5 ms·

I prefer Netflix to Oracle-ied Paramount. I don't want Ellisons to own more than they do. Netflix is boring, Ellisons are evil.

by karel-3d 11mo ago

achow 11mo ago
Annapurna Pictures is owned by Megan Ellison. The studio have produced Oscar nominated marquee films like Her, Zero Dark Thirty, American Hustle.
- actionfromafar 11mo ago
  Well that settles it. Shut up and take my democracy.
- scheeseman486 11mo ago
  Zero Dark Thirty, you say?
  - steveBK123 11mo ago
    The 2010s Black Hawk Down
  - newsclues 11mo ago
    CIA propaganda to whitewash torture
- johnbellone 11mo ago
  That studio has produced a lot of great video games, too. But we need more variety in ownership. Not everything can be owned by conservative leaning billionaires.
  - mcphage 11mo ago
    > Not everything can be owned by conservative leaning billionaires. Well, it can be, that’s the problem :-(. But it would really, really suck.
testdelacc1 11mo ago
I wonder if the Ellisons win either way - any merger they propose will be greenlit by the Trump administration, giving them an advantage. The seller prefers them because the transaction is far more likely to go through. - Netflix is interested exclusively in the assets and the studio, not in legacy assets like CNN. So Netflix is bidding for that alone. The Ellisons see themselves as recreating the Murdoch playbook. They already control CBS. Even if Netflix succeeds in buying HBO, the Ellisons can pick up CNN later and create a right wing news empire to rival Fox News. HBO is a nice prize, especially with the prestige and popularity of its content library. But the Ellisons win no matter what. For viewers and voters I don’t see a win here. HBO production gets Netflix-ified. Say goodbye to quality shows like The Pitt and prepare to welcome streaming-while-scrolling shows like Emily in Paris. And simultaneously you’ll have the Ellisons telling large parts of the population what they’re supposed to think.
- msie 11mo ago
  ARGGGHHH
Flatcircle 11mo ago
Anyone that thinks Netflix buying WB would be better than the Ellisons knows nothing about the media business. Look at what James Cameron said about it last week, everyone prefers the Ellisons over Netflix because Netflix actively wants to kill the theatrical and physical media businesses
- Raztuf 11mo ago
  Mainstream physical media is already dead.
  - VBprogrammer 11mo ago
    I wonder how much affect this has had in the Christmas trade for the entertainment industry. Back in the early 2000s it was common to buy a comedy DVD or a TV series for a family member or friend. Now people who own DVD / Blu-ray players are a rare breed.
    - newsclues 11mo ago
      Gifting streaming membership
- karel-3d 11mo ago
  "they are evil but at least they are less into streaming." I don't know.
  - throwaway48476 11mo ago
    With tiktok, they're now in streaming.
  - nutjob2 11mo ago
    There is no evidence that they'll remain "less into streaming" and logic suggests that they secretly are not.
- hiddencost 11mo ago
prodigycorp 11mo ago
netflix buying warner would mean essentially the death of the theater business.
- TylerE 11mo ago
  The theater business is already dead, it just doesn’t realize it yet.
  - the_other 11mo ago
    In my opinion, here in the UK, the cinema/theatre business killed itself. Cinemas are horrible places to visit: - they smell bad (stale junk food) - they have oppressive lighting (mostly extremely dark but with garish turquoise and pink dazzle, accentuating the most confusing aspects of their architecture) - the sound systems are thunderously loud (I'll be taking earplugs the next time I go to one) - most of them are expensive - most of them only programme big, loud, contemporary Hollywood offerings (which are simiarly horrible high contrast junk food only out to assault the audience); there's little appreciation for the art of cinema They're like nightclubs, but without the dancing, social interaction, or resistance (a nebulous concept I'm not going into here). You can say "this is what the market wants", but I wont't believe you. Such an argument is like saying social media (surveilled attention management) is what the market wants. The truth is much closer to "this is what the market can bear before it breaks".
    - phatfish 11mo ago
      Plenty of art house type movie theatres in the UK which would suit your taste better I expect.
      - the_other 11mo ago
        I've generally preferred these over the mainstream chains. The nearest Picturehouse to me closed down recently, which was a real loss as it was in a great building. I feel they didn't lean into their art house background hard enough: half the programme seemed to be the afforementioned addiction-cinema. I feel that these spaces should be celebrating cinema: specials, all-nighters, film discussion groups/clubs in their cafes, some kind of access for local film-makers... like to actually be a part of film-as-art, rather than a part of film-for-business. Some of this goes on (I've been to a few such events), but I have a hunch that there's appetite for much more. It's just a hunch though.

I prefer Netflix to Oracle-ied Paramount. I don't want Ellisons to own more than they do. Netflix is boring, Ellisons are evil.

achow 11mo ago

Annapurna Pictures is owned by Megan Ellison. The studio have produced Oscar nominated marquee films like Her, Zero Dark Thirty, American Hustle.

actionfromafar 11mo ago
Well that settles it. Shut up and take my democracy.
scheeseman486 11mo ago
Zero Dark Thirty, you say?
- steveBK123 11mo ago
  The 2010s Black Hawk Down
- newsclues 11mo ago
  CIA propaganda to whitewash torture
johnbellone 11mo ago
That studio has produced a lot of great video games, too. But we need more variety in ownership. Not everything can be owned by conservative leaning billionaires.
- mcphage 11mo ago
  > Not everything can be owned by conservative leaning billionaires. Well, it can be, that’s the problem :-(. But it would really, really suck.

testdelacc1 11mo ago

I wonder if the Ellisons win either way - any merger they propose will be greenlit by the Trump administration, giving them an advantage. The seller prefers them because the transaction is far more likely to go through. - Netflix is interested exclusively in the assets and the studio, not in legacy assets like CNN. So Netflix is bidding for that alone. The Ellisons see themselves as recreating the Murdoch playbook. They already control CBS. Even if Netflix succeeds in buying HBO, the Ellisons can pick up CNN later and create a right wing news empire to rival Fox News. HBO is a nice prize, especially with the prestige and popularity of its content library. But the Ellisons win no matter what. For viewers and voters I don’t see a win here. HBO production gets Netflix-ified. Say goodbye to quality shows like The Pitt and prepare to welcome streaming-while-scrolling shows like Emily in Paris. And simultaneously you’ll have the Ellisons telling large parts of the population what they’re supposed to think.

msie 11mo ago
ARGGGHHH

Flatcircle 11mo ago

Anyone that thinks Netflix buying WB would be better than the Ellisons knows nothing about the media business. Look at what James Cameron said about it last week, everyone prefers the Ellisons over Netflix because Netflix actively wants to kill the theatrical and physical media businesses

Raztuf 11mo ago
Mainstream physical media is already dead.
- VBprogrammer 11mo ago
  I wonder how much affect this has had in the Christmas trade for the entertainment industry. Back in the early 2000s it was common to buy a comedy DVD or a TV series for a family member or friend. Now people who own DVD / Blu-ray players are a rare breed.
  - newsclues 11mo ago
    Gifting streaming membership
karel-3d 11mo ago
"they are evil but at least they are less into streaming." I don't know.
- throwaway48476 11mo ago
  With tiktok, they're now in streaming.
- nutjob2 11mo ago
  There is no evidence that they'll remain "less into streaming" and logic suggests that they secretly are not.
hiddencost 11mo ago

prodigycorp 11mo ago

netflix buying warner would mean essentially the death of the theater business.

TylerE 11mo ago
The theater business is already dead, it just doesn’t realize it yet.
- the_other 11mo ago
  In my opinion, here in the UK, the cinema/theatre business killed itself. Cinemas are horrible places to visit: - they smell bad (stale junk food) - they have oppressive lighting (mostly extremely dark but with garish turquoise and pink dazzle, accentuating the most confusing aspects of their architecture) - the sound systems are thunderously loud (I'll be taking earplugs the next time I go to one) - most of them are expensive - most of them only programme big, loud, contemporary Hollywood offerings (which are simiarly horrible high contrast junk food only out to assault the audience); there's little appreciation for the art of cinema They're like nightclubs, but without the dancing, social interaction, or resistance (a nebulous concept I'm not going into here). You can say "this is what the market wants", but I wont't believe you. Such an argument is like saying social media (surveilled attention management) is what the market wants. The truth is much closer to "this is what the market can bear before it breaks".
  - phatfish 11mo ago
    Plenty of art house type movie theatres in the UK which would suit your taste better I expect.
    - the_other 11mo ago
      I've generally preferred these over the mainstream chains. The nearest Picturehouse to me closed down recently, which was a real loss as it was in a great building. I feel they didn't lean into their art house background hard enough: half the programme seemed to be the afforementioned addiction-cinema. I feel that these spaces should be celebrating cinema: specials, all-nighters, film discussion groups/clubs in their cafes, some kind of access for local film-makers... like to actually be a part of film-as-art, rather than a part of film-for-business. Some of this goes on (I've been to a few such events), but I have a hunch that there's appetite for much more. It's just a hunch though.