don't peddle this bull**** about thousands of people "needing" to be fired. It's disingenuous and reeks of political bias.

I'm just happy that Netflix's stock jumped 10% post market so I can start recouping some of these losses

I'm well aware of all of this.

Like I JUST said... this is how it is, I get it, etc.

My response was spurred by these two posts, specifically, nearly back-to-back, from you and javajaws…

Quote:

---

What if thousands of people need to be fired?

---

Quote:

---

Hollywood isn't some special or magical business. They still have to make a profit and if any company is so badly run as to need to be sold then most likely layoffs will be coming regardless of what any buyer says. Promises to the contrary are just fantasy.

---

Together they read as "people need to be fired because the company is badly run."

I responded with my counter argument to that point, and now I'm being lectured on capitalism, as if I don't understand how the world works.

TCTTS said:

---

Paramount had the most embarrassing possible upcoming slate of films one could ever imagine.

Now, they’ll hold the keys to Warner Bros. pic.twitter.com/uoo9iFj733

— TylerCWhitmore (@TylerCWhitmore) February 27, 2026

---

Didn't Ellison just get control of them late last year? Not sure a lot of time to change a studio slate

This country is so screwed.

Apparently, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos visited the White House this afternoon and met with staffers, presumably to confirm whether a Netflix/Warner Bros. deal would be likely to get Govt. approval if Netflix chose to raise their bid to counter Paramount's. Shortly after this… https://t.co/dB9qcvl8kc

— Bill Hunt (@BillHuntBits) February 27, 2026

TCTTS said:

---

One family now controls...

- CBS
- CBS News
- CBS Sports
- CNN
- Comedy Central
- DC Studios
- Discovery
- HBO
- HBO Max
- MTV
- Nickelodeon
- Paramount Pictures
- Paramount+
- Pluto TV
- TBS
- TCM
- TikTok
- TNT
- Turner Sports
- UFC
- Warner Bros Pictures

... with $24 billion from the Saudis, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi, a fierce loyalty to Donald Trump, and thousands of jobs about to be lost in the process.

I don't care how you slice it, or which way you lean politically, this can't be good for the industry or the country.

---

It's not the end of the world. Not even close. Ownership doesn't matter as much as content. Any of those can die a long, slow, horrible death like CNN and MSNBC if there pushed to spout the same level of rhetoric, just in a different direction. Propping up a single party or personality is not in a tenable position when people can just turn you off and look elsewhere.

No one is saying it's the end of the world.

It just sucks that...

- Warner Bros will almost assuredly release fewer movies in theaters, which will negatively affect the theatrical business in general, at a time when it desperately needs more content not less.

- HBO Max will be folded into Paramount+, and HBO programming will probably be affected as a result.

- Ehe number of buyers technically stays the same, how much content they buy will now be less.

- Thousands of people in this town will lose their jobs.

I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for Hollywood, nor am I saying any of this is unfair. I'm simply expressing frustration because these things directly affect me, my livelihood, my friends, and the industry I love.

The cherry on top of that **** Sunday is that one of Trump's biggest donors now owns more of Hollywood than any other single individual. Does that mean all of the entities I listed above will go full MAGA? Of course not, for exactly the reasons you named. Hell, since taking over Paramount, David Ellison has re-upped contracts for both John Stewart and the South Park guys, all of whom are obviously vocal Trump haters. Regardless of their politics, though, it's just... concerning... that one family now has that much media power, ultimately resulting creatively in fewer things we all, for the most part, enjoy watching (movie/TV-wise, not factoring in things like CNN). At least under Netflix fewer of those things would have gone away. That's all I'm saying.

Paramount just bought a $111 billion media empire with a $12 billion market cap.

Read that again. Paramount’s market cap is roughly $12 billion. Warner Bros. Discovery’s enterprise value in this deal is $111 billion. David Ellison is buying a company nearly 10x his own company’s… https://t.co/BM1oFYg9oz

— Aakash Gupta (@aakashgupta) February 27, 2026

Quote:

---

Paramount just bought a $111 billion media empire with a $12 billion market cap.

Read that again. Paramount's market cap is roughly $12 billion. Warner Bros. Discovery's enterprise value in this deal is $111 billion. David Ellison is buying a company nearly 10x his own company's size.

How? Larry Ellison's net worth: $201 billion. He's personally guaranteeing the equity commitment. Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo are providing $57.5 billion in debt financing. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, Abu Dhabi's L'imad Holdings, and the Qatar Investment Authority are providing equity. The combined entity will carry over $90 billion in debt.

This tells you everything about what actually happened. Netflix offered $83 billion for the studios and streaming (the good parts). Paramount offered $111 billion for everything (including the dying cable networks nobody else wanted). Netflix looked at the math to match Paramount and said "at this price, the deal is no longer financially attractive." That's Netflix-speak for "we're not overpaying for linear TV in 2026."

Netflix stock jumped 10% on the news it lost. Paramount rose 5%. The market is telling you which company made the better decision.

What makes this really interesting: Paramount promised $6 billion in cost synergies. That's code for mass layoffs across two studios, two streaming platforms, and overlapping cable networks. CNN and CBS News under one roof. HBO Max and Paramount+ merged. They'll need those savings because the debt service on $90 billion will be brutal.

David Ellison attended Trump's State of the Union as Lindsey Graham's guest on Tuesday. Ted Sarandos was at the White House Thursday afternoon. Both were lobbying. Ellison won. And his father's close ties to Trump will matter when DOJ reviews a deal that puts CBS, CNN, HBO, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, and TNT under one owner.

The real story: a 42-year-old with a rocky box office track record just assembled the largest media conglomerate in history, financed by his father's fortune, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth, and $57.5 billion in bank debt. Netflix walked away richer. The question is whether Paramount can service the debt load while linear TV revenue keeps declining or whether this becomes the most expensive content library acquisition ever assembled on borrowed time.

---

I don't disagree… to an extent.

Because theaters will still exist, especially if AI increasingly automates society, lowers the cost of goods and services, and far fewer people are working 9-5s. In other words, we're likely going to have all kinds of time on our hands, which means more outings/shared experiences, which means movie theaters aren't going anywhere. And their very existence will mean curation. Even 10-15 years from now, Garage Guy won't be able to upload his movie to a theater.

That said, when it comes to TV/home viewing you're probably right. Though, people underestimate how crucial storytelling is as a learned/practiced skill. Yes, it's going to get easier and easier and cheaper and cheaper for Garage Guy to produce video/effects/photo-real actors. But that's only half of it. Otherwise, it takes years and years to become truly skilled as a storyteller. Hell, a decent chunk of Hollywood can't even tell a great story. It's really ****ing hard to connect emotionally with an audience, and no matter how many moving images Garage Guy can create, he's going to have to be a master at the other half as well.

Story is king and the storyteller wears the crown.

Sure, but you think every great storyteller that exists is currently able to get their story made under the current cost constraints? Not even remotely. Not even Matt Damon or Ben Affleck can get a movie they want made into theaters the way they envision it. Drop the production costs the expectation of the size of the audience also falls and you democratize the access to creation. There will be an absolute metric ton of junk created, but cream rises.

Even still we're heading into the era of the Golden Age of Hollywood and comic books entering the public domain and you can be damn sure the AI systems are going to make it as easy as possible to be compliant with copyright in the production of video content.

Don't know that theaters survive when people can get a 200" screen equivalent in the form of glass in their living room anchored to any surface they desire for <$1000. Maybe people enjoy watching movies with strangers more than I expect, but I don't think even TVs are going to survive much longer than 15 years.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I get not everyone is enamored with the theater experience, but it really is different from the home viewinv experience, no matter how fancy your TV and audio setup is. I'll always go back to watching Endgame and F1 in the theaters.

---

Different isn't the same as better. I understand many people are enamored with the theater experience - its very nostalgic for some, and for others its also a social event. And, yes, for some (many even) it IS better than their home viewing experience.

But there are many people who don't care about those things. They see theaters as a roadblock to watching content at home. And that's fine - different strokes for different folks as they say.

Overall I think the decline continues for theaters that don't migrate to an "experience" model (think alcoholic drinks, food service, games, etc).

Also, in-theater viewing is a luxury in today's world that can cost a family of 4 more than $100. Not a good business to be in while people are getting laid off left and right.

Quote:

---

Plus, I don't think the majority of people will be able (or want) to have 200 inch screens at home. Going to see an event movie, or just going to a date movie, will be something they enjoy getting out of the house and going to a theater for.

---

To a certain extent, screen size is irrelevant (unless you need to have a LOT of people watching at the same time). It's more about viewing distance and field of view.

Eh, agree to slightly disagree with you on your points. If the theater experience wasn't better, for me and many others at least, then I would stay at home to watch these movies. That was the point of my post... watching some movies in a theater is better, not just different, than watching them at home.

And yes screen size is a big component of why it's better. F1 was better on a movie screen than on my 65-inch tv.

But yes, ticket prices and the cost of snacks is getting prohibitively high for a lot of people. A teenager will have to borrow $75 just to take his date to a movie.

TCTTS said:

---

You're not wrong.


However, the industry's tune changed when it became obvious (via interviews/reporting) that Ellison was...

A) going to merge all Paramount/Warner Bros theatrical divisions (potentially even abandoning the WB studio lot)...

B) going to merge Paramount+ with HBO Max...

B) thus firing thousands of Warner Bros/HBO Max employees.

D) make down-the-middle slop in terms of movies.


Netflix, on the other hand, vowed multiple times to...

A) keep Warner Bros theatrical divisions/distribution basically as-is...

B) not merge Netflix+ with HBO Max (and leave HBO untouched in the process)...

B) thus retaining thousands of Warner Bros/HBO Max employees.

D) allow Warner Bros to continue to make big, original movies.


Yes, Ellison has vowed to make 15 theatrical Paramount movies + 15 theatrical Warner Bros movies per year. Likely more than Netflix would have released theatrically per year. However, multiple experts claim that he simply doesn't have the cash to do so, even if it's technically across two studios/distributors. That, and Disney made roughly the same promise when they bought 20th Century Fox and they released just FOUR 20th Century Studios movies last year.

Could Ellison somehow keep his promise? Sure.

Is it likely? No.

Consolidation on this level just sucks all around. No one - not the industry, not the workers, not the consumers - win when **** like this happens. Only the billionaires benefit.

---

I just saw this response TC, and my response to you is simply that Netflix can make all the promises they want... I don't believe them. And I'm not saying I believe all of Paramount's promises, but they are more of a traditional movie company. Plus, we know the subpar quality of most Netflix movies and how Netflix has operated up until now regarding theatrical release windows for their movies. To expect the Netflix tiger to change its stripes is trustworthy bordering on gullible. Every CEO of every corporation making this type of move makes promises that they backtrack on within 2-3 years after completion of the deal. You even proved that point yourself talking about how Disney operated when they bought twentieth century fox... promises made are promises broken when it comes to corporation's bottom lines.

It's silly to believe promises from Huge Corporation A but not Huge Corporation B, which is what we're doing if we suddenly believe Netflix, but we don't believe Paramount.

You're right, consolidation leads to less innovation and less diversity of product. It sucks all around for someone who experienced pre-social media/pre-youtube Hollywood and knows what we'll be missing out on going forward.

I think there are way more social experiences that will be preferred way more than a movie theater experience. People won't have a full 200" screen in their house. They'll each have a pair of AI glasses that projects the equivalent of a 200" screen onto the lenses of the glasses. Full perceivable 3-D depth at a fraction of the cost of a TV or routine visits to the movie.

In this instance it's not really a matter of "belief," though. It's just facts/common sense...

- Netflix doesn't have any kind of notable theatrical distribution, therefore they would have to keep Warner Bros. mostly intact. They're not going to buy a 100-year-old theatrical distributor only to release all their movies exclusively to Netflix, or give something like The Batman: Part II a two-week limited theatrical release before going straight to Netflix. Even Netflix finally understands the value of the theatrical model, something that has been covered/reported on extensively as of late.

- Paramount not only already has vast theatrical distribution, Ellison has literally said he'll fire most of Warner Bros, via $6 billion in cuts, leaving only key figures in place.

Other than those logistics, both companies have said they'd release 15 movies per year via in theaters via Warner Bros and I don't believe either one. I'm guessing less than 10 or so per year through WB, but at least with Netflix Warner Bros would have remained mostly as-is.

This is the kind of crap Paramount is doing now. Landis is a ****ing nightmare of a human being. I know multiple people who know him and all they have horror stories, never mind the stuff that's already public. Between this and greenlighting Rush Hour 4 for Brett Ratner, it's like they're actively trying to un-cancel as many ****ty human beings as possible...

Max Landis, Whose Career Imploded During #MeToo, Returns with ‘G.I. Joe’ Movie at Paramount (Exclusive) https://t.co/MiW4dfRpLg

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) February 27, 2026

Max Landis is bad enough...taking THIS approach to screenwriting?? https://t.co/du14cTphyd pic.twitter.com/xkwpgMFQcs

— Griffin Schiller (@griffschiller) February 27, 2026

Will still likely take months to close, but this is notable...

This Paramount/WBD deal is moving quickly.

Paramount has sent Netflix $2.8 billion.

Paramount and WBD are hustling to get an announcement out today.

— Lucas Shaw (@Lucas_Shaw) February 27, 2026

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Paramount had the most embarrassing possible upcoming slate of films one could ever imagine.

Now, they’ll hold the keys to Warner Bros. pic.twitter.com/uoo9iFj733

— TylerCWhitmore (@TylerCWhitmore) February 27, 2026

---

When It looked like Netflix was going to take over WBD everyone in the Hollywood media was posting almost this exact same concern...."Netflix puts out trash movies and now they're going to be in charge of WBD! We're doomed!"

Now it's, "Paramount's upcoming slate of movies is trash and now they're taking over WBD! We're doomed!"

Just my opinion of course, but nobody knows exactly how this is going to pan out in the long run for the movie biz, so the chicken littles on Hollywood social media just need to chill.

---

Just addressing the slate this year, while not my cup of tea, several of those films are probably going to make bank. I know my kid is going to drag my ass to sonic and paw patrol for sure. Both of those bring in over 400m each at least. I'm sure Street Fighter, Scream, and ****er in Law make their money back and then some too

Maybe...60 years from now, lol. I'm old enough that I was raised on movies, shows, scientists, and business leaders who predicted flying cars, an AI-controlled world, fully synthetic humanoid robots, an apocolyptic event, etc, etc, etc....all by the year 2020. Yet, here we are with none of that but we do still have movies, shows, scientists, and business leaders promising, you guessed it, all of the above "right around the corner".

Hey, I hope I'm wrong, but...

TCTTS said:

---

In this instance it's not really a matter of "belief," though. It's just facts/common sense...

- Netflix doesn't have any kind of notable theatrical distribution, therefore they would have to keep Warner Bros. mostly intact. They're not going to buy a 100-year-old theatrical distributor only to release all their movies exclusively to Netflix, or give something like The Batman: Part II a two-week limited theatrical release before going straight to Netflix. Even Netflix finally understands the value of the theatrical model, something that has been covered/reported on extensively as of late.

- Paramount not only already has vast theatrical distribution, Ellison has literally said he'll fire most of Warner Bros, via $6 billion in cuts, leaving only key figures in place.

Other than those logistics, both companies have said they'd release 15 movies per year via in theaters via Warner Bros and I don't believe either one. I'm guessing less than 10 or so per year through WB, but at least with Netflix Warner Bros would have remained mostly as-is.

---

At this point, I'm used to studios, streamers, etc. changing hands every 4-5 years unfortunately. I mean, we've lived through half a dozen name changes in the past 5 years just for "HBO" alone, lol. It's unfortunate. But I figure if this merger goes as badly as Hollywood twitter says it will, then we might just be going through this again in 3-4 years anyway.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

In this instance it's not really a matter of "belief," though. It's just facts/common sense...

- Netflix doesn't have any kind of notable theatrical distribution, therefore they would have to keep Warner Bros. mostly intact. They're not going to buy a 100-year-old theatrical distributor only to release all their movies exclusively to Netflix, or give something like The Batman: Part II a two-week limited theatrical release before going straight to Netflix. Even Netflix finally understands the value of the theatrical model, something that has been covered/reported on extensively as of late.

- Paramount not only already has vast theatrical distribution, Ellison has literally said he'll fire most of Warner Bros, via $6 billion in cuts, leaving only key figures in place.

Other than those logistics, both companies have said they'd release 15 movies per year via in theaters via Warner Bros and I don't believe either one. I'm guessing less than 10 or so per year through WB, but at least with Netflix Warner Bros would have remained mostly as-is.

---

At this point, I'm used to studios, streamers, etc. changing hands every 4-5 years unfortunately. I mean, we've lived through half a dozen name changes in the past 5 years just for "HBO" alone, lol. It's unfortunate. But I figure if this merger goes as badly as Hollywood twitter says it will, then we might just be going through this again in 3-4 years anyway.

---

Studios do change hands semi-often. However, that is usually a result of one mega-corp buying up an entertainment division only to realize they no longer want to be in that business. In this case one company already has the means to do everything the other company that they are buying does except their IP. I don't see a scenario where Paramount spins off a Warner Bros studio. They may package some cable networks into a spin off but I don't see a scenario where Paramount sells Warner and its IP to a different group of investors unless daddy Ellison decides he's tired of his kid's media toy nibbling at his current $200 Billion net worth.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Maybe...60 years from now, lol. I'm old enough that I was raised on movies, shows, scientists, and business leaders who predicted flying cars, an AI-controlled world, fully synthetic humanoid robots, an apocolyptic event, etc, etc, etc....all by the year 2020. Yet, here we are with none of that but we do still have movies, shows, scientists, and business leaders promising, you guessed it, all of the above "right around the corner".

Hey, I hope I'm wrong, but...

---

The display technology already exists. Apple, the company that turns nerd tech into normie tech, just hasn't refined the hard work of others into a product that is broadly desirable. Future is an Apple Watch for health tracking and monitoring neurological commands on your wrist + Smart Glasses for display and situational awareness + an iPhone for computational horsepower and connectivity.








Google is releasing their monocular display version of glasses this year. Will eventually progress to binocular glasses.

nvmd, think i misunderstood the essence of your post

And that's what I'm assuming might happen to cause a sell-off, if anything.