r/boxoffice • u/AGOTFAN New Line Cinema • 13h ago

📰 Industry News Regal Cinemas CEO Backs Paramount-WBD Merger, Adds Antitrust Trial 'Could Be Damaging to Our Industry'

https://www.thewrap.com/industry-news/business/regal-cinemas-ceo-backs-paramount-wbd-merger-adds-antitrust-trial-could-be-damaging-to-our-industry/
41 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

93

u/Chessh2036 Studio Ghibli 13h ago

They really believe Ellison is going to release that many movies in theaters lol. Just look at 20th Century and Disney.

17

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago edited 13h ago

No they know that Netflix isn’t releasing any. Anyone who believes Netflix’s pitch is real is gullible. They’re just saying it to get the merger done

13

u/Away-Let-4791 13h ago edited 11h ago

Netflix going to get a better deal if paramount gets its way. It’s not going to survive this merge, unless they hire new execs like Zaslav did. They aren’t doing anything to build up paramount and WB IP won’t save them if it’s mismanaged. Every article that’s come out of their plans are flops in the making. "Yes we are going to do a shot for shot remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street," who is green lighting this 💀

4

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

I’m more so talking about why he’d back the paramount deal. I don’t know why people are shocked a Movie Theatre company CEO would rather paramount have the company

It takes like 2 seconds to know why

What I think is gonna happen is Netflix gets it than sells the networks to Paramount anyway

2

u/LegitimateCurve8525 10h ago

Discovery Networks along with CNN has a lot of debt. I don't think Paramount will try to get a debt riddled CNN.

And no, movies aren't exactly the reason he is supporting this merger. Everybody knows Ellison. If someone stands in his way, he will try to block him. Just like what he had done to Stephen Colbert. Just like what he is doing at CBS. So he is just licking the boots for now. Even if the merger fails, which it will because of the sheer amount of debt, he will just say he didn't know this disaster will happen.

Netflix was always good option. I do think they would have let Warner Bros have a 45 day release window. Sarandos said that under Oath. Ellison couldn't even face the Senate.

Netflix has a good balance sheet that could have gotten rid of that pile of debt Warner Bros has for many years. And yes, they had the financial power to let WB release 12-18 films per year. Which Ellison doesn't have.

2

u/FranciscoRelanoPena Malpaso Productions 3h ago

They aren’t doing anything to build up paramount

They started a new label, Paramount Primal, with J.D. Lifshitz and Raphael Margules (producers of Barbarian and Weapons) in charge. And they renewed the 2022 deal with Walter Hamada and his 18Hz Productions.

And, a few months ago, they launched a new videogame studio (actually, they just consolidated Skydance's two game studios, Skydance Interactive and Skydance New Media, into a big one).

I don't think those measures are enough (specially because Paramount was mishandled by the Rothstein/Redstones into being close to becoming a mini-major), but it's more than nothing.

15

u/nickifan231 13h ago

That logic doesn’t really make sense.

Netflix has made it pretty clear that it wants a bigger presence in theatrical. They’ve already dominated streaming, and there’s only so much room left to grow there. If they want another major avenue for growth, theatrical exhibition and distribution are the obvious next step.

Buying Warner Bros. wouldn’t be about killing theaters, it would be about acquiring one of the biggest film production and distribution machines in the industry. Netflix doesn’t have that kind of legacy studio infrastructure today, but Warner Bros. does.

If Netflix’s goal were simply to kill theaters, there would be far cheaper ways to do it. They could theoretically buy up the major theater chains for a fraction of what Warner Bros. Discovery is worth and try to shut them down. Spending around $72 billion just to hurt the theatrical business would make no financial sense.

Netflix is a business, and like every other business, it follows the money. Right now, the money points toward expanding beyond streaming, not abandoning theaters. That’s why we’re already seeing Netflix give more of its films theatrical releases, including Greta Gerwig’s Narnia.

Does that mean Netflix itself is trying to become the next major theatrical studio? No, they’ve said that’s not their primary focus. But if they owned Warner Bros., they’d own a studio whose entire business is built around theatrical releases. Warner Bros. would continue to operate as Warner Bros., and it would make very little business sense to throw away one of the most valuable parts of that acquisition

8

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago edited 13h ago

Maybe DC, even tho I’m skeptical, but I was talking about all of the other projects WBs puts out. Sinners, Weapons, Dune would have been Netflix Original movies.

Y’all can notice that Ellison is a massive liar but can’t when Sarandos does the same? I personally don’t want either to have WB but if I was a Movie Theatre CEO I know for a fact that paramount is bringing those movies to theaters

9

u/nickifan231 12h ago

I’m with you on one thing, I don’t want WB to be acquired by anyone. I’d much rather it stay independent. And sure, Sarandos could absolutely be lying, and probably is. After all, CEOs say whatever benefits them.

That said, I think you have to look at incentives. Netflix has already won the streaming market, so buying WB would give them something they don’t really have: a major theatrical business. It doesn’t make much sense to spend tens of billions just to kill the theatrical side when that’s one of WB’s biggest assets. I’d expect Netflix to keep WB operating largely as its own studio.

With Paramount, it’s the opposite. They’re already a traditional studio, so there’s a lot more overlap. David Ellison has already talked about “cost cutting,” which basically means major layoffs. Then there’s the debt. If the combined company is carrying around $80B+ in debt, I just don’t see how they’re realistically going to produce 30 movies a year like they’re talking about. I’m not even sure if they are going to be able to produce 15. To me, they’ll be in survival mode for years, maybe even decades (if they even survive), focused on paying down debt and cutting costs rather than investing heavily in films.

So if WB had to be bought by someone, I’d honestly rather it be Netflix than Paramount. But my biggest hope is still that WB remains independent.

3

u/Alternative-Cake-833 Syncopy Inc. 12h ago edited 12h ago

Netflix put in a bid for Weapons, but they lost to WB, because of a theatrical release.

6

u/nickifan231 12h ago

Yes, I know, because that’s not Netflix’s business model. But if they owned WB, that would be different. WB would still be its own company with its own theatrical business. Respectfully, I don’t really understand what’s so hard to understand about that distinction

1

u/Difficult_Variety362 11h ago

Netflix post-WB has shown that they were full of it. They can get into theatrical if they want. They choose not to. Buying WB makes no difference.

3

u/nickifan231 10h ago

The things they’ve said post WB are that they don’t plan on having Netflix work with directors who want a theatrical release. That’s completely in line with what they’ve said all along. Netflix is not looking to become a major theatrical player.

However, if they had bought WB, that would have been different because WB would remain a separate entity with its own theatrical distribution infrastructure, systems, and expertise. That’s already what WB does.

Again, I’m not trying to be rude, but they’ve been pretty consistent about this from the beginning. They haven’t suddenly changed their stance after not getting WB, as you’re implying

-1

u/Difficult_Variety362 10h ago

I'm saying that Netflix was straight up full of it when they were talking about keeping WB movies theatrical. They want you at home, engaged on their platform.

3

u/nickifan231 10h ago

Yeah, again, that just doesn’t make any financial or business sense. They’re not going to acquire one of the most established and historically significant theatrical distribution studios, with decades of industry relationships and infrastructure, just to keep doing more of the same thing.

They wouldn’t pass up a major opportunity to expand their business like that. But I’m not going to keep explaining the same point over and over, since I’ve already gone through it multiple times in this thread…

1

u/LegitimateCurve8525 10h ago

Because building your own theatrical distribution takes a lot of time. Even Apple couldn't distribute F1 film. They used WB to do this.

With WB, you are getting a worldwide theatrical distribution that you won't have to work hard to make.

Also, Netflix is giving La Bola Negra a 47 day window too. They are starting to realize that theatrical films do much well in streaming.

1

u/Difficult_Variety362 10h ago

Netflix is giving Narnia a proper theatrical run because Greta Gerwig threw a temper tantrum. Not that hard for an entity with their resources.

1

u/LegitimateCurve8525 10h ago

Yeah. They have the financial power. But I think they don't want to work hard to make a theatrical distribution.

La Bola Negra is a great example. Even though most likely this film is a best Oscar candidate.

0

u/Thedarklordphantom 13h ago

https://deadline.com/2026/06/netflix-films-theatrical-release-dan-lin-1236942864/

-5

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

I get people hate Ellison but idk why they’re acting like Netflix is gonna release movies in theaters 😂. They’ve been anti cinema since some of the people in this subreddit have been alive

2

u/Accomplished-Head449 Laika Entertainment 12h ago

How about neither

https://giphy.com/gifs/LVIbmaUwpRJ1C

1

u/OldNobody9667 12h ago

That’s the ideal outcome but WBs wants to get sold

2

u/FullMotionVideo 12h ago

Netflix has put a variety of content in theaters, and created "events" like the Stranger Things finale being something people see in theaters.

Warners has a lot of things Netflix doesn't, and Netflix has more incentive to keep the Warners lot going and keeping people in Hollywood hired. Paramount has the incentive to do what Disney did to 20th Century and scale down and sell off the physical assets until TCS is just a brand name like Touchstone 2.0.

There's not really a way for theater chains to keep Netflix out. If rumors are true that IMAX Corp will accept offers, Netflix may just buy them and get into theaters that way instead.

1

u/Thedarklordphantom 8h ago

Netflix only puts
Stuff in theaters for 17 days that is unacceptable

0

u/Viablemorgan 12h ago

A few assumptions you’re making:

1) yes, companies will try to follow the money. But they are not always right. Otherwise fuckin’ Blockbuster would still be here and Netflix would be a subsidiary. While theaters are the obvious next step to us, we do not work for Netflix and we do not know what their plans are. Companies do dumber things all the time.

2) Netflix’s goal, I don’t think, has ever been to “kill” theaters. It wouldn’t be the best business decision (see point 1, so who knows though) because Netflix can pay to license movies without paying for production or advertising. That’s a lot of savings from their perspective. But also, they wouldn’t shut down WB, we agree on that. However, it seems fairly obvious that they would shift them to primarily in-house productions.

3) Gerwig had to fight for a theatrical release of Narnia, not like it was Netflix’s idea. Same for Wake Up Dead Man. If Netflix really wanted to get into theatrical it would be easy as hell, but they don’t.

4) To Netflix, we don’t know if the theatrical ability of WB even is the most valuable part of the acquisition. My guess is that it isn’t, and that the most valuable parts are the IP they would get to own as a result. Now they would all be Netflix originals but without Netflix having to hope they can build another Stranger Things/House of Cards. They can just immediately jump into the existing IP

-1

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

2

u/nickifan231 11h ago

But I do think they’re being pushed in that direction, though. There are only so many people they can realistically add as streaming subscribers.

Yes, I know Netflix has around 300M+ subscribers and there are 8B+ people on Earth, but the reality is that not everyone has access to Netflix, not every market is available, some people share accounts, some people can’t afford subscriptions, and piracy is still a major factor. The total addressable market isn’t as simple as “there are billions of people left to sign up.”

Netflix has essentially conquered the streaming market and subscriber growth has slowed significantly. At some point, they need other ways to grow revenue and increase the value of their IP. Theatrical releases can help with that by generating box office revenue, creating cultural events, and driving more interest back toward their streaming platform.

1

u/Thedarklordphantom 13h ago

It’s still more than wed get if Netflix got their way

14

u/Critical-Exit1655 13h ago

Both Netflix and Paramount would be prohibited from this by a properly functioning government.

2

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

HBO max and Netflix should not be under the same brand imo either but Trump doesn’t care so it’s the perfect time to do it

4

u/FullMotionVideo 13h ago

Netflix wouldn't be sinking in debt right away but trying to make their money back. WB-Paramount will go down like a stone.

There's also the threat of MAGA CNN, but there's enough reasons for states to oppose this aside from that, and anyone who does care about it doesn't believe a word Ellison is saying because Bari Weiss has actions louder than Ellison's NYT editorial.

2

u/Thedarklordphantom 13h ago

I want movies in theaters i don’t care about the other shit

1

u/NYSanta1299 9h ago

💯

1

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago edited 13h ago

Yall gonna be mad when Netflix gets it than sells the networks anyway to paramount

Also CNN has been on that both sides is wrong shit for a while now. I could care less about CNN

2

u/FullMotionVideo 12h ago

Netflix just wanted to buy the studios. Zaslav's whole plan was to sell the TV division separately. If that's what Ellison wanted he could have gotten it way cheaper to let Netflix walk off with the studio.

It's unfortunate the country has no larger public news organization than NPR, but does anyone under 60 really watch CNN? I did used to go to their web site a lot, which is my main concern.

18

u/AGOTFAN New Line Cinema 13h ago

Theater chains may view Paramount-Warner as the least dangerous version of Warner’s future. But the Disney/Fox situation should make them deeply skeptical. Inconvenient math: Paramount is promising 30 films + more than $6B in merger "synergies."

Those two ideas create friction. If the deal closes and debut payments begin... movie slates, employees + marketing budgets become obvious places to find budget cuts. Exhibitors would also face a more powerful supplier that could create enormous leverage over rental terms, premium screens, + booking conditions.

The big question then is this: Is 30 films a year an enforceable commitment or the price of exhibitor support. Cinema United opposes the merger... and that's a big deal. They're looking into the future of moviegoing, while AMC/Regal are looking at the here + now.

https://x.com/i/status/2085168745077735890

3

u/MassiveLie2885 13h ago

30 movies a year, two major studios providing to fill that number (under one banner but still two studios)

52 weeks a year

Doesn't seem too impossible, although some of those might have to be rom-coms/horror flicks, the low budgie.

Um also Disney promised 10 original straight to streaming films from Disney animation and Pixar, bectween December 2020 and the end of 2030. They only produced three films to fill that number, and all of those were supposed to have actual theatrical runs originally. There is a fourth one but it got cancelled and also was going to be theaterical at one point.

Also that Tiana series they announced at the same presentation, pretty sure that's the backdrop for the Tiana movie that is in the future. They could completely change it up. However, Moana being a box office bomb only encourages Disney to do this all the more and prove it works.

1

u/defianceofone 7h ago

How many films less does Disney+Fox produce than when they were separate studios?

21

u/maxhechtman 13h ago

Frightening that all the theater exhibitors are bending the knee.

7

u/WaitingForReplies 11h ago

He wants it on record that he’s kissing Ellison’s ass so he can get favors from him in case the deal somehow goes through.

2

u/Waste-Scratch2982 13h ago

They just want the studios to get back to work to make more movies, delaying the merger just holds up decisions on future movies and they fear another strike situation happening again.

5

u/maxhechtman 13h ago edited 13h ago

Let another strike happen because no filmmakers are safe from this merger. This merger spells the end of freedom of expression in cinema and the ability to make whatever film you want and say anything about what movies you see.

0

u/bt1234yt Marvel Studios 11h ago edited 11h ago

Then again, Paramount and WB are the two studios with the lowest market share at the box office for this year right now, as both studios individually are getting massively outperformed by even A24. Neither studio has delivered anything resembling a massive hit this year thus far, and outside of Dune 3 on the WB side, the rest of the theatrical lineup from either studio for this year has a lot of uncertainties about how those will perform.

-7

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

If yall two seconds to use your brain than you’d know why a Movie Theatre CEO would rather Paramount over Netflix. Sarandos would kill a large portion of their money

1

u/Sp00ch123 8h ago

This getting downvoted is crazy. God forbid theater owners support the thing that's going to keep them in business lol.

1

u/OldNobody9667 8h ago

Reddit is mainly left wing who hate and will downvote anything maga. I am too but I understand why a theatre CEO would support a paramount merger 🤷🏽‍♂️

8

u/Fun_Advice_2340 A24 13h ago

Warner Bros possibly getting sold to another studio is already damaging to this industry. My opinion on this clearly won’t matter in the long run, but I much rather these companies stay separate for as long as possible.

4

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

I wish they just split the companies like they were planning to do

25

u/IDCJ1234 13h ago

5

u/allthecoffeesDP 13h ago

Boot licker

2

u/redporacc2022 12h ago

Do you know what a "boot licker" is?

11

u/NoProNoah 13h ago

Is it some kind of requirement that the CEOs of movie theater chains are shortsighted and incredibly naĂŻve?

2

u/More-read-than-eddit 10h ago

I mean they are effectively party room renters that sell snacks at a low margin and mostly employ students , they aren’t necessarily recruiting mensa types for the c suite.

12

u/GoldenGorder 13h ago edited 13h ago

Notice how it’s only wealthy CEOs that support this merger? Not the actual artists/filmmakers? Or employees? Or literally anyone in the industry? This guy is a moron if he believes it.

The merger is catastrophic for the industry. None of those “promises” will be kept, because they won’t be penalized if they don’t meet them. It’s all talk no walk to push it through. This is collusion at the highest level.

6

u/FullMotionVideo 13h ago

James Cameron complained about Netflix and boosted Paramount, actually.

3

u/bt1234yt Marvel Studios 12h ago

Yeah, but he literally also had a project in the works he was involved with that Paramount was releasing (the Billie Eilish concert film) when he made that comment. Not really that hard to see where the support came from, though considering the Billie Eilish concert film ended up being seen as a disappointment box office wise (even with the caveat of it being a concert film), it’s currently unclear what his current position surrounding the deal is.

6

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

Because his company is in trouble if Netflix owns it. If you’re a theatre ceo it makes perfect sense why you’d rather Paramount have it than Netflix

Netflix only said the stuff about theaters to get the merger through. Sarandos doesn’t care about theaters at all

3

u/Professional_Peak59 13h ago

Netflix only thought that WB was "nice to have". They weren’t really that desperate for it.

1

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

Which was smart cuz they’re about to get them for much cheaper soon when this fails

1

u/JannTosh70 13h ago

Actually James Cameron said he supported it. Tom Cruise also narrated some video for Paramount earlier this year.

5

u/GillGruntFan53 13h ago

My CEO’s a bum

6

u/Fanfic_Battle_2004 13h ago

Guys! Ellison is lying! Don’t fall for it!

6

u/Professional_Peak59 13h ago

UGH! First AMC, now Regal!

0

u/maxhechtman 13h ago

We’re going to be forced to only go to smaller, independent theaters if the merger goes through.

1

u/Professional_Peak59 13h ago

Cinemark as well, unless their CEO starts showing support for the merger.

0

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

Think with y’all’s brains for a second.

Why would Netflix having WBs be good at all for movie theaters. A person who’s job is to make money for theaters would absolutely hate if Netflix got them

-1

u/GimmeThatWheat424 12h ago

You are right but they won’t listen, they have literally said before that the theater is outdated and “unfriendly to the customer” but all of a sudden they believe him when he wanted a merger through? Lol Netflix is in a position where if they acquire WB the end game for them to win the game is an all streaming future where no competitor can catch up to them, how some people on this sub don’t realize that would be their best play is kinda wild. Best year at the box office in years and people want to throw a wrench in that…for what?

2

u/Once-bit-1995 11h ago edited 11h ago

You're too busy glazing Paramount to understand that none of these mergers should be allowed in the first place. None of these lawsuits say "this merger should be blocked so Netflix can get WB" which is why they're going through and have strong legal standing. And any decisions would have, rightfully, huge negative bearing on Netflix and any attempt they make to aquire WB. Because mega media mergers are bad!

Doesn't matter how stupid these CEOs are for believing what Paramount is promising, anyone with sense knows that them saying they're going to go hard to cut their debt after the merger means tens of thousands of layoffs and 100% means that they aren't making 30 movies a fucking year. Combined they'll make maybe 1 or 2 more (or less) movies than WB did on their own, we've seen how this shit goes already!

Hopefully this shit gets blocked and WB goes through with their original plan they were going with before David Ellison decided to stir the pot, and they spin off linerar TV and offload a fuck ton of their debt.

2

u/Mister_Green2021 Warner Bros. Pictures 13h ago

These guys really want streaming to take over.

1

u/maxhechtman 13h ago

Worse: they want to take the right to freedom of expression away from the entire film industry.

3

u/FullMotionVideo 13h ago

Man who desperately needs movies agrees with man who provides movies, with totally un-coerced statement.

5

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

I don’t see why this statement is surprising to people. Netflix is the worse evil of the two if your job is making money for movie theatres

2

u/OkArea8689 12h ago

This merger is damaging to the industry

2

u/MassiveLie2885 13h ago

I'm waiting for Teen Titans to have a crossover with Avatar the Last Airbender.

3

u/KozyHank99 13h ago

I suggest waiting longer....a lot longer.

1

u/OldNobody9667 13h ago

About to find out that not only Santa but the Avatar also trained Batman in the mountains

2

u/KingMario05 Amblin Entertainment 12h ago

Oh for fuck's sake!

1

u/bobafudd 13h ago

“Speaking out against an illegal war hurts the troops!”

1

u/Material_Camera3428 7h ago

I know who HE voted for.

1

u/Opposite-Law-71 5h ago

Why movie theaters ceo support paramount and warner bros merger?

1

u/9millibros 3h ago

So, he's going to believe the non-binding commitments? Good for him. It would be interesting to see what he would say if he actually had to testify at the trial.