←back to thread

366 points gniting | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source

Previously: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)
Show context
indigodaddy ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
i80and ◴[] No.46200426[source]
I mean, 8 was easily the most functional of the new trilogy, if a somewhat overly ambitious muddle, so that's a bad example.

There is a real problem with too many sequels and adaptations though.

replies(2): >>46201979 #>>46204211 #
1. NBJack ◴[] No.46201979[source]
If 8 had followed through on its narrative promises, it would have had a chance. But unfortunately, much like a modern LLM that exceeds its context window, it lost its way in the final act.

As for sequels, we are at a weird time in history. Due maybe in part just how prevalent media is and how easy (relatively) it is to create, we've been super-saturated in "like X but with Y" stories. We have dedicated websites mapping tropes. It's hard to come up with anything that hasn't been done a few million times. AI will probably accelerate that, and I can't say I know what comes next.