←back to thread

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

(www.cnbc.com)
366 points gniting | 4 comments | 08 Dec 25 14:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Previously: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)
Show context
indigodaddy ◴[08 Dec 25 15:17 UTC] No.46193176[source]▶
Does WB have to pay the breakup fee to Netflix if a Paramount hostile takeover succeeds?
replies(6): >>46193410 #>>46193460 #>>46193494 #>>46193833 #>>46194214 #>>46194238 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Dec 25 15:38 UTC] No.46193494[source]▶
It looks like it. $2.8bn by Warner Brothers to Netflix [1].

If the vote looks close, Paramount would be expected to raise their bid to cover that cost.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525... 8.3(a)

replies(1): >>46198659 #
dabockster ◴[08 Dec 25 22:42 UTC] No.46198659[source]▶
The failed merger and similar clawback clause between Kroger and Albertsons is currently destroying a significant part of the supply chain for food in the Pacific Northwest. Grocery stores that have been open for 50-75 years - stores where whole neighborhoods and towns were built around - are closing forever, leaving those areas as food deserts.

Either way, this entertainment merger is going to get ugly. Consumers are absolutely going to get harmed either way with that clawback clause.

replies(8): >>46198767 #>>46198814 #>>46201847 #>>46201980 #>>46202080 #>>46202428 #>>46203666 #>>46205360 #
thisisnotauser ◴[08 Dec 25 22:52 UTC] No.46198767[source]▶
Except you need food to live and tv shows are an artificially scarce resource that's actually free to distribute in unlimited quantities, so the harm is very different.
replies(1): >>46198928 #
ClikeX ◴[08 Dec 25 23:07 UTC] No.46198928[source]▶
Real people work in this industry, though. A merger of this size is bound to come with some layoffs and canceled projects.

It's not as bad as food scarcity, of course. But it can do some collateral damage.

replies(2): >>46198975 #>>46199478 #
dabockster ◴[08 Dec 25 23:11 UTC] No.46198975[source]▶
That, plus fewer studios mean less creativity goes to the mainstream. If you thought AI slop was bad, go re-watch Star Wars Episode 8.
replies(4): >>46200071 #>>46200120 #>>46200426 #>>46202064 #
1. AlexandrB ◴[09 Dec 25 01:15 UTC] No.46200120[source]▶
Seems like a bad example. The problem with Episode 8 was not lack of creativity. Episode 7 was a complete retread of "A New Hope" and a bigger offender. At least blue Jedi milk is new.
replies(1): >>46201228 #
2. bananaflag ◴[09 Dec 25 04:28 UTC] No.46201228[source]▶
Episode 8 was a retread of Empire Strikes Back (ships chase through empty space while the main character trains with the old master on a wild planet). It seemed subversive just because ESB was subversive relative to ANH.
replies(2): >>46202035 #>>46206112 #
3. NBJack ◴[09 Dec 25 06:56 UTC] No.46202035[source]▶
Complete with "this guy will help us" to "oh no, they betrayed us!"
4. staticman2 ◴[09 Dec 25 15:40 UTC] No.46206112[source]▶
Episode 8 was subversive because it had self aware moments "trolling" the audience throughout like Luke mocking the idea Rey (and the audience) thought he would pick up a lightsaber again.

It also has weird "subversive" dialogue about sacrifice being bad that doesn't really fit what's happening in the movie itself where sacrifice of two characters saves the day. Which is "subversive" in the sense that a movie with dialogue saying "this is a shitty movie plot" is subversive.

It also rips off the ending of Return of the Jedi by killing the main bad guy so is "subversive" in that it trolls whoever was stuck making episode 9 without a functional villain.