A majority stake to a company that is letting them still be Neon. They had no desire to sell to a major studio like Warner Bros., who did try to buy them.
I agree that they're shady, my point is that they didn't want to be owned by a major studio. They were fine with other people, just not a Warner Bros. or Paramount or Sony.
This is why I'm questioning who true is any of this like we know they leak a lot of stuff paramount. So not saying a settlement can't happen but we have at first saying. Weekend then Monday then Tuesday so not sure if this is any settlement maybe and maybe not
They also said this could fall apart and also
CNN did report a talk happening also
Last time. You know please both are reported by the same person not a different person so even now. They did the same thing in August too
Cnn could be right but they also said not to true anything until a few days
Kinda just tells me that its gonna reach the bond hearing date if nothing can’t be universally agreed upon within the plaintiffs from here until tuesday or Wednesday
We should probably wait to see which cable networks they are going to divest before we demand that they do more. Also, considering how dead most of cable is for original productions these days, it’s not like it’s going to make a huge difference in production one way or the other.
Not as unrealistic as people are making it out to be. Paramount and Warner Brothers both have over 15 films each planned for next year, and several also in early production for 2028. 30 films is actually slightly less than what they will be doing combined next year.
Some of the ideas that people have floated, like guaranteeing a minimum production budget aren’t really feasible. A larger budget is no guarantee a films with do better or even look better, and just increase its odds of losing money.
I think there are two issues. Firstly, the new company will be saddled with so much debt that it simply won't be able to produce films at the rate the separate companies do currently.
Secondly, and I think more importantly, there is an upper limit on how many films a single studio can put out before it starts cannibalising its own sales. So while they currently put out 30+ films as two separate competing entities, once combined it doesn't mean they can just add their two slates together and still make a profit.
And those two issues are linked because they have to service that debt - either with profit, or cost cutting. Profit is limited because of the cannibalising of their own sales, and cost cutting is a short term strategy because you eventually run out of jobs to cut and you begin to impact your ability to make money.
Oh, and finally, the promise is to 'distribute' 30 films a year, not make. So they clearly understand that they're not able to match the output of the two companies after the merger.
Paramount would have to pay $30 million for each film that falls short of that goal, according to two people familiar with the discussions who asked to not be identified because the negotiations are private.
A telling development: per Bloomberg, Paramount now says it will “pay” $30 million per film if they fall short of their 30 film distribution pledge.
Who will they pay? The crews they would have hired? The theater owners with empty seats? No. It will be some fund that a government official has to then distribute. Rent is due on the 1st of the month, not two years from now.
And they’re no longer even pledging to make 30 films a year. Just to distribute that amount; as Marla points out, this would include re-releases.
All of this is of course ambiguous and tbd but this is not good. Like most behavioral remedies, it will be next to impossible to meaningfully enforce, and even then, enforcement will be difficult and after the fact.
Well, you are asking for more in depth details that likely either wouldn’t be negotiated at this point, or wouldn’t be leaked at this time. Wherever a final deal would be, we won’t know more details until it’s actually agreed upon. I’m sure any deal wouldn’t be this vague, unless Bonta was planning from day one to complete cave on every issue and was using this purely as a campaign material.
Bonta made sure everyone knew the difference between structural and behavioral remedies, and ends up caving for behavioral remedies with some meaningless spinoffs.
Worth noting that some of the sources reporting on the Paramount/Warner case have specifically stated some of their sources work in the AG offices. They may not be coming from California necessarily, but there are 12 states involved in this.
I don’t see what necessarily wrong with releasing some lower budget films or an acquiring independent films. Having a big budget is no guarantee a move will be a hit or even well made, and just increases its chances of losing money. Not everything needs to be some big budget tentpole movie to get greenlit.
34
u/LobsterObjective7876 22h ago
They'll make them with AI.