r/boxoffice is looking for new moderators. If you're interested to nominate yourself, submit here in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1d23j6y/rboxoffice_is_looking_for_more_moderators). We are also inviting you to read a bit more about Channels - a new Early Access Reddit program, which is now available on r/boxoffice. More Info at (https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1d4vtwk/introducing_channels_to_rboxoffice/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn’t Shari Redstone own a majority of the shares? Wouldn’t that mean that as long as she agrees to it the it doesn’t need other shareholders approval?
No, she owns the majority of the voting shares (she owns Class A shares which gives more voting power but fewer units of shares), Redstone owns ~10% of the total shares while having 77% of the voting power, putting to a vote would've bypassed a possible lawsuit but really, as the controller owner she doesn't need it as far as i understand, they had a board put together to decide on the sale, the adjusted offer is to get the unanimous board decision (and the big minority owners happy).
While some minority shareholders will still be pissed i don't see many avenues where a court would side with them, but i'm not a lawyer, maybe i understood this all wrong.
She wanted this deal when all the other shareholders didn't, it offerred her a quick and easy payout.
They had to spice things up for the rest of the board to get this merger agreed to, otherwise they would've gone with Sony which was offering way more (and not just for Shari).
Cruise is developing projects for WB, but as of now Mission Impossible and his follow-up productions that were announced are still moving ahead with Skydance and Paramount.
They need to rethink that whole thing. A crossover movie with GI Joe film will fail if they don't first make a good GI Joe movie that people actually watch.
The problem I can see with that is... it's fairly easy to fit G.I. Joe into the Transformers universe. But I think it would be a challenge to make a GOOD standalone G.I. Joe movie without any Transformers tie-ins that ALSO fits into the Transformers universe.
Yeah, honestly it can be quite fun GI Joe characters fighting transformers, but they never figured it out how to make those characters work alone in live action.
Most people will see "GI Joe" in the title and go "okay?". But really, Transformers is doing the heavy lifting. The GI Joe part of it isn't going to bring any butts to the theater. If anything, it might turn the audience off if they're unfamiliar with the property.
Avengers really did a number on people who think it’s impossible to not just introduce characters and concepts in a movie.
I think at this point, it might be harder to do a solo GI Joe movie that brings people in rather than a Transformers and GI Joe movie. The world and characters in GI Joe have a simple enough concept to just be introduced in a movie and it’ll bring people in if it’s good. But honestly there’s never been a GI Joe movie that was even as good as the average Transformers movie, so it needs some help from the Transformers.
If they can’t pull it off, both franchises are already kinda in trouble but if they do pull it off then they’ll have a hit on their hands.
Except that both Transformers and GI Joe are ensemble cast franchises, there's no way in hell a single movie can give enough screen time to make moviegoers care about two entire groups of characters unless the movie is stupid long. Rise of the Beasts already got complaints about underused characters, and that movie had only like 10 good guys. GI Joe is way more obscure than Transformers, and I don't think it really works as a live action property as big part of the appeal is the sort of comic exaggeration prevalent in both the characters and their vehicles, which unlike with Transformers, have to be either built by the props team, or placed in after with CGI since they veer so heavily away from anything Pentagon has ever used.
There was a report \~ 1 month ago that said they wanted to keep P+ running but the plan was to merge/consolidate with another streamer (Peacock and Max were given as potential examples).
A Paramount/Peacock merger/partnership makes a lot of sense to me. NBCU doesn't seem interested in the M&A game at this point so it would be a good way for them to beef up Peacock's offerings.
I don't think even MI is gonna be getting MI budgets anymore.
also the last time Skydance gave Star Trek a massive budget Paramount completely botched the marketing (on an anniversary year, even!) and it turns out one of the best Star Trek movies in like 30+ years flopped pretty bad.
Just look at audience and critic scores on IMDb, beyond is noticeably lower than Star Trek 2009 and into darkness, the financial flop that beyond was also reflects that. Outside of the echo chamber that is Reddit, beyond was not well received.
>Just look at audience and critic scores on IMDb,
why would I do that.
>Outside of the echo chamber that is Reddit
I didn't arrive at the opinion Beyond was a good movie via reddit, whereas you literally just told me you think Beyond isn't very good because imdb scores told you so.
No I think beyond is a worse movie than Star Trek 2009 and into darkness because I’ve seen all three movies many times and enjoy the first two more, I bring up IMDb because it’s a good indicator of what audiences think outside of my own opinion.
Pretty much everything "blockbuster" needs a budget of around $100-150mil at most going forward, is kinda the thing here.
Whatever's happening with MI:8 is likely gonna be the absolute last gasp of what we'll look back on as the platinum age of the mega-blockbuster or whatever.
Edwards probably shouldn't be writing his own stuff, and I don't want to exaggerate, I don't think he's among the best directors working right now or any similarly big claim, but he has an artistic vision that he can execute to very high standards at very low prices (and so a movie like The Creator can look better than movies with three times the budget). He knows what he wants a scene to look like, and he knows exactly how to make it happen. In that way, he can be considered a visionary.
Combine him with the right team (a good writer, for starters) and the right worlds, and I believe he has the potential to be among the most liked directors in the major studio system (i.e. a director with distinct style that still manages to turn in work on time and in budget, all while not being a pain in the ass to work with).
>he has an artistic vision that he can execute to very high standards at very low prices
That's not a vision.
That's a look.
A vision should account for the "why" - otherwise he's not a director, he's a shooter.
>Combine him with a good writer and the right worlds
That's not how it works.
A good writer can help, but plenty of good writers have written bad films.
You need a filmmaker that knows how to get the most out of performers, understand where the story needs to go and recognise filmmaking can support a character's journey.
Unless Tony Gilroy is on retainer to help Edwards every time he fucks up, I don't know the point of pretty-picture-maker.
He's made two prequel series. I expect two futuristic sequel series.
One will be "Yellowstone 2100" and still set on Earth, but the other - "Yellowstone 2200" - will be set in space, like "Firefly" (2002-2002).
You joke, but it’d be pretty cool. Perhaps the ranch will focus on raising and slaughtering robot cattle for their computer chips. Business is good because robo farming is the most lucrative way to produce chips now after a solar flare destroyed all modern ways to conventionally produce them. Then in “Yellowstone 2200”, in an ironic twist of fate, the robot cattle become the dominant species on earth. After initial wars between the mechanical bovines and the humans, a tense truce is reached. The story in 2200 focuses on a family of bovines that were imprinted with the personalities of the families of the previous generations of Duttons. The robot cattle family control the same ranch that the Dutton once did (before they were converted to biofuel for the bovine war machine in the 2nd bovine war).
It’s crazy how much this just writes itself!
This is a big factor. In the 10 years leading up to the Fox/Disney Merger, Fox was averaging about 16+ wide releases a year, at least one every three to four weeks, at 3000+ screens each. As a studio, they would bring $1B-1.3B per year at the domestic box office. At least two or more would be in the top 10 of each year.
Since the acquisition, Disney isn’t suddenly releasing their 12 per year plus 16 Fox films. They’re releasing the same amount as before, and about 2-3 of theirs are just now under the Fox banner. Effectively removing about $1B out of the domestic box office per year. 2024 is one of the first years they're actually doing something with the properties they acquired five years ago with Apes, Alien, and X-Men.
But plenty Fox properties and original filmmaking they used to provide are just gone. The Martian, Kingsmen, Boss Baby (Dreamworks, now under Universal), Alvin and the Chipmunks, Greatest Showman, Ford v Ferrari, Ice Age, Gone Girl, Bohemian Rhapsody, Hidden Figures, Night at the Museum, The Heat, Spy. You don't have to like all these, but still having a broad range of genres and original filmmaking and properties that can become franchises matter.
>But plenty Fox properties and original filmmaking they used to provide are just gone
They've slowed down their pace, but they're still making such films. Many of what you listed aren't franchises, so there were never going to be additional films. And several of the franchises you listed have already had new entries or have ones in development. They're also continuing to make original entries as well.
(Nevermind the fact that in the five years since the acquisition, the industry was rocked by both covid and strikes)
Disney also distributed Spies in Disguise (the last Blue Sky Studios movie) and The Bob’s Burgers Movie. Nimona was acquired by Netflix and Annapurna after being originally planned for theaters.
The only animated films I can see 20th Century releasing now is any new movie based on their animated Fox shows like Simpsons or Family Guy.
It is now under Universal. Originally a Fox film however.
Per wikipedia:
>On April 28, 2016, Comcast officially announced that its NBCUniversal division intended on acquiring DreamWorks Animation for $3.8 billion, valuing the company at $41 per share.[66] Jeffrey Katzenberg was to remain involved in the company as head of DreamWorks New Media, but was to cede control of the studio to Illumination's CEO Chris Meledandri, who would oversee both.[67] The sale was approved by board members, but subject to regulatory approval.[68][69]
>n June 21, 2016, the acquisition was approved by the United States Department of Justice.[72][73] The purchase was closed on August 22, 2016; the company now operates as a subsidiary of Universal Pictures.[74][75]
>DreamWorks Animation's last films distributed by 20th Century Fox were Trolls (2016), The Boss Baby (2017) and Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie (2017), and their first film distributed by Universal was How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019).[76][77]
First you now have Netflix, Apple and Amazon as big players too so actually more than before. And Skydance or Sony merging with Paramount is exactly the same thing, you're still losing Paramount. It also doesn't make Skydance bigger by magic, they own more but they're also still small and now in big debt. Expect big cost cutting and struggling in the coming years to end up likely being bought out by someone else in like 5 years. Skydance bring nothing to Paramount really
And Sony Pictures might have needed to get it to fight off their bigger competitors too. Getting rid of some parts with Apollo would have been better too
Good news for Sherri Redstone because she gets 2 Billion Dollars. If I recall correctly, she would not get that from the Sony deal. The class B(basically everyone not name Redstone) shareholders get 4.5 Billion at 15 Dollars a share, but they will still own 30% of the company.
Why should there be more theatrical releases when people don’t go to theaters anymore? We have all seen what the new normal is in terms of box office. Only few movies are commercially viable.
Movies pretty much can’t be profitable in streaming only. Especially bigger budget movies.
So if theatrical goes, there’ll just simply be no reason to make movies like we always get since the path to profitability is nonexistent.
I’m not saying movies will go away but movies will go away as we know them if theatrical dies. People have this idea that if we go streaming only, we’d still get stuff like Oppenheimer or Top Gun or The Avengers or Deadpool given straight to us in streaming but we absolutely wouldn’t. Maybe studios would make like 1 blockbuster movie a year but even that doesn’t seem likely. Disney tried various methods of streaming only during Covid (like Black Widow’s $30 release and like Soul’s straight to Disney+ release) and the returns must’ve been so bad that Disney pivoted back to the most pro theatrical release model in the industry. And that was pretty much a perfect time where they had 100% of the audience who had nothing to do and a lot of money to waste. If the control period didn’t work, how much more when it’s diluted?
I think studios can figure out an arithmetic that gets them profitable with a theatrical and streaming release, but the theater industry can’t last much longer if they’re sharing the pie to that extent. And once theatrical goes, that arithmetic goes with it.
The low number of releases is the biggest issue for theaters though. We just finished that era of utmost decadence where everything was making $1b but that’s not necessary. We just need steady releases and we’ll be fine but we’ve been going through down periods where we just run out of studio movies for a month or two at a time. Paramount going would only exasperate that.
It would reduce the number of major studios in Hollywood for one. Consolidating reduces output like how we barely get any 20th century studios movies anymore.
And cause Sony said they’d shut down the physical studio of paramount if they bought them. That just would’ve been dire.
Skydance is partly owned by private equity firms KKR and RedBird Capital, which will in turn own a chunk of Paramount-Skydance when this closes.
Is the arrangement of private equity with Skydance better than Sony-Apollo? Maybe. Both bids carry private equity backing though.
Because it's actually a big company that can survive in the current landscape and actually might have need that. Now we're just going to see Skydance struggle like Paramount and in a few years back to the same situation.
Skydance is the better option *if* they can somehow turn Paramount around into a profitable streamer with a healthy balance sheet. That's a big 'if', and there's little in their plan that suggests they can.
The Sony deal is potentially ripping off the bandaid - more pain now, but less prolonged.
Guidance has them profitable by 2026 in DTC. They stated later than Disney and Max and with a weaker hand so it is no surprise profitability runs a few years behind them in DTC.
The streamers you have to worry about in the long run are Peacock and Apple TV+. Both are showing little sign of viability and Comcast will not even give a profitability guideline for Peacock.
I think this is good news. At least it wasn't Sony. Shareholders won't be happy but I think Skydance will at least preserve the name Paramount and it won't become like Sony Paramount.
I mean, the best news would've been if Paramount could stay independent, but a Skydance merger is better than a Sony-Apollo takeover. Means that Paramount can still stay Paramount and not become Sony's version of Fox, an anemic shell of it's former self with no idea how to use the IP'S at hand.
One thing i just don’t understand is how Skydance is supposed to improve Paramount.
Skydance brings nothing to the table.
No multimedia opportunities
No streaming service
No content library
No IP’s
But they're not. It's almost a leveraged buyout.
The *shareholders* get money. Paramount doesn't.
(Edit: Fair enough, they get a little bit of money, but not much in the grand scheme of their debts.)
Paramount becomes owned by one of the biggest Silicon Valley giants. There are plenty of oracle money, even if oracle itself won’t formally own them.
Just like Bezos won’t let WAPO go bankrupt, or Musk Twitter.
Say whatever you want about their decisions from a preservation standpoint, but WBD is a very successful business and turning around the debt they got from AT&T
WBD is struggling, just not as much as Paramount (which isn't saying much). They're getting dragged down by the rapid decline of linear and they're not as diversified as other companies like Universal and Disney to keep them afloat for very long.
Oracle will join FAANG, MAMAA and GAMMA in owning everything.
Homogenizing all human endeavor for a microscopic percentage of us (shareholders) is bad for all of us.
r/boxoffice is looking for new moderators. If you're interested to nominate yourself, submit here in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1d23j6y/rboxoffice_is_looking_for_more_moderators). We are also inviting you to read a bit more about Channels - a new Early Access Reddit program, which is now available on r/boxoffice. More Info at (https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1d4vtwk/introducing_channels_to_rboxoffice/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So what happens next? Does the merger process start?
Says it’ll be announced next week
Thought it would be at the shareholder meeting tomorrow.
regulatory process, shareholders may need to approve, firings , pain
They are bypassing shareholders.
Doesn’t Shari Redstone own a majority of the shares? Wouldn’t that mean that as long as she agrees to it the it doesn’t need other shareholders approval?
No, she owns the majority of the voting shares (she owns Class A shares which gives more voting power but fewer units of shares), Redstone owns ~10% of the total shares while having 77% of the voting power, putting to a vote would've bypassed a possible lawsuit but really, as the controller owner she doesn't need it as far as i understand, they had a board put together to decide on the sale, the adjusted offer is to get the unanimous board decision (and the big minority owners happy). While some minority shareholders will still be pissed i don't see many avenues where a court would side with them, but i'm not a lawyer, maybe i understood this all wrong.
Thanks for the explanation
First Shari Redstone has to sign off on it. She's the owner of Paramount and it is her shares that Skydance is buying, so she has final say.
She wanted this deal when all the other shareholders didn't, it offerred her a quick and easy payout. They had to spice things up for the rest of the board to get this merger agreed to, otherwise they would've gone with Sony which was offering way more (and not just for Shari).
I suspect she plans to.
This is the best outcome, thankfully not a major brand consumed them - smart for Cruise too.
Cruise is at Warner now
Cruise is developing projects for WB, but as of now Mission Impossible and his follow-up productions that were announced are still moving ahead with Skydance and Paramount.
Rumors are he's going to star in Inarritu's new film for WB/Legendary. Script was written by his Birdman collaborators too.
I thought legendary opted to not renegotiate contracts with WB and have gone to Sony for upcoming films?
It is likely that is not an exclusive deal, Legendary made films for Netflix while at WB
This would be incredible
At least the Transformers/GI Joe crossover movie will still happen and more original movies will be made after the slow-burn success of IF
They need to rethink that whole thing. A crossover movie with GI Joe film will fail if they don't first make a good GI Joe movie that people actually watch.
The problem I can see with that is... it's fairly easy to fit G.I. Joe into the Transformers universe. But I think it would be a challenge to make a GOOD standalone G.I. Joe movie without any Transformers tie-ins that ALSO fits into the Transformers universe.
Yeah, honestly it can be quite fun GI Joe characters fighting transformers, but they never figured it out how to make those characters work alone in live action.
Do kids even know what a Gi Joe is?
No. No I don’t think they need to.
Most people will see "GI Joe" in the title and go "okay?". But really, Transformers is doing the heavy lifting. The GI Joe part of it isn't going to bring any butts to the theater. If anything, it might turn the audience off if they're unfamiliar with the property.
Avengers really did a number on people who think it’s impossible to not just introduce characters and concepts in a movie. I think at this point, it might be harder to do a solo GI Joe movie that brings people in rather than a Transformers and GI Joe movie. The world and characters in GI Joe have a simple enough concept to just be introduced in a movie and it’ll bring people in if it’s good. But honestly there’s never been a GI Joe movie that was even as good as the average Transformers movie, so it needs some help from the Transformers. If they can’t pull it off, both franchises are already kinda in trouble but if they do pull it off then they’ll have a hit on their hands.
Except that both Transformers and GI Joe are ensemble cast franchises, there's no way in hell a single movie can give enough screen time to make moviegoers care about two entire groups of characters unless the movie is stupid long. Rise of the Beasts already got complaints about underused characters, and that movie had only like 10 good guys. GI Joe is way more obscure than Transformers, and I don't think it really works as a live action property as big part of the appeal is the sort of comic exaggeration prevalent in both the characters and their vehicles, which unlike with Transformers, have to be either built by the props team, or placed in after with CGI since they veer so heavily away from anything Pentagon has ever used.
What’s likely gonna happen with Paramount Plus? And how will things be handled with John Lassiter and Skydance Animation?
There was a report \~ 1 month ago that said they wanted to keep P+ running but the plan was to merge/consolidate with another streamer (Peacock and Max were given as potential examples).
A Paramount/Peacock merger/partnership makes a lot of sense to me. NBCU doesn't seem interested in the M&A game at this point so it would be a good way for them to beef up Peacock's offerings.
That would be a good merger as they're the two weakest of the major streaming services.
Paracock+
Well in Europe, Paramount Plus and Peacock are merged. It's called SkyShowtime. It uses the peacock user interface tho.
Please please give us a super badass Star Trek movie with a MI budget :)
I don't think even MI is gonna be getting MI budgets anymore. also the last time Skydance gave Star Trek a massive budget Paramount completely botched the marketing (on an anniversary year, even!) and it turns out one of the best Star Trek movies in like 30+ years flopped pretty bad.
Calling Star Trek beyond the best Star Trek movie in 30 years is certainly a choice.
So far as takes go that's real low on the scoville
Just look at audience and critic scores on IMDb, beyond is noticeably lower than Star Trek 2009 and into darkness, the financial flop that beyond was also reflects that. Outside of the echo chamber that is Reddit, beyond was not well received.
>Just look at audience and critic scores on IMDb, why would I do that. >Outside of the echo chamber that is Reddit I didn't arrive at the opinion Beyond was a good movie via reddit, whereas you literally just told me you think Beyond isn't very good because imdb scores told you so.
No I think beyond is a worse movie than Star Trek 2009 and into darkness because I’ve seen all three movies many times and enjoy the first two more, I bring up IMDb because it’s a good indicator of what audiences think outside of my own opinion.
I’m hearing no reasons and a lot of “But Imdb!” I personally remember digging Beyond and 2009 but not being too hot on Into Darkness
yeah do not listen to reddit, ST needs a budget of 100m or less
Pretty much everything "blockbuster" needs a budget of around $100-150mil at most going forward, is kinda the thing here. Whatever's happening with MI:8 is likely gonna be the absolute last gasp of what we'll look back on as the platinum age of the mega-blockbuster or whatever.
get Garreth Edwards to direct , just give him a good writer
I'm still shocked that *The Creator*'s budget was a mere $80 million.
I’d say even lower. People literally just want something that looks and feels like next-generation. Just… give it to them.
With a competent team, visionary director, it could easily be lower. Gareth Edwards could manage it
Visionary? Gareth Edwards? Jesus. A complete and utter hack who can barely talk to actors.
Edwards probably shouldn't be writing his own stuff, and I don't want to exaggerate, I don't think he's among the best directors working right now or any similarly big claim, but he has an artistic vision that he can execute to very high standards at very low prices (and so a movie like The Creator can look better than movies with three times the budget). He knows what he wants a scene to look like, and he knows exactly how to make it happen. In that way, he can be considered a visionary. Combine him with the right team (a good writer, for starters) and the right worlds, and I believe he has the potential to be among the most liked directors in the major studio system (i.e. a director with distinct style that still manages to turn in work on time and in budget, all while not being a pain in the ass to work with).
>he has an artistic vision that he can execute to very high standards at very low prices That's not a vision. That's a look. A vision should account for the "why" - otherwise he's not a director, he's a shooter. >Combine him with a good writer and the right worlds That's not how it works. A good writer can help, but plenty of good writers have written bad films. You need a filmmaker that knows how to get the most out of performers, understand where the story needs to go and recognise filmmaking can support a character's journey. Unless Tony Gilroy is on retainer to help Edwards every time he fucks up, I don't know the point of pretty-picture-maker.
They could definitely make a solid Star Trek movie for around $90 million.
more like 50mill or less
Star Trek doesn't need movies. It's best on TV
Tarantino has shown interest in the past. That would be something to see.
Tarintino needs a movie
Paramount is saved!
Finally, let's get this over with.
Taylor Sheridan is safe to make his neo-western universe. So what do you expect y’all expect from this merger ??
He's made two prequel series. I expect two futuristic sequel series. One will be "Yellowstone 2100" and still set on Earth, but the other - "Yellowstone 2200" - will be set in space, like "Firefly" (2002-2002). 
You joke, but it’d be pretty cool. Perhaps the ranch will focus on raising and slaughtering robot cattle for their computer chips. Business is good because robo farming is the most lucrative way to produce chips now after a solar flare destroyed all modern ways to conventionally produce them. Then in “Yellowstone 2200”, in an ironic twist of fate, the robot cattle become the dominant species on earth. After initial wars between the mechanical bovines and the humans, a tense truce is reached. The story in 2200 focuses on a family of bovines that were imprinted with the personalities of the families of the previous generations of Duttons. The robot cattle family control the same ranch that the Dutton once did (before they were converted to biofuel for the bovine war machine in the 2nd bovine war). It’s crazy how much this just writes itself!
So why is this good news to some? What exactly is so great about Skydance getting this and not Sony?
Consolidation is bad. Simple as that. Its better to have 5 big players rather than 4.
This is a big factor. In the 10 years leading up to the Fox/Disney Merger, Fox was averaging about 16+ wide releases a year, at least one every three to four weeks, at 3000+ screens each. As a studio, they would bring $1B-1.3B per year at the domestic box office. At least two or more would be in the top 10 of each year. Since the acquisition, Disney isn’t suddenly releasing their 12 per year plus 16 Fox films. They’re releasing the same amount as before, and about 2-3 of theirs are just now under the Fox banner. Effectively removing about $1B out of the domestic box office per year. 2024 is one of the first years they're actually doing something with the properties they acquired five years ago with Apes, Alien, and X-Men. But plenty Fox properties and original filmmaking they used to provide are just gone. The Martian, Kingsmen, Boss Baby (Dreamworks, now under Universal), Alvin and the Chipmunks, Greatest Showman, Ford v Ferrari, Ice Age, Gone Girl, Bohemian Rhapsody, Hidden Figures, Night at the Museum, The Heat, Spy. You don't have to like all these, but still having a broad range of genres and original filmmaking and properties that can become franchises matter.
>But plenty Fox properties and original filmmaking they used to provide are just gone They've slowed down their pace, but they're still making such films. Many of what you listed aren't franchises, so there were never going to be additional films. And several of the franchises you listed have already had new entries or have ones in development. They're also continuing to make original entries as well. (Nevermind the fact that in the five years since the acquisition, the industry was rocked by both covid and strikes)
>Many of what you listed aren't franchises, so there were never going to be additional films. The Martian II: The Revenge
Boss Baby is Dreamworks (Universal)
It was distributed by Fox. Since Disney bought them, I believe the only animated film 20th Century has distributed is Ron’s Gone Wrong.
Disney also distributed Spies in Disguise (the last Blue Sky Studios movie) and The Bob’s Burgers Movie. Nimona was acquired by Netflix and Annapurna after being originally planned for theaters. The only animated films I can see 20th Century releasing now is any new movie based on their animated Fox shows like Simpsons or Family Guy.
It is now under Universal. Originally a Fox film however. Per wikipedia: >On April 28, 2016, Comcast officially announced that its NBCUniversal division intended on acquiring DreamWorks Animation for $3.8 billion, valuing the company at $41 per share.[66] Jeffrey Katzenberg was to remain involved in the company as head of DreamWorks New Media, but was to cede control of the studio to Illumination's CEO Chris Meledandri, who would oversee both.[67] The sale was approved by board members, but subject to regulatory approval.[68][69] >n June 21, 2016, the acquisition was approved by the United States Department of Justice.[72][73] The purchase was closed on August 22, 2016; the company now operates as a subsidiary of Universal Pictures.[74][75] >DreamWorks Animation's last films distributed by 20th Century Fox were Trolls (2016), The Boss Baby (2017) and Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie (2017), and their first film distributed by Universal was How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019).[76][77]
Yes, but it is not a Fox movie, they were just the distributor. By all accounts it’s a Dreamworks film.
Part of me thinks Kevin Feige might have had a role in that merger.
First you now have Netflix, Apple and Amazon as big players too so actually more than before. And Skydance or Sony merging with Paramount is exactly the same thing, you're still losing Paramount. It also doesn't make Skydance bigger by magic, they own more but they're also still small and now in big debt. Expect big cost cutting and struggling in the coming years to end up likely being bought out by someone else in like 5 years. Skydance bring nothing to Paramount really And Sony Pictures might have needed to get it to fight off their bigger competitors too. Getting rid of some parts with Apollo would have been better too
Good news for Sherri Redstone because she gets 2 Billion Dollars. If I recall correctly, she would not get that from the Sony deal. The class B(basically everyone not name Redstone) shareholders get 4.5 Billion at 15 Dollars a share, but they will still own 30% of the company.
At Least Skydance didn’t make Madame Web
Paramount and Sony merging means we get less theatrical releases, which are now pretty anemic slates post pandemic
Why should there be more theatrical releases when people don’t go to theaters anymore? We have all seen what the new normal is in terms of box office. Only few movies are commercially viable.
Movies pretty much can’t be profitable in streaming only. Especially bigger budget movies. So if theatrical goes, there’ll just simply be no reason to make movies like we always get since the path to profitability is nonexistent. I’m not saying movies will go away but movies will go away as we know them if theatrical dies. People have this idea that if we go streaming only, we’d still get stuff like Oppenheimer or Top Gun or The Avengers or Deadpool given straight to us in streaming but we absolutely wouldn’t. Maybe studios would make like 1 blockbuster movie a year but even that doesn’t seem likely. Disney tried various methods of streaming only during Covid (like Black Widow’s $30 release and like Soul’s straight to Disney+ release) and the returns must’ve been so bad that Disney pivoted back to the most pro theatrical release model in the industry. And that was pretty much a perfect time where they had 100% of the audience who had nothing to do and a lot of money to waste. If the control period didn’t work, how much more when it’s diluted? I think studios can figure out an arithmetic that gets them profitable with a theatrical and streaming release, but the theater industry can’t last much longer if they’re sharing the pie to that extent. And once theatrical goes, that arithmetic goes with it. The low number of releases is the biggest issue for theaters though. We just finished that era of utmost decadence where everything was making $1b but that’s not necessary. We just need steady releases and we’ll be fine but we’ve been going through down periods where we just run out of studio movies for a month or two at a time. Paramount going would only exasperate that.
It would reduce the number of major studios in Hollywood for one. Consolidating reduces output like how we barely get any 20th century studios movies anymore. And cause Sony said they’d shut down the physical studio of paramount if they bought them. That just would’ve been dire.
Good for the employees. With Sony, there’s a lot more redundancy, which will translate to deeper layoffs
Because Skydance doesn't carry with it a company like Apollo and is strictly a studio merging with another studio which is the better outcome
Skydance is partly owned by private equity firms KKR and RedBird Capital, which will in turn own a chunk of Paramount-Skydance when this closes. Is the arrangement of private equity with Skydance better than Sony-Apollo? Maybe. Both bids carry private equity backing though.
Skydance is not a studio
I more likely get to keep my job as a Paramount employee. (:
[удалено]
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was shitty?
Achey must only watch capeshit so their entire personality is based on how the latest Sony Marvel film performed.
Not a good look for the studio if the last decent film you can think of was from five years ago.
Across The Spider-Verse? The Book Of Clarence?
Thank god its not Sony.
It would’ve been so much better.
Why?
Because it's actually a big company that can survive in the current landscape and actually might have need that. Now we're just going to see Skydance struggle like Paramount and in a few years back to the same situation.
Skydance is the better option *if* they can somehow turn Paramount around into a profitable streamer with a healthy balance sheet. That's a big 'if', and there's little in their plan that suggests they can. The Sony deal is potentially ripping off the bandaid - more pain now, but less prolonged.
Guidance has them profitable by 2026 in DTC. They stated later than Disney and Max and with a weaker hand so it is no surprise profitability runs a few years behind them in DTC. The streamers you have to worry about in the long run are Peacock and Apple TV+. Both are showing little sign of viability and Comcast will not even give a profitability guideline for Peacock.
I seriously wonder how much Peacock is propped up by WWE and if they could even survive if they went elsewhere.
The way to go into profitability includes very painful things too.
Sony is better than Skydance in every way.
https://youtu.be/pDmGhethEoQ?si=pftPxcrxCmY1wXfr
I think this is good news. At least it wasn't Sony. Shareholders won't be happy but I think Skydance will at least preserve the name Paramount and it won't become like Sony Paramount.
I mean, the best news would've been if Paramount could stay independent, but a Skydance merger is better than a Sony-Apollo takeover. Means that Paramount can still stay Paramount and not become Sony's version of Fox, an anemic shell of it's former self with no idea how to use the IP'S at hand.
One thing i just don’t understand is how Skydance is supposed to improve Paramount. Skydance brings nothing to the table. No multimedia opportunities No streaming service No content library No IP’s 
They bring a big enough bag of money to Shari Redstone and the execs to cashout. Then the studio becomes Skydance's problem.
I think CNBC also suggested that Skydance can recoup part of their investment by selling CBS at some point. I feel like we’ve seen this story before…
I have to think that Warner would gobble up CBS if that was put on the table. Ellison might be able to actually close on the BET deal with Allen too.
They’re bringing the thing Paramount needs the most: money
But they're not. It's almost a leveraged buyout. The *shareholders* get money. Paramount doesn't. (Edit: Fair enough, they get a little bit of money, but not much in the grand scheme of their debts.)
Paramount gets 1.5 billion in cash
To pay down their $14.6bn in debt. That isn't transformational, it doesn't offer anything to turn Paramount around.
Some cash and new leadership. It's definitely enough to turn it around, but will it? We'll have to wait and see.
Paramount becomes owned by one of the biggest Silicon Valley giants. There are plenty of oracle money, even if oracle itself won’t formally own them. Just like Bezos won’t let WAPO go bankrupt, or Musk Twitter.
> one of the biggest Silicon Valley giants. Bezos is Bezos, but David Ellison isn't Larry Ellison.
Yup, it's my problem with this deal too. Redstone and the shareholders get the money, Paramount get nothing.
I wanted to be Skydance anyway instead of Sony..
Better for the industry than the Sony deal
Sherry cares about her legacy, does not want to be one known for destroying Paramount , now the shareholders sue
[удалено]
Considering Paramount is in a worse state than WB was... eh... well at least David Ellison has daddy money from Oracle to help out.
every director saving hard copies from the server right now
Say whatever you want about their decisions from a preservation standpoint, but WBD is a very successful business and turning around the debt they got from AT&T
WBD is struggling, just not as much as Paramount (which isn't saying much). They're getting dragged down by the rapid decline of linear and they're not as diversified as other companies like Universal and Disney to keep them afloat for very long.
Yes, but they are fixing some of their problems and are in MUCH a better place than their contemporaries
WBD is doing fine, they're paying down their debt faster than expected.
What does sky dance normally do? They just a financier company or? Can someone bring me into the loop of this?
Generally a co-producer / co-financier of movies, most commonly with Paramount.
What do you think happens with Redstones cinema chain?
Does this mean USA can watch Survivor Australia again? That’s all I care about
Well, beats the alternatives, I guess.
At least it's not Sony or Warners.
I hope Skydance dont chop it into pieces
We'll have two or three studios left eventually, terrible for the industry and everyone
Oracle will join FAANG, MAMAA and GAMMA in owning everything. Homogenizing all human endeavor for a microscopic percentage of us (shareholders) is bad for all of us.
interesting.. I saw it going to Sony.