Paramount launching a hostile takeover: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/param...140913192.html

I completely get the annoyance with small screens, programming that repeats every plot point because people are distracted on their phones, etc. I myself get annoyed endlessly by my family consuming content this way.

However it does feel like elitism when we state that the "right" way to consume media is to dress up and go to the theater, and I'm sure the same was said when movies first came along and made live action shows less special, when TV came along and allowed people to watch in the comfort of their homes, when VHS and rentals came along and allowed home video and of course when media like what this forum was founded on came along that allowed home theaters to have higher fidelity. Technology has marched on, much like it has in areas like video games where arcades are just not as prevalent as they were before. That's created some annoying things sure, but if technology didn't march on we wouldn't have our beloved physical media either and it would all still be gatekept by 150 dollar VHS tapes (or live performances only or whatever)

Movies are insanely expensive to make, market and distribute and audiences are more fickle than ever, and I hope that companies use every revenue stream available to them to make them profitable and keep making them. Like I said before Netflix would be monumentally stupid to move WB over to their model of entertainment entirely... at least partially because their subscription model is gradually becoming less and less affordable and there has to be a critical point where just moving more content into their service doesn't attract more consumers at a higher price. I think you see that in most of the other streaming services who tried to copy their model and largely devalued a lot of their other content. But we'll see.

Including financing from a firm run by *checks notes* Jared Kushner.

Wonderful.

Don't worry. According to Trump, he's 'never spoken with him', so it's not like they're close.

X - Formerly Twitter

Netflix has 300 million subscribers. At $15 a month (probably a good enough average of their available plans) they're bringing in $54 billion dollars a year in a steady revenue stream. That's the equivalent of a billion-dollar earning movie every week.

Movie studios have to split their revenue with theaters. Video rentals died with Blockbuster. Home media? The average person stopped buying DVDs (and got rid of their players) as soon as streaming and broadband became widely available.

Licensing for cable and broadcast? That is passive income for content companies; they just need to weigh whatever revenue they could get by selling broadcast rights to, say Stranger Things, to TNT against things like brand dilution and platform exclusivity bring to the table.

The math is that they have you on the hook for your $15 a month until you drop your subscription. That's better than a $15 ticket because each of these 300 million subscribers isn't going to go to the movies once a month.

Netflix is all for killing movie theaters and physical media. Fuck them.

So now I'm suddenly rooting for Netflix? Fuuuuck. Go Netflix?

This timeline man.

How do they continue to grow with just subscriptions? Aren't people always bitching about having to have multiple services and the constant price hikes?

This WSJ story is pretty concerning regarding Paramount's bid. Hadn't thought about the CNN component of the purchase.

Again, though, the Netflix deal is only for WB, not for Discovery which is where CNN is. Ellison could easily bid for and win CNN still if that was what he really wants, but his recent valuation shows that he doesn't think Discovery is worth anything.

It's not necessarily what HE wants, it's the angle he can play to get Trump to intervene in the sale. Or the other angle besides his Son-in-Law.

Don't forget Rush Hour 4!

Already did!

Other math:

My family of 4 pays $15 per month and we all watch a movie together. But if we went out, we'd each have a $15 ticket.

They need to decide if they want to get $60 from me with 4 months of service or from a single night out.

I understand the gym model. However, a gym doesn't add $20 billion worth of new equipment every year just to keep people interested. No, not all 300 million are going to the movies. However, people still are and sill would be in larger numbers if it weren't for these horseshit shenanigans of eliminating options and claiming those industries are dying. (Trying very hard not to get into a comparison of two-party politics that have locked out all other voices and then claim nobody wants 3rd parties.)

I guess I don't understand the economics of exclusivity. Odds are, the family who is spending $60 on a single night of tickets is ALSO spending the $15 for a monthly subscription. So why forgo the revenue from a theatrical release? I would bet the percentage of people cancelling a subscription because they went to the theater is slim to none.

But how much does a theatrical release diminish the subscription model? Of course any streamer needs exclusive content, but if you're the first streamer to show Spider-Man after its theatrical run you still have subscribers watching the movie, just like Disney does it. Most of their movies are released in theaters and later they stream those movies on Disney+.

If this hostile merger happens, the Paramount/Warner entity might very well end up becoming like another East Germany "Deutsche Film-Aktiengesellschaft". Future films/shows ending up with an odorous taint that is difficult to sell internationally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althoff_Studios
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFA_(film_studio)

https://www.defa-stiftung.de/en/defa...y-at-a-glance/

Basically all markets in the current paradigm trend towards a cartel-like equilibrium like oil, only rarely disrupted in cases of war or geopolitical instability. Disney, Amazon, and Netflix would all be fine splitting up the Western streaming market in perpetuity. That implies they would own a majority of all Hollywood content since they don't want to pay licensing fees.

Many people would like Apple to get involved but they have never shown any interest in owning a Hollywood studio. They have more cash than anyone.

My gym just added a bunch of new equipment because people's tastes change. (Less cardio more strength). This is kind of like that. There want to keep TNT Sports International as an avenue for growth in non-US markets. Given the binary choice I prefer they get it than Paramount/Oracle/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/ Abu Dhabi. At least the cable network will be spun off and be independent.

If this is true, the future of WB movies is extremely grim. No "casual" movie-goer will have any urgency to see any WB movie in the theater. You can forget anymore WB blockbusters.

X - Formerly Twitter

Disgusting. The whole thing is disgusting and a hostile takeover from Paramount/Skydance isn't much better, but basically stomping on movie theaters is such a trash move.

How long does this deal have to be finalized?

I have no idea why Netflix would spend all this money and then cut off a sure revenue stream right off the bat. Surely having a longer theatrical window wouldn't lose them THAT many subscriptions, right?

A noted box office guy on X says that post is complete speculation and misrepresented.

X - Formerly Twitter

Listen to me now, believe me later. The second Netflix can get out of Warner's current contractual obligations, they will end all physical media releases and eventually cut the theatrical window to practically nothing. The only exception will be powerhouse directors (Nolan et al) and movie stars who write longer theatrical windows into their contracts. I expect the Academy Awards will likely add some theatrical qualifier so most Netflix/WB films won't be eligible for prizes.

Netflix's entire business model is getting millions of subscribers locked into paying ever-increasing monthly fees. The only reason Netflix went after Warner was they feared the emergence of a legitimate streaming threat if Paramount combined with Warner. The purchase is Netflix's way of shutting down a potential business threat. Netflix execs have no interest in either media or movie theaters, both of which have declined since the pandemic mostly thanks to...Netflix.

Warner Discovery CEO Zaslav favors the Netflix deal for one reason - his compensation package from the Warner board was structured so his payout grows substantially from the Netflix deal, and Netflix alone.

While the Federal government won't block the deal in toto, I expect several portions of Warner will be divested from the purchase in somewhat similar fashion to the Disney-Fox merger. Some think the government may force them to sell HBO MAX off to another entity.

I'm still not sure why Netflix would alter any part of the WB pipeline, especially if their main interest was in trying to curb a competitor to their service. They are ticking off all kinds of people, including talent that would work with them, by doing so. Leave things as is, which already prevents another competitor from getting strengthened, and fold these properties in after the usual wait time. It's not like there's just an endless amount of money people will pay for a streaming service even if they did day to date with all WB films. In fact, I'd think even combining Max and Netflix, the total revenue would drop or they wouldn't be able to demand the combined price (though they probably realize some savings in combining services).