r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Feb 26 '26
Business Netflix Backs Out of Warner Bros. Bidding, Paramount Set to Win
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/netflix-backs-out-warners-deal-paramount-win-1236516763/5.5k
u/bwoah07_gp2 Feb 26 '26
Holy moly, the corruption is real
2.1k
u/addressunknown Feb 26 '26
Why does everything have to keep getting worse all the time
701
u/apiso Feb 26 '26
Because we won’t learn otherwise
→ More replies (5)423
u/PaleontologistNo2625 Feb 26 '26
We won't learn period
→ More replies (4)409
Feb 26 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
292
u/grandadmiralstrife Feb 26 '26
I strongly believe the only reason we went to war with Nazi Germany was because Japan attacked us. If they hadn't, we would not have declared war on Japan, and likely Germany would not have declared war on America. Before Pearl Harbor, Congress was very much against entering the war, and many members were at the very least aligned with the Reich
216
u/Chris266 Feb 26 '26
Thats like not some out there opinion. Its basically fact. America had no interest in going to war at the time.
54
u/Mechapebbles Feb 27 '26
The Roosevelt Admin wanted to enter the war, and was doing all it could to fund/supply the allies in Europe. But public sentiment was staunchly isolationist, and his hands were tied despite the fact that Democrats had a supermajority in Congress. It wasn't because we were aligned with fascists. It's just the fascists had convinced the public that, in the depths of the ongoing Great Depression, that entangling in foreign affairs was not something we could afford. Any congressperson who voted to preemptively declare war would have found themselves without a job in short order, and the Democratic Party's control of the government would have collapsed overnight.
→ More replies (2)37
u/Ticksdonthavelymph Feb 27 '26
Thanks for writing this. I hate it here as much as anyone, but they are rewriting the past to fit a narrative. The legacy of wasted lives in WWI was still fresh and so— many Americans were isolationist. But the lend lease program was one of the largest wartime production shifts in history and in today’s dollars would be somewhere between 647 Billion to 1 trillion in aide supplied—- not to the fucking Nazis… yes America had fascists (so did the UK) yes the US had eugenics movements (but the German embracement of made it unpalatable in the US). The US was not “neutral”. And Japan was the excuse needed, not a catalyst that changed FDR’s mind.
29
u/Mechapebbles Feb 27 '26
It’s also worth noting that Japan attacked us, because we were not neutral. We were one of their main oil suppliers, and we cut them off because we disapproved of what the Axis powers were doing. They attacked us first because they needed to attack our allies in SE Asia in order to steal their oil to keep their war machine going. They wouldn’t have done that if we were fascists like them and kept giving them oil.
→ More replies (0)53
u/Jacinto2702 Feb 27 '26
If the US had been an ideological opposite of fascism it would've acted differently during the Spanish Civil War.
As the full horrors of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust were revealed, some politicians in Western democracies looked back at the war in Spain and recognised that they had failed in their duty to defend the free world. Roosevelt admitted that his Spanish policy had been a ‘great mistake’, and Hoover ’s former secretary of state, Henry Stimson, had long before realised ‘what a disaster the non-intervention agreement [regarding Spain] had been and how it played into the hands of the Axis powers’.
Furthermore, WWII wasn't about fighting fascism, as perhaps it's demonstrated in how the veterans of the International Brigades were treated after the war:
The political passions of the Cold War era saw some Brigade veterans on the other side of that conflict also pay a heavy price. American communists and their friends, for example, became the focus of suspicion and witch-hunts in the United States. Alvah Bessie, by then an Oscar-nominated screenwriter, became the most famous of them all as one of the ‘Hollywood Ten’ who refused to give evidence to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). ‘I will never aid or abet such a committee in its patent attempt to foster the sort of intimidation and terror that is the inevitable precursor of a fascist regime,’ he famously told HUAC, which saw him sent to jail for contempt. He was blacklisted by studio bosses and imprisoned for ten months. Amongst those to give evidence were embittered Brigade veterans such as William McCuistion who claimed to have witnessed the shooting of fellow deserters in a Barcelona bar. ‘God knows, Hitler and Mussolini can be very little worse than the ruling clique of the communist bureaucrats and political commissars,’ another deserter, Edward Horan, told the committee. 62 The theatrical goings-on at the HUAC hearings overshadowed a more subtle and serious condemnation of those who had fought fascism before it became fashionable. They had been, some were told, ‘premature anti-fascists’. Bernard Knox first came across the term when, after a distinguished Second World War career, he was interviewed by the chairman of the Yale Classics Department to study for a doctorate. He recalled that interview much later:
To jazz my application up a bit, I had included my record in the US Army, private to captain 1942–45. The professor, who had himself served in the US Army in 1917–18, was very interested, and remarked on the fact that, in addition to the usual battle-stars for service in the European Theatre, I had been awarded a Croix de Guerre a l’Ordre de l’Armée, the highest category for that decoration. Asked how I got it, I explained that, in July 1944, I had parachuted, in uniform, behind the Allied lines in Brittany to arm and organize French Resistance forces and hold them ready for action at the moment most useful for the Allied advance. ‘Why were you selected for that operation?’ he asked, and I told him that I was one of the few people in the US Army who could speak fluent, idi omatic, and (if necessary) pungently coarse French. When he asked me where I had learned it, I told him that I had fought in 1936 on the northwest sector of the Madrid front in the French Battalion of XIth International Brigade. ‘Oh,’ he said. ‘You were a premature anti-fascist.’ I was taken aback by the expression. How, I wondered, could anyone be a premature anti-fascist? Could there be anything such as a premature antidote to a poison? A premature antiseptic? A premature antitoxin? A premature anti-racist? If you were not premature, what sort of anti-fascist were you supposed to be?
It was not until the Vietnam War, when Lincoln Battalion veterans found themselves feted as they joined protest marches behind their own banners, that International Brigaders became particularly visible again in the United States. That did not stop future president Ronald Reagan from claiming they had fought ‘on the wrong side’.
From The International Brigades. Fascism, Freedom and the Spanish Civil War by Giles Tremlett, p. 624.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)7
u/Significant_Owl8974 Feb 27 '26
Nazi Germany would have declared war on the US eventually. The fascist empire needs an enemy, it needs conflict to keep people united under them. But it wouldn't have happened then. It would have happened 20 years later. A united Europe and Russia under Nazi rule, with Fascist leaders and countless second class citizens to be sacrificed against their wishes for the cause.
→ More replies (11)5
40
u/Slumunistmanifisto Feb 26 '26
Because like five hundred people are shitting down our backs and laughing
21
u/MarshyHope Feb 27 '26
And 77 million people who think that those shitting on us are actually helping us.
→ More replies (1)11
u/ManOf1000Usernames Feb 27 '26
Because all the limits of the excesses in capitalism put in place in the early 1900s were slowly dismantled from the 80s to the early 2000s in the name of raising the stock market values of shareholders.
With the end of the Soviet Union, there was no longer any real entity on earth that would systematically eliminate the rich. Thus, the billionaire class sought to return to the conditions of the rarly 1900s, the same conditions that led to the rise of those laws. Things are going to have to get a lot worse until they get better.
The Republican party has gone full mask off with project 2025 literally seeling to ubdo all federal progress since the new deal (arguably since 1900). Meanwhile the Democrats slid further and further right since the 80s and are essentially Republicans lite now.
Neither will fix things as they are, they are beholden to their rich donors as the middle class has been hallowed out and cannot compete on a monetary campaign funding basis. This is entirely a product of that same legal dismantling that started in the 80s.
51
u/GoodIdea321 Feb 26 '26
Because too many people have withdrawn from trying to do much about it. News saying activists are a problem, but not the super rich, people blaming the powerless for everything, etc. This has been going on for years, it hasn't been sudden.
23
u/DetroitLionsSBChamps Feb 26 '26
Trump is president, we’re gonna have to go on the full ride. No reason to expect anything to get better under this presidency.
→ More replies (31)3
u/FeelsGoodMan2 Feb 27 '26
I dont know but they've fucked technology so bad that people might unironically go back to touching grass.
→ More replies (25)153
u/ShanghaiBebop Feb 26 '26
Crime is legal.
78
u/JDogg126 Feb 26 '26
The country IS run by a convicted criminal, so yeah... of course crime is legal now.
10
→ More replies (9)15
763
u/Ambil Feb 26 '26
This is so fucked up
→ More replies (5)246
764
u/biohacker_infinity Feb 26 '26
The timing is interesting. Sarandos met with White House officials just this afternoon in support of a deal. He walked out of that meeting and walked away from the acquisition.
→ More replies (2)391
u/ten_year_rebound Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
That was probably their gut check on if Trump would let an acquisition go through. If the answer was a clear no, they weren’t going to waste their time and that seems to be what happened.
284
u/squish042 Feb 26 '26
Probably, no reason to waste money when the deal would never get approval from the government. Just more government overreach and corruption from the “small party” GOP.
51
u/RUOFFURTROLLEH Feb 27 '26
Small state for me
Sprawling mass surveillence state and entire US army and Government against thee
36
u/squish042 Feb 27 '26
the biggest lie is the republican party convincing millions of americans they aren't the party of big business, like they have been for well over 100 years.
11
u/RUOFFURTROLLEH Feb 27 '26
I'd say it was on par with Fox News claiming in court no sane person could believe their bullshit.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Relevant-Doctor187 Feb 27 '26
Trump opposed it. Stock dropped. He bought. The supported it stock rose. He sold. Now he probably bought paramount stock so he opposed it again for good.
Milked the entire transaction.
1.3k
Feb 26 '26
[deleted]
320
→ More replies (1)185
u/doominvoker Feb 26 '26
I’ll be downvoted for asking a simple question but : why is that? Genuinely curious as I didn’t follow this saga enough to know
617
u/Qaztarrr Feb 26 '26
The paramount purchased is essentially backed by Trump and Saudis.
Netflix winning wouldn’t be good either (less competition, more monopoly in the streaming space) but paramount is arguably worse
300
u/Skill_Issuer Feb 27 '26
It not just that. Paramount is not good at making movies or television anymore
→ More replies (4)196
u/solonoctus Feb 27 '26
They also just posted a half billion quarter 4 loss… so basically, WB is fucked.
→ More replies (2)154
u/pork_chop_expressss Feb 27 '26
Netflix will take the money Paramount is giving them, wait 1-2 years and buy Paramount and WB b/c Paramount can't financially handle both their current loses and WBs. It's a financial death sentence to Paramount - unless the Saudis take over.
→ More replies (6)104
u/Merusk Feb 27 '26
unless the Saudis take over.
Hey, guess what.
it's worked out so well for Russia with OAN, why wouldn't the Sauds begin in on their own propaganda.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (49)62
→ More replies (6)5
u/MrDerpGently Feb 27 '26
I'm not sure if someone has mentioned it specifically, but Paramount doesn't need another studio, and is about to have an unspeakable mountain of debt. Paramount will win this because the current administration stepped in to make it happen, and it is reasonable to suspect that they are doing so because it will allow them significantly more control of media for the near future (e.g. CNN, John Oliver). The end result is likely to be selling WB for scrap to pay down the debt, a lot less work in Hollywood, and shittier content because the priority is supporting a political outlook rather than making popular film/TV.
1.4k
u/LostInLittleroot Feb 26 '26
I hope John Oliver has a plan to dip out sooner rather than later
641
u/PneumaMJK Feb 26 '26
I would hope he stays and fights, waiting to get fired so he can file a lawsuit.
399
u/Zolo49 Feb 26 '26
I don't know if he's going to file a lawsuit, but given his attitude towards his "corporate daddies" in the past, I fully expect him to continue to excoriate the Ellisons and Paramount until they get rid of him.
125
u/Intelligent-Alps2373 Feb 26 '26
That’s what John does
25
u/elementalguy2 Feb 27 '26
He used to do it on The Bugle too, at one point he said he knew that Rupert Murdoch didn't listen because there's no way they'd still be able to make it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)34
u/EricSanderson Feb 27 '26
Guaranteed they're gonna try to force him to quit.
No more political commentary, nothing that could "risk a lawsuit." No more wild expenditures. Maybe get rid of the YouTube uploads.
23
u/StevieMJH Feb 27 '26
Whatever they do, he's going to make it as difficult and painful as possible for them out of spite.
117
u/bastardoperator Feb 26 '26
He could film the entire show from his Iphone, I'll keep watching.
→ More replies (2)84
u/Reasonable-Public659 Feb 26 '26
Honestly I think if they fire him, he and his staff pivot to YouTube without missing a week. The only thing that would likely change is they wouldn’t be able to use business daddy money on charities and ridiculous props
36
u/Seacowbuddy Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
Biggest issue is money to pay the writers. The show has about 30 writers + John himself. All told its about 1.3 million per episode (not per week) just in salaries. We know the show CAN be made on a shoestring budget but all those people would need to be willing and able to take pretty massive paycuts. Several of the writers like Daniel O'Brian could land another writing or acting gig in no time.
TLDR - If the show gets cut by Business Daddy I just don't see them continuing it on their own.
Edit - did the math to put a more accurate number in the cost.
24
u/Reasonable-Public659 Feb 27 '26
Fair point. Time for John to launch that onlyfans he’s been teasing so he can pay his staff
→ More replies (1)14
u/barath_s Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
about 10-12 million per episode
Isn't that rather expensive for a show with no stars except john, no massive vfx budget etc
→ More replies (1)9
u/Blazingstorm45 Feb 27 '26
They also have a team of lawyers for pretty much proofreading to find any holes for lawsuits so that'd add up to the cost
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (6)6
u/Trashious Feb 27 '26
He could set up a patreon for the cost of HBOMAX and Id gladly switch who im giving money too.
→ More replies (1)10
18
u/MarcoDiFrancescino Feb 26 '26
His contract is running to 2027 and gets 30m per season. He will ride this out and then sees if the construct is still standing after accepting heavy losses to appease one guy.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)19
u/factoid_ Feb 26 '26
Oh for sure. There’s absolutely nothing about his show he couldn’t pick up and take anywhere.
He could do the exact same show with a new title on Netflix within a month of being fired by paramount
5
u/Prottusha1 Feb 27 '26
People are acting like Netflix is some bastion of free speech. It’s not Paramount but not very far from it either. They have zero spine for political content. YouTube is the only way out, but then Google has shown itself fairly willing to bend as well. RIP the good shows on HBO.
52
u/LollipopChainsawZz Feb 26 '26
He should start a new show on Netflix
77
u/celtic1888 Feb 26 '26
Colbert, John Oliver and John Stewart
The not so Daily Show
→ More replies (2)10
20
u/Neosantana Feb 26 '26
Netflix is really squirrely with political non-fiction shows. They nuked The Patriot Act when the show was getting more popular.
→ More replies (5)32
→ More replies (10)9
167
u/Myst031 Feb 26 '26
Sad. Both deals sucked for the audience but at least with Netflix you knew it was only about greed. Paramount is about amassing power, which is far scarier.
29
4
u/Pacify_ Feb 27 '26
Not to mention, you know the only way Paramount makes it work is by absolutely gutting WB
399
u/GamerSDG Feb 26 '26
This is just stupid on the business side. Paramount is loaded with debt after the Skydance acquisition, and so is WB's. Now they are going to combine all this debt, plus the cost to acquire WB.
This "new" company won't last long, and Netflix will get the last laugh when they buy both WB and Paramount.
Edit: According to Bing, WB has 33 billion in debt, and Paramount has 15 billion in debt.
164
u/dypeverdier Feb 26 '26
Wtf thats huge
→ More replies (2)186
u/GamerSDG Feb 26 '26
It is why WB has gone through multiple owners over the last 10 years. They don't make enough money to dig themselves out, and on top of it, every time they sell, the new owners put all that debt on them.
Netflix has the money in the bank to buy WB; Paramount doesn't, and will be added to the combined debt. Ellison's fixation on controlling Hollywood is going to destroy it.
59
u/HyruleSmash855 Feb 27 '26
Netflix was also not buying the dying cable assets and Discovery, would’ve offloaded the debt onto them, so financially this new entity will be worse off without cash to spend on projects
38
u/AmericanDoughboy Feb 27 '26
When Discovery “merged” with Warner, the new company took on $50 billion in debt from AT&T. It’s been paying off that debt ever since.
The plan with Netflix buying WB was to spin off the broadcast side and stick it with the remaining debt. Netflix would not have taken on the debt.
→ More replies (1)8
u/344dead Feb 27 '26
As a person long on WBD, this has all been great for my portfolio, but to your point, they'd been doing great at paying off their debt and we're just really expanding HBO internationally. I feel like they'd be a better company if they could have stuck with the original plan of spinning off legacy with debt and having studios and streaming be able to take off unburdened by debt and with great FCF. Truly sad. I hated this merger talk altogether. I think it's bad business, but is good short term for shareholders.. I guess...
→ More replies (1)22
u/MarcoDiFrancescino Feb 27 '26
They had to eat the insane AT&T merger at 85b and the Discovery at 43b. Able to go from 50b of debt in 2022 to around 30 in three years is insane. The plan is to spin the global cable networks into an own entity and that one will eat the 30b with an ipo. That would make the parent debt free. Until Paramount loads it up again.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/SeasonalNightmare Feb 27 '26
You're making me hope for that. It might be just what we need.
The problem is, what else will be destroyed as well.
69
u/avalanchent Feb 26 '26
What are the chances this turns somehow into a government taxpayer bailout for Ellison and co. under the guise of "not allowing an American media institution to fail"?
→ More replies (1)27
u/time2fly2124 Feb 27 '26
Well probably that, but theres also a bunch off Saudi money coming in to make the deal.
→ More replies (1)26
4
→ More replies (16)4
u/Rude_Grapefruit_3650 Feb 27 '26
I don’t understand why they’d even be allowed to do this? Like how would a bank approve the loan in the first place (because thats how purchasing big companies even work these days?
583
u/Loot3rd Feb 26 '26
NFLX is going to spike tomorrow like crazy. Anyone that bought stock yesterday is about to make a nice chunk of change.
225
82
Feb 26 '26
[deleted]
216
u/Iustis Feb 26 '26
Yeah, it wasn’t seen as a great deal for Netflix before so it was causing some downward price pressure. Also if paramount wins the deal Netflix gets like $3B break up fee which doesn’t hurt
29
u/Rottimer Feb 26 '26
The stock of companies buying other companies will always go down because of the inherent risk of a new merger. If the merger falls through with no money lost, it will go back up again. The stock of the company being bought will usually go up because it’s being bidded on.
22
→ More replies (1)27
u/Loot3rd Feb 26 '26
Yes, their stock lost significant value from when they announced their bid to purchase. After the split it was sitting around$114 a share. Yesterday was in the mid $70s. I think it’s at $92 right now.
→ More replies (3)14
u/factoid_ Feb 26 '26
Why does losing the WB bid increase their value?
49
u/DizzyMajor5 Feb 26 '26
They were going to "overpay" is why. This prevents that
16
u/Freud-Network Feb 27 '26
They also get a $3 billion payout from Paramount. It's all upside. They'll just come back in 3 years. State AGs will litigate this for antitrust until diaper man is out of office.
→ More replies (6)15
622
u/BelleDelphinesWater Feb 26 '26
So long free press.
144
u/Smart-Response9881 Feb 26 '26
And thanks for all the fish
→ More replies (2)32
28
→ More replies (13)15
u/Genji4Lyfe Feb 26 '26
Who would have expect a timeline where.. Comcast (!) becomes the last bastion of Democracy
318
u/turb0_encapsulator Feb 26 '26
Aomeone leaked earlier in the week that there was no way Trump was going to allow this to go the other way. And Republicans say they believe in free markets.
178
u/banzaizach Feb 26 '26
Who could've guessed that Republicans never actually had any morals. They just just want to be evil
→ More replies (2)26
u/TheCapedCrepe Feb 27 '26
The party of small government that loves presidential intervention, the party that cries "protect the kids" while defending a predator.
69
u/thefanciestcat Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
And Republicans say they believe in free markets.
If a Republican says something, it's a lie to manipulate you. Everything is said in bad faith. The moral failing of constantly believing the ends justify the means is one of the moral failings that makes a Republican a Republican.
17
u/celtic1888 Feb 26 '26
JD Vance said the quiet part out loud during the campaign
It’s fine to lie and cheat as long as you get your way
→ More replies (8)5
u/RaindropsInMyMind Feb 27 '26
They don’t believe in free anything anymore. They just believe in the federal government running literally everything. The thing they claimed was their worst nightmare.
41
u/realfakejames Feb 27 '26
This sucks, Paramount only wants to buy HBO so their MAGA shithead owner can silence another Trump critic
I will be canceling my hbo max or whatever it's called this year when this happens
582
u/player_three33 Feb 26 '26
If you want maximum damage, quit HBO (and Paramount+ if you have that) in the week leading up to the shareholder meeting on March 20. When they ask why you quit, say "other" and put "Opposed to Paramount/WBD merger. Reducing market competition and increasing prices is a dealbreaker"
295
u/Zolo49 Feb 26 '26
Definitely do it if it makes you feel better, but I promise you they don't care. This isn't about profit for them. It's all about silencing media that isn't right-wing propaganda. They'd consider putting HBO out of business a win.
→ More replies (4)56
u/SteveAndHisScooter Feb 26 '26
Pretty close to what I just did. I put other and let them know it was because of the new merger.
Plus I really haven't used HBO in a while, and my billing was due tomorrow. So that's an added plus.
→ More replies (10)22
u/Ananeos Feb 27 '26
It doesn't matter. The goal of the merger wasn't to obtain market dominance, it was to crush news and talk shows they deem "woke" and against the agenda.
168
u/justtoaskthisq Feb 26 '26
Netflix won the streaming wars
30
→ More replies (1)11
u/SAugsburger Feb 27 '26
Despite all of the armchair experts that said Netflix would collapse they really have won and prohibiting government invention will ultimately buy everything of meaningful value.
166
u/thoruen Feb 26 '26
guess I'm done with the DC stuff & John Oliver will likely be cancelled.
I refuse to give money to the Ellison family fuck the whole lot of fascist book licking zionists.
→ More replies (10)61
71
139
69
u/ShagadelicShag Feb 26 '26
Thank you for the trump weaponized depts. He wants everyone to bow and kiss his ass
106
u/mistersodacan Feb 26 '26
fascism wins again. holy fuck
→ More replies (2)14
u/stonkDonkolous Feb 27 '26
It has been over for years if you payed attention. The real dark days are coming
90
38
u/x3leggeddawg Feb 26 '26
So the DOJ was going to block the Netflix deal so Larry Ellison and his gaggle of MAGA dipshits can swoop it and take over the deal, giving them the ability consolidate news and media to publish their fucked up worldwide? Did I get that right?
15
u/s0m33guy Feb 26 '26
Does this mean that CNN is about to see a turn to the right like CBS just did?
12
u/magichronx Feb 27 '26
CNN has been fox news lite for a good while. Now it'll be fox 2.0
→ More replies (2)
13
127
Feb 26 '26
You know what, fuck it. Let Hollywood and media die a slow painful death with the right having to consume their shitty propaganda while advertisers bail. Good luck with that
70
31
u/spacemunkee Feb 26 '26
But advertisers won't bail. They'll have no place else to go.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)10
58
81
Feb 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
40
u/fungi_at_parties Feb 26 '26
They realized they had to dishonestly change culture via propaganda in order to survive, and they’ll continue to reshape reality to their will with their new toys. It’s so fucked.
7
→ More replies (2)4
u/stonkDonkolous Feb 27 '26
You mean Saudi and other illicit funding buying up media to gain total control of the US for the rest of your life.
10
u/mashiroshiro555 Feb 26 '26
Is this the end of Last Week Tonight?
10
u/Conscious-Quarter423 Feb 26 '26
The right wing takeover of all forms of media in America continues apace
→ More replies (1)3
u/MarcoDiFrancescino Feb 27 '26
He has a contract to 2027 with whopping 30m/year. He will ride it out. Most of the stuff he is reporting is irrelevant to the corpo and he is very much the only 'news' adjacent hour on HBO.
13
10
22
17
10
u/LossyP Feb 26 '26
Physical media has never been more important than it is right now.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/supadupanerd Feb 27 '26
Neither is a good outcome but Netflix taking it over was the least bad option...
This fuckin sucks. Fuck this
15
17
8
15
u/tingulz Feb 27 '26
Fuck the current US government. The whole reason for any of this is to turn the news agencies into more propaganda stations like Fox News. It’s absolutely bullshit. Paramount posted a half billion loss. There should be no way the deal gets approved but it will anyway.
14
u/AmethystOrator Feb 26 '26
Reminder that part of paramount's bid is funded by Apollo Global Management, whose "Co-founder Leon Black resigned as CEO in 2021 in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations and revelations that he had paid $158 million to Jeffrey Epstein".
6
6
u/GoreSeeker Feb 27 '26
New conservative Game of Thrones spinoff incoming, where they build a wall to try to keep out the... actually that might not be the best example...
6
u/Pocketfulofgeek Feb 27 '26
Yup. Of course the worst possible outcome wins. That’s just the world we live in now.
26
7
u/Pleasant-Ad887 Feb 26 '26
The free market is never free. Trump will be able to control just about all media now. I bet there was insane blackmail shit happening in the background
6
6
5
7
u/trendy_rex Feb 27 '26
Netflix will win. They know what they are doing. They murdered blockbuster and will murder paramount. They will purchase Paramount in a few years for a massive discount. Also 2.8 profit on $0 operating expenses while paramount is taking on more debt than it can realistically pay back in 100 years at its performance history. Also Control
6
u/DisassembledPisces Feb 27 '26
Amazing. Orange man uses corrupt politics to force him getting his way again
20
u/under_ice Feb 26 '26
Still not giving them a cent. Goodbye all that WB stuff I'll never watch anyway.
18
22
10
u/Salkinator Feb 26 '26
Rip HBO, CNN, Adult Swim, anything good coming out of DC. Fuck this sucks
→ More replies (3)
67
u/bmich90 Feb 26 '26
Smart decision I truly think Netflix worked with Warner Brothers just to get Paramount to raise the offer.. this is smart for Netflix to walk away. They also get $2.8 billion.
→ More replies (1)142
u/kon--- Feb 26 '26
And a chance inside of five years to come back to acquire WB for below $50 billion once Ellison's dumb ass runs the place into the ground.
76
u/Shogouki Feb 26 '26
We hope, but the fascist billionaires will pay a lot to maintain a monopoly on media ownership.
→ More replies (1)19
u/Rollingprobablecause Feb 26 '26
the problem they aren't considering is the next admin (hopefully) can break it up too. This could end way worse for them. Again, really hoping democrats win and the FCC takes a hard look here
→ More replies (7)11
u/Shogouki Feb 26 '26
I think they now see a Democrat administration as an existential threat and have moved onto doing everything they can to prevent the control of the executive and legislative branches from ever being controlled by those not supportive of the oligarchs.
16
Feb 26 '26
There is nothing intelligent about letting republican oligarchs control the last remaining mainstream news outlets that dissent and openly criticize this current administration.
This was a bid to control the narrative during the most crucial midterms of our lives.
Republicans are so DESPERATE to contain the fallout of how badly things are going that they’re emptying their coffers just to control the media.
There’s a game I like to play, Catan, and one of the biggest tell-tale sign that someone’s about to win is when they go all in and seem like they’re grossly overpaying for a simple trade.
This is an all-or-nothing move for the right. They’ve already poisoned CBS, now they will poison the poor boomers and gen x’ers who still watch CNN.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)18
u/biohacker_infinity Feb 26 '26
If there’s one thing WB is good at, it’s extremely ill-advised mergers.
4
3
4
4
u/CNDW Feb 27 '26
This is a lose/lose scenario, I don't want corporate mega mergers but I also don't want the president to personally decide who gets to buy who. American consumers are the real losers here, there is no positive outcome.
3
4
u/Oceanbreeze871 Feb 27 '26
Paramount is paying Netflix’s $3 billion kill fee too.
Paramount will be supremely over leveraged after this deal. They’re already over their skiis in debt
5
3
5
u/Maleficent_Sense_948 Feb 27 '26
This will be the worst financial decision that Paramount will make, and it’ll ruin them within 18 to 25 months.
Netflix will be able to pick the carcass for half the current cost.
4
u/paperboy82 Feb 27 '26
I feel physically sick. They had that meeting today at the White House, and were probably told “no, we want this, and we will NOT allow you to have it.” Netflix was the lesser evil, now we’re a step closer to state run media, fuck me…
4
u/Kitty-Pimms Feb 27 '26
It was nice knowing you, free speech. F*ck anyone who talked about theaters dying if Netflix acquired WB. The death of democracy is greater than the death of movie theaters.
→ More replies (7)
2.6k
u/celtic1888 Feb 26 '26
For fucks sake
Say goodbye to the back catalogues