Some people view movies as simple entertainment, a fun way to spend free time and relax. Others see them as much more than that: stories carefully brought to life in a wondrously vivid way. Almost like magic. 

I belong to the second group, believing that movies can use the “seventh art” to engrave important messages. 

Unfortunately, these days, movies of that kind, like Roberto Benigni’s “Life Is Beautiful” or Michael Curtiz’s iconic “Casablanca” — often considered one of the best movies of all time — are rarely made. 

There’s one name behind many of the best cinematography achievements: Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). 

The American Film Institute lists 100 greatest films of all time, a number of which were originally produced by Warner Bros., including the following. 

• “Casablanca” (1942): Widely considered one of the greatest films ever made.
• “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955): The definitive portrait of teenage angst, starring James Dean.
• “A Clockwork Orange” (1971): Stanley Kubrick’s stylish and controversial dystopian masterpiece.
• “Goodfellas” (1990): Martin Scorsese’s definitive and high-energy mob movie.

Many other classic movies, although not originally produced by WBD, joined its vast library. Examples are “Citizen Kane,” “The Wizard of Oz,” “Gone with the Wind,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and “Ben-Hur.”

Over the years, WBD has often been called the “Dream Factory” for its role in the Golden Age of Hollywood.

However, times have changed.

Paramount CEO argues Netflix monopoly, pledges to keep Warner Bros. Discovery true to its roots.

vectorfusionart/Shutterstock.com

What happened to Warner Bros. Discovery? Money versus creativity 

Warner Bros. executives made several poor merger decisions over the last 36 years. Each merger attempted to fix the problems of previous ones, aiming to make the company bigger and more powerful. Sadly, these moves often created more debt and confusion, writes Prospect.org. 

WBD mergers timeline: 

• The 1990s: Warner Bros. joined with Time Inc. to become massive media giant Time Warner.
• The AOL disaster (2001): WBD merged with AOL in what is known as one of the “worst mergers in history.”  
• The AT&T mismatch (2016): AT&T bought WBD next, but the phone company didn’t know how to run a movie studio. It was another expensive failure that lasted only a few years.
• The Discovery deal (2022): AT&T gave up and merged the company with Discovery. However, this left the new company (WBD) with a massive $53 billion in debt. Source: Prospect.org

While each merger seemed like a smart business move at the time, it ended up being a poor choice for the actual business, writes David Dayen for The American Prospect. 

“And the real driver of the merger wave was not the promise of creating a successful end product, but money,” Dayen boldly points out. 

Dayen also cites a Semafor article, which reveals that WBD CEO David Zaslav, who took over the company three years ago, has secured a contract that would result in a $500 million payday if the sale closes. This is because his 21 million share options would immediately vest. 

Netflix to buy WBD, but Paramount seeks hostile takeover 

In a major shakeup for the entertainment world, Netflix in December 2025 struck a deal to acquire the studio and streaming assets of WBD for approximately $83 billion.

This massive agreement, which includes HBO and the iconic Warner Bros. film library, surfaced after Netflix successfully beat out rival bids from companies including Paramount and Comcast. 

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance also sued WBD, seeking to force it to disclose financial details of its deal with Netflix, and arguing the superiority of its own $108.4 billion offer for all of WBD. 

On Jan. 20, 2025, Netflix amended its original offer to an all-cash $82.7 billion deal to curb stock volatility and speed up the closing process.

The case not only shook up the creative community, investors, and audience, but also rattled lawmakers and regulators. I previously noted the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Feb. 3 antitrust subcommittee hearing to examine the implications of the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal. 

Related: Key movie theater chain suddenly shutters multiple locations

Key concerns include negative impacts on America’s creative community and the fact that a combined Netflix-Warner Bros. company would control nearly half of the streaming market, potentially resulting in higher subscription prices and fewer consumer choices. 

Netflix defended the move, arguing that combining their tech with Warner’s storytelling is the only way to compete with even larger platforms such as YouTube. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos also suggested that if the prices get too high, worried subscribers can easily cancel.

“…If the consumer says, ‘That’s too much for what I’m getting,’ they can cancel with one click,” Sarandos said.

Paramount CEO argues Netflix monopoly, pledges to keep WBD what it is 

Two days following the hearing, on Feb. 5, David Ellison, head of Paramount and son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, wrote an open letter to the creative community and audiences in the U.K., reported The Wrap. 

In the letter, Ellison warned of potential Netflix monopoly, sharing his “five commitments” in case Paramount succeeds in acquiring WBD. 

“Just as important, we believe the creative community and audiences are best served by greater choice — not less — and by a marketplace that encourages the full spectrum of filmmaking, content creation and theatrical exhibition, not one that eliminates meaningful competition by creating a monopolistic or dominant entity,” wrote Ellison. 

Paramount CEO Ellison’s 5 commitments: 

• Increased creative output: At least 30 big movies every year.
• Share content: Continue to let other apps and channels show their movies and shows.
• Protect HBO: Keep HBO running independently so it can keep making high-quality shows.
• Save movie theaters: Guarantee that every movie goes to theaters first for at least 45 days before you can watch it at home.
• Respect “home video”: Keep a window where people can buy or rent movies digitally before they just show up on streaming services. Source: The Wrap 

Either way it’s a loss: what WBD sale means for the audience and creative community

You might believe that either Netflix or Paramount is the right choice to acquire WBD. However, the bold truth is that whoever nabs WBD in the end will need to focus on its massive debt as well as the creative art. 

I already covered how Netflix’s movies are often criticized for low quality. Hollywood star Matt Damon even recently pointed out some of the concerns related to Netflix movie production. He argues that the streaming platform prioritizes immediate hooks and constant exposition over classic storytelling structures.

I also recently reported on Paramount+ recent controversial move into short-form video, suggesting it aims to imitate the very core of YouTube and TikTok’s strategy, pivoting far from its original path. 

Even though this is Paramount’s streaming platform, it speaks volumes about the direction in which the company is headed and what motivates it to move forward. Or as Dayen earlier pointed out, speaking of WBD’s previous mergers, drivers may not be “the promise of creating a successful end product, but money.” 

Ultimately, for the audience and creative community, it doesn’t really matter who buys WBD, because it is evident that the “Casablanca” era of theatrical masterpieces is over. 

David Sims, lead movie critic for The Atlantic, offered a sharp take on this idea. He suggested that if Paramount buys WBD, we’ll have a scenario similar to when Disney bought Fox, as it would result in the loss of one of the major movie studios. 

“If that happens with Paramount owning Warner Bros., once again, you feel the pool of big movies shrinking in Hollywood. You feel this sort of competition shrinking,” Sims said. 

If Netflix buys WBD, Sims points to a huge fear that the theater industry won’t survive. 

Although we might feel sad that the era of theatrical masterpieces is nearing its end, we must admit that beyond corporate greed, we also played a part in its decline.

After all, we stopped going to theaters and decided that streaming “a la carte,” a cheaper and more convenient model, is good enough.

Related: Netflix subscribers say these 5 issues drive them to cancel