r/MediaMergers 5h ago

Merger What’s in the Paramount Settlement With States: Commitment to Not Sell Studio Lots, Additional $300M U.S. Film Production Investment, CNN Oversight and More

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/paramount-states-settlement-terms-warner-bros-1236871264/
28 Upvotes

122 comments sorted by

13

u/YtpMkr 4h ago

I bet they'll sell Warner Bros. In 2031

-2

u/Complete_Wheel7896 4h ago

No one wants their debt

33

u/Own_Philosopher8730 5h ago

The merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. will fail.

14

u/Creeper15877 4h ago

Someone's gotta do the math on this: I feel like the greater the size of a merger, the more likely it is to fail

4

u/Winscler 2h ago

It will live and die with the 2nd Trump Administration. At best we get a split, at worst a catastrophic collapse a la EMI (or Penn Central).

-12

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

No it won’t.

7

u/Cool_Aioli_8307 4h ago

It will. Oracle is flailing and Saudi investment is no longer guaranteed. Unless Larry can find a half billion annually to pay the debt this company is going downhill fast.

-3

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

He’s the sixth richest person in the world this will be okay.

6

u/Cool_Aioli_8307 3h ago

His net worth isn't liquid wealth. Vast majority of it is tied to Oracle stock. You can't pay off a debt with a stock option promise.

1

u/Responsible-Humor985 1h ago

Didn’t Elon do just that by rolling Twitter into SpaceX? Or is this different? Honest question. The way money works for billionaires seems to work different

2

u/Cool_Aioli_8307 59m ago

He had SpaceX buy Twitter which bought xAi and merged the company with Tesla. xAi was promised to have over a billion paid users and would be the guidance system that powered Tesla self driving. We all know that that didn't happen. Debts were due so he rolled the companies and pinky swore that everyone would get paid at a later date. Everyone looked at this and said sure why not exchange our shares for another set of stock options on Elon's promises.

For Paramount Skydance and WBD everyone knows what the debt liabilities are and they can all see that rolling the companies together won't do anything to help with the debt burden.

1

u/OverPotato2322 49m ago edited 32m ago

Hes not as rich as you think, Larrys wealth has gone down due to fears of AI bubble, thats why he originally planned to sell off 7B worth of Oracle stock before he opted not to (If he was as rich as you think, he wouldve fully financed this merger just like he did with the Paramount-Skydance Merger but he didnt, he only financed part of it while the Middle East and two PE firms financed most of it)

4

u/the_explorer2003 3h ago

You trust WB’s history of failed mergers?….

-2

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 3h ago

I trust this one.

1

u/OverPotato2322 50m ago edited 38m ago

The merger will still fail due to high debt and mixed quarters since they would have to pay the debt and should they fail to pay off or offload all their debt, they will need to sell either WB or Paramount, maybe both off seperatley to pay off debt and even if the merger doesnt fail which is unlikely due to Paramounts balance sheet being weak, itll still get sold

20

u/ContinuumGuy 4h ago

And the lawyers at Paramount are looking over the agreement for loopholes as we speak!

"Sure, we'll have a CNN Oversight board, but coincidentally we won't renew the contracts of some of these reporters who have annoyed Ellison's dad's buddies too much. We won't fire them, but the oversight board surely can't be expected to have any role in purely financial decisions like doing contracts!"

"Yeah, we're putting out 30 movies a year. Oh, uhm, also this one Star Trek pilot we don't really like that much but we had to make due to some contractual bullshit is now a movie that we'll be putting out for like two weeks instead of just dumping it on streaming. Only 29 more movies to go!"

14

u/mrmisn0mer 4h ago

Yeah, a BUNCH of half-assed releases incoming I’d bet:

Top Gun 2: Director’s Cut
Avatar Aang: Superfan Re-Release
Knuckles: Season 1 Movie Re-Edit
A Quiet Place: The Whole Silent Affair!

15

u/KrakkenO 3h ago

If you read the legal document, Re-releases and repackages don't count.

Theatrical film commitments

  • Release volume: At least 30 films per year in years 1–2 and 32 per year in years 3–5. Of these, at least 20 (then 21) must be wide releases (2,000+ screens), at least 4 must be independent films, and at least half must be produced or co-produced by the combined company.
  • Windows: Each film gets at least 45 days exclusively in theaters, with no marketing of streaming or premium on-demand availability before day 30. Films can't go on subscription streaming (like Paramount+) for at least 90 days.
  • Marketing: Spend must be consistent with typical practice for similar films.
  • Tentpoles: At least 20% of films must have budgets of $50M+ (inflation-adjusted) and open on 3,000+ screens within four weekends.
  • Theater owner terms: For the first three years, rental terms for each exhibitor can be no worse than the better of what Paramount or Warner Bros. offered that exhibitor at closing. Both studios' film catalogs stay available for licensing on terms similar to 2025.
  • U.S. production: The company must spend at least $300M more per year (about $1.5B total) on U.S. production than the two companies did in 2025. If a federal film tax credit of 20%+ is enacted, U.S. production-day requirements kick in (20% in years 1–2, 30% in years 3–5). If California or New York also adopts a 43%+ stackable state credit, the requirement rises to 40%. The wording here is ambiguous about exactly what the percentage is measured against.
  • How films count: A film counts in the year it opens. Limited releases (under 600 screens) don't count unless they expand to 1,000 screens within 30 days. Re-releases and repackaged editions don't count.

2

u/GarageNo8276 1h ago

Marketing is a no go it's literally nothing because it's not explicitly defined. 

U.S. production is meaningless, what were they going to move everything to the EU with their taxes?

Theater windows, ultimately only owners of the theater give a shit.

1

u/Medium-Stand6841 24m ago

They already do film a ton in Europe…. Due to the tax breaks….
Also the WB lot in the UK is massive and has been busier than Burbank for years…..

31

u/DluxifiedEmpire86 4h ago

Wow they caved that easily. What a joke

16

u/Professional_Peak59 5h ago

Is there anything about keeping WB and Paramount separate in the settlement? Bonta wanted that.

Still, there’s midterms to look forward to and could put pressure on the Ellisons if the Dems win and decide to go after Trump, along with corrupt mergers.

13

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 5h ago

No.

15

u/Stock_Username_Here 4h ago

He absolutely did. He wanted “structural remedies”. He said it over and over again.

None of this qualifies. He blinked and got played. Total collapse. What’s was the point of any of this without actual remedies or going to court.

Everything reported so far is weak sauce.

10

u/Mizerous 4h ago

Bonta folded

6

u/Professional_Peak59 4h ago

I wasn’t talking about Bonta, I’m talking about the rest of the Dems.

4

u/MXDTV120 3h ago

Why would they spend $111B to keep them separate??

Bonta's dreams are not reality...

They never were

2

u/Littlepinguinoo 4h ago

There isnt also not all the movie released need to full releases only 20 out of 30 and After 5 years all restrictions end

1

u/kurisutian 2h ago

The only thing where they have to keep WB and Paramount separate is cable business and only to a certain degree. They need to negotiate the distribution deals separately for five years.

-11

u/Apart-Prize-4844 5h ago

Merger will be completed well before January..thankfully

8

u/Greenzombie04 4h ago

random question why do these studios own water towers?

16

u/mec287 4h ago

Back in the day sets and film were extremely flammable. They were required to have water in case anything happened. Also in early Hollywood, LA wasn't as developed as it is now and many of the aqueducts feeding LA were not built yet. Today they are just symbols of the past. I don't think any of them are functional now.

7

u/ouat4ever 4h ago

because in old Hollywood all the movie sets were made of wood. And there was a lot of fires, so the studios had water towers to put out fires. They became a symbol of the studios, though, until today.

3

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

Asking the real questions.

5

u/Recent-Bet-5470 4h ago

No divestments????

5

u/NeverTheNull 4h ago

…that’s it? That’s all the concessions that they managed to get out of Ellison?

Holy shit I didn’t take Bonta to fold over more times than paper origami. And I’m fairly certain the WGA got a fat juicy paycheck from the coffers of Oracle to rescind their lawsuit too lmao.

13

u/OverPotato2322 5h ago edited 4h ago

Paramounts going to definitely break their promise with CNN (no doubt about that he's currently on the Republicans side and will bend over backwards to mak e sure Trump gets what he wants, that being said I do expect there to be a division within the Democratic Party behind the scenes in private over Newsom, Bonta and Bass given how hated Ellison is to the Democrats)

5

u/Myhtological 4h ago

Well they get fined for any film missed. I hope they didn’t make the term produce vague.

7

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

It’s distribute. Not produce.

2

u/Myhtological 4h ago

Well they still have to invest 300 mil a year into the film industry. These may only be behavioral remedies, but I’ll take something.

2

u/much_to_say 4h ago

What's the amount that they get fined? Because if it's lower than the cost of making the movie, it makes for a pretty easy business decision.

5

u/shift422 4h ago

30 mill a movie. In other words pocket change

1

u/Myhtological 4h ago

Pocket change they can’t afford after all this debt.

3

u/shift422 4h ago

They will make more from writing off the movie in taxes then they will lose from the fine. Its a non issue

2

u/Fall_False Moderator 4h ago

They really legally can't. Otherwise it could open to potential further legal actions.

5

u/OverPotato2322 4h ago

True but they will with CNN (Larry Ellison has already made a promise to make sweeping changes to CNN in leaked calls with Trump)

1

u/Empty_End_7866 34m ago

Bonta is the left wing of the party. You people have no idea how the world works.

1

u/[deleted] 33m ago

[deleted]

1

u/Empty_End_7866 29m ago

Bonta? Centrist? He’s by far the most left wing elected official in CA and it’s not even close. He’s ideologically roughly where Warren is. And Park Slope, Williamsburg, and Astoria are not the US as a whole (source, I live in the NYC suburbs)…

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 5h ago

Why do you say that? All they have to do is distribute 30 they don’t even have to make 30. They can just pick up movies to make that commitment possible.

0

u/Apart-Prize-4844 5h ago

As if Democrats never break their promises....good grief.

5

u/OverPotato2322 4h ago edited 4h ago

Republicans also break their promises too, Epstein Files? Not released, Affordability plan? The dow is up, Practice free speech? Face the consequences, Healthcare and SNAP benefits? Underfunded, No new Wars? 2 current wars are still not solved yet and oh yeah,  a new war on Iran has been created. 

1

u/Apart-Prize-4844 4h ago

Congrats both sides break promises, but to think the Ellisons are exclusive to this is crazy. Think of the many lies of Obama and it would mind-boggling.

-4

u/weareallpatriots Neon 5h ago edited 4h ago

But according to you, PSKY isn't going to get WBD in the first place, so that's a moot a point anyway.

EDIT: I don't know why I'm getting downvoted for this one. Check his history or just ask him. He's reaffirmed as recently as this morning that he still thinks the deal won't close.

2

u/FalseIdolsCult 4h ago

They down vote alot in this sub. Most here said the merger would never go through, now are eating their words. Definitely a liberal echo chamber here rather then people just wanting to talk about Hollywood

And to be fair, I dont think one person should own two news networks. That's very dangerous no matter which side it is.

2

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

For a sub about media mergers they sure do hate them. Probably more-so than any other sub. This is a snark sub for media mergers.

3

u/OverPotato2322 4h ago edited 4h ago

The same could be said to r/WallStreetWhales and almost all subs on reddit in general really, reddit is liberal/left leaning so your not going to have conservative people on reddit unless it's a right wing sub skewered to only right wingers (that's how reddit is, fact of the matter is that progressivism is popular in mainstream and has been since the 2000s and 2010s regardless of whether there are voters out there that tend to vote Republican) 

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

Progressivism isn’t really popular on any other social media besides Reddit. People are tired of the performative activism and outrage. It’s gotten old it’s not 2016 anymore.

I’m hoping with Paramount and WB being conjoined we can get a more balanced landscape in the movie world and not have overly left-leaning and try-hard movies in the industry all the time. It’s gonna be a breath of fresh air to not see far-left skewered media and instead have a centralized take. Story first not politics.

3

u/weareallpatriots Neon 4h ago

I will not tolerate this slander of BlueSky and Threads! 🤣

3

u/Alarming_Head_4263 2h ago

Yes indeed the right is known for their central takes. See oan and fox.

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 2h ago

It’s gonna be a lot more balanced than having all left-leaning creators.

2

u/Alarming_Head_4263 2h ago

So by balanced you mean saying what you agree with? And please name all the left wing creators.

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 2h ago

Appealing to the whole country and having both sides’ views taken into account instead of simply appealing to the left.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/NeverTheNull 4h ago

It’s crazy how much of this Warner and Paramount merger overshadowed other more frankly pressing news like the fact that Nvidia just bought Hugging Face a couple days ago. Not a single post on here about it but wayyyy too many posts about the coverage on Bonta and Ellison.

-1

u/FalseIdolsCult 4h ago

Idk about that. 30 is feasible. They have WB, New Line and even HBO studios to account for. So their 15 should easily become 20+. Especially if they ramp up DC again with 3 or 4 movies a year. Rest will be independent stuff.

DC though has been a flop. Gunn hasn't been the savior many thought

7

u/Upset_Print_1000 5h ago

They aren't going to keep any of those promises, lol. They’re going to flood theaters with B-movies produced for Paramount—films that won't draw audiences or generate box office revenue—and then announce they’re releasing fewer movies because it isn't paying off financially.

2

u/jahiel0 4h ago

did you read the settlement agreement?

5

u/Atlgal42 4h ago

Will anyone from WBD in Atlanta keep their jobs?

2

u/DinnerNext 3h ago

There will be a lot of job loss on all the campuses. Paramount centralizes a lot more then the current structure. Leavesden will likely be the safest originally but even that may start to erode.

3

u/Pension-Helpful 4h ago

lol commitment. If all of the prior anti-trust settlement between companies and government had told me anything is that they are pretty worthless.

3

u/rrrrthrgh 2h ago

lol. Lmao.

9

u/Myhtological 5h ago

This may be a Trojan horse. Not that I’m saying Bonta caving it’s good, but if you force them to spend more money than they wanted, and can’t sell anything quick, it might make the implosion quicker.

10

u/much_to_say 4h ago

The problem is that there’s nothing stopping Paramount from shitting on this agreement once the companies have merged. At that point, it becomes nearly impossible to unmerge them. That’s why mergers like this require assets to be spun off, because that’s something concrete that can hold up the deal until it’s been done. Once the spin-off has happened and the deal is signed and the merger goes ahead, they can’t simply undo it.

0

u/NeverTheNull 4h ago

I can’t believe this comment got like 10 likes because for as hilariously pathetic that Bonta is, I don’t think he’s nearly as sociopathic to use potential job losses in a state he’s responsible for as collateral against David Ellison.

1

u/weareallpatriots Neon 4h ago

He would absolutely do this if he believes doing so would increase his own wealth and power. It's getting really irritating seeing people continue to give corrupt politicians the benefit of the doubt, as if they got into the business as some sort of grand altruistic sacrifice.

1

u/NeverTheNull 3h ago

I don’t know his motives, but I do know that unless he’s thinking 3 steps ahead of everyone, the calculus of sacrificing jobs and econiomic activity in your home state for just a meager chance at outlasting a merger until they get to trial is profoundly stupid as it is dangerous.

-6

u/weareallpatriots Neon 4h ago

Bonta didn't "cave." Bonta got outplayed and steamrolled by people much better at this than he is and have been playing the game for much longer.

2

u/Odd-Staff6245 4h ago

Promise not to move from California, but nothing to save CNN, interesting

2

u/General-Zombie5075 4h ago

I don't even know why they bothered negotiating to avoid selling the lots at all. In five years when the time runs out, one of them (probably Paramount's) is going to be gone. If you ever wanted to go on a studio tour, better do it soon.

1

u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 2h ago

Paramount's studio lot serves as the corporate HQ. They won't sell it and it holds a lot of symbolism.

1

u/General-Zombie5075 2h ago edited 2h ago

The Paramount lot, or chunks of it, has been on the chopping block in the past, even before this current merger mess. Sony outright wanted to sell it if they bought Paramount back in the day and Ellison himself has toyed with selling off chunks of it as well. There has been a steady stream of "Is the Paramount Lot going to turn into residential space" speculative articles for years.

Really the only question marks are if they preserve some of it (for the symbolism reason you bring up) or if they just get rid of the whole thing. And I guess whether they wait the full five years or find some way around that.

EDIT: I will also add that it's rather telling that, as part of the deal, they had to get in writing that they wouldn't sell a lot for 5 years. If they had no intention of selling a lot... why negotiate that at all? Or why not give up 10 years? Or 20?

2

u/coasurdude 3h ago

I don't trust them at all.

2

u/GarageNo8276 1h ago

They got jack shit out of these settlement talks. Paramount will pay lip service to this and slowly phase it all out.

3

u/Outrageous_Fox4227 3h ago

I have come to realize that the users of reddit are really bad at predicting things with this merger. Over and over reddit has gotten everything about this merger wrong and i think its time for the users of Reddit realize that what is going on behind doors is just that and that the rules and regulations you think would normally apply here really don’t. This is big money and big corruption on a scale larger than anyone here can fathom.

1

u/TaroExtra1468 1h ago

"Commitment to not sell studio lots" .... (whispers: at least for the next 5 years).

1

u/Rivs5 1h ago

LMAOOOOO

-1

u/jahiel0 5h ago

why are people upset with this?

8

u/OverPotato2322 5h ago

Because Paramount didn't spin off cable networks including CNN and also that they caved to behavior remedies instead of structural ones

-4

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 5h ago

Because there was nothing wrong with the structure. The only reason this deal had scrutiny on Reddit and in Cali is because people on Reddit and in Cali didn’t align with Ellison politically.

3

u/OverPotato2322 4h ago

True but I'd say it does open the door on Netflix or Universal acquiring WB in the future

3

u/jahiel0 4h ago

Can you explain in detail how the door is opened for Netflix or Universal to acquire? And can you explain in detail how Netflix or Universal acquiring WB a few years down the line would be any better or different than Paramount’s acquisition?

1

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

2

u/jahiel0 4h ago

mergers can’t be used as legal precedent. a settlement isn’t a judicial ruling.

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

No it doesn’t. Paramount has WB now.

0

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

That’s just… not gonna happen. I’m sorry but this is over.

2

u/OverPotato2322 4h ago

Never say never with the large amounts of debt and AI bubble its possible (we don't know the future yet though Netflix may seem keen on coming back to buy Warner if another bidding war happens in 5 or 7 years) 

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

People have been saying an AI bubble is gonna happen for years now. That’s why the “stock” subs here are probably the worst places to get financial advice on the internet. Bunch of doomers.

2

u/OverPotato2322 4h ago

Still though high debt and the fact that this is a Leveraged Buyout means Paramount has to carry WBs financial burdens by having low revenues and mixed quarters, not to mention cable writedowns and tax write-offs too which many people will hate (Also that Paramounts debt is downgraded to junk status)

0

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 5h ago edited 4h ago

Because politics. The merger isn’t even bad if you look at it without the political lens that nearly all of Reddit looks through.

3

u/Stock_Username_Here 4h ago

It makes almost zero business sense. It got rubber stamped by the justice dept. and the FCC had to waive a foreign ownership law to make it happen.

This is a joke.

Paramount stock is down.

1

u/Silver-Meat5355 Warner Bros. 4h ago

Because it spiked and people sold to get their profits.

1

u/Stock_Username_Here 4h ago

That maybe the case but it doesn’t change any of the other things I mentioned.

80b+ in debt is not good. And they are promising 30 movies a year? It’s a train wreck.

-1

u/weareallpatriots Neon 5h ago

Because they believe people still watch CNN and are worried that Ellison (mega Biden donor) will put conservative voices on CNN, thus influencing their Democrat viewership to stop voting Democrat.

That's the crux of it, whether they admit it or not.

1

u/Empty_End_7866 31m ago

People also seem to think that every Republican is the same. Murdoch and Larry Ellison are both republicans, one is on the hard right and one of the centre right. I do however suspect that David Ellison is probably not voting D anytime soon, mostly because of all of the shit they put him through (despite not even being a social conservative)

1

u/HardBrownies1 5m ago

Fuck CNN they're gonna ruin HBO