Netflix Owning Warner Bros Could Backfire: How A Paramount Win Might Have Reshaped Hollywood

So, yeah, Netflix buying Warner Bros. Discovery happened, and a lot of people are not thrilled about it. Exhibitors, fans, critics, execs — everyone has an opinion. Some of them loud. But is it the worst possible outcome for Hollywood? Honestly, maybe not.

What Netflix buying WB actually means (and why people are mad)

Netflix lives and dies by streaming. That is their whole thing. Which is why theater folks panic when you imagine a future where a Guillermo del Toro epic like Frankenstein or Rian Johnson dropping Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery gets, at best, a two-week limited theatrical run before it disappears into the app. The 'cinematic experience' side of the industry understandably hates that idea. Fans do too. But the bigger fireworks are coming from a rival who wanted the studio badly.

Paramount Skydance is trying to blow up the deal

Paramount Skydance made its objections public, urging that the Netflix–WBD sale be reviewed and, if necessary, tossed out on unfair-competition grounds. In an open letter reviewed by CNBC, they accuse WBD of running a biased process, claiming the seller had effectively pre-picked Netflix and sidelined other bidders. That is their version of events.

There is another side: reports also point out that Paramount Skydance had already been rejected multiple times by WBD before formal bidding even kicked off — which makes the letter sound, to some observers, like sour grapes.

Follow the money

• Paramount Skydance: Final bid of $23.50 per WBD share, after WBD had already turned them down three times for earlier, lower offers (per CNBC).
• Netflix: $23.25 per share in cash plus $4.50 in Netflix stock — a richer package overall, and apparently the one WBD liked best.
• Comcast: Was in the mix but, reportedly, didn’t want to take on more debt or spook shareholders, so their proposal stayed conservative.

The 'worse timeline' argument: politics and personnel

Here’s where things get messy. If Paramount Skydance had won, critics say the creative fallout could have been uglier than a Netflix-led theatrical pullback.

Case in point: after President Donald Trump publicly said he wanted Rush Hour 4, the movie was suddenly greenlit the next day. According to SlashFilm coverage, Brett Ratner — who saw his career stall in 2017 and is aligned with Trump — was tied to that revival. Ratner has faced serious accusations: several women, including Olivia Munn and Natasha Henstridge, accused him of sexual misconduct; Elliot Page has said Ratner harassed and outed them on the set of X-Men: The Last Stand. The implication from detractors is that Paramount Skydance chasing that project was more about currying political favor than, you know, taste.

And then there’s the censorship fear: people were already speculating that politically touchy titles — examples tossed around include something like One Battle After Another — might be iced altogether under a Paramount Skydance-led WB. The talking point from that camp is blunt: a Paramount Skydance takeover equals propaganda over creativity and a slow creative death for Hollywood. Strong words, but that’s the argument.

The Saudi money wrinkle

SlashFilm also reported that Paramount Skydance was willing to tap Saudi funding to strengthen its bid. That set off alarms about outside influence on creative decisions, up to and including fears that elements of creative control might sit with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Layer onto that the 2018 killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi — which U.S. intelligence has linked to the crown prince — and recent reports of tight speech restrictions at events like the Riyadh Comedy Festival. Add long-running concerns around anti-LGBTQ+ policies, and you can see why people worried about what that would mean for casting and content if those dollars came with strings.

Netflix’s theater problem is real — but is it the apocalypse?

No question: Netflix’s bias against long theatrical runs is a bummer if you love seeing big, weird swings on a big screen. It stings more when you imagine icons like Frankenstein getting only a blink-and-you-miss-it window. But compared to the alternative scenarios people were tossing around — political IOUs, blacklisted projects, outside money with creative influence — the Netflix outcome starts to look less dire. Not ideal, but survivable.

A quote worth keeping in mind

'The innovation in our industry has always been and should always be what goes on the screen, not what the screen is, not what the seats are, not whether they’ve got two drink cup holders or one or whatever.'

'That’s all irrelevant. It’s what we do as filmmakers, what we put on the screen, that’s where the potential is infinite and needs to be explored.'

— Christopher Nolan (different context, same energy)

Yes, Nolan was critiquing Netflix’s streaming model at the time, but the larger point holds: the real revolution is the work itself.

Bottom line

Fans want movies in theaters. Filmmakers want freedom to make what they want. If those are the stakes, a Netflix-owned WB with short theatrical windows is frustrating — but a version of WB ensnared in political favors or beholden to outside censors sounds a lot worse.

Where are you on this? Would Hollywood be better off if Paramount Skydance had won the day — or did we dodge a bigger headache?