YouBet said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

With 60k jobs on the line... Cali caves.

BREAKING: Paramount has reached a settlement with California and other states that sued to block its $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

• Paramount will invest $1.5 billion in California production, keeping its studio properties in the state.

• Paramount could…

— Jeff Vaughn (@JeffVaughn) September 21, 2026

---

I haven't followed this religiously but that reads the opposite to me - Paramount caved.

What am I missing here?

---

Paramount gets to do its merger with WB.

---

And just having studios in the state doesn't mean they use them.

---

It looks like the deal says they have to make 30 movies per year out of their studios or Paramount pays a fine to California.

I'm sorry but this is a win for California until we see what they gave up other than HQ moving out.

Don't see how anyone is going to be able to crow about California taking it in the shorts here. About the best outcome they could have gotten knowing they were going to lose some aspect of one of the largest studios on the planet.

---

If they already make 60 movies per year there, is that a concession? (60 is just a number to make my point, no idea how many "movies" they make or what even constitutes a "movie")

I guess my point is that it's their main studio. They are obviously going to utilize it to its full extent if they are going to remain there. So perhaps it's not really a concession. i.e. I'll give you something I was going to already give you.

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

With 60k jobs on the line... Cali caves.

BREAKING: Paramount has reached a settlement with California and other states that sued to block its $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

• Paramount will invest $1.5 billion in California production, keeping its studio properties in the state.

• Paramount could…

— Jeff Vaughn (@JeffVaughn) September 21, 2026

---

I haven't followed this religiously but that reads the opposite to me - Paramount caved.

What am I missing here?

---

Paramount gets to do its merger with WB.

---

And just having studios in the state doesn't mean they use them.

---

It looks like the deal says they have to make 30 movies per year out of their studios or Paramount pays a fine to California.

I'm sorry but this is a win for California until we see what they gave up other than HQ moving out.

Don't see how anyone is going to be able to crow about California taking it in the shorts here. About the best outcome they could have gotten knowing they were going to lose some aspect of one of the largest studios on the planet.

---

If they already make 60 movies per year there, is that a concession? (60 is just a number to make my point, no idea how many "movies" they make or what even constitutes a "movie")

I guess my point is that it's their main studio. They are obviously going to utilize it to its full extent if they are going to remain there. So perhaps it's not really a concession. i.e. I'll give you something I was going to already give you.

---

Don't know either. Guess I was assuming the original plan was to move the entire operation out of California leaving nothing there at all. So, if that was starting position and they ended up leaving ops there with financial penalties tied to that, then that would be a concession in my book.

Guess we need to understand the starting position because everything I've read until now makes you think they were wholesale leaving the state.

Somebody doesn't like the deal - probably means its pretty good:

Quote:

---

Mark Ruffalo tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom Monday after Paramount reached a settlement paving the way for its blockbuster $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

"Gavin Newsom hands huge win to Trump and his billionaire cronies," the "Avengers" star wrote on X.

Ruffalo was responding to former FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, who blasted the latest development in the long-running Paramount saga.

"Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top," Bedoya wrote. "As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation's most critical news outlets."

The broadside came after Paramount struck a settlement with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other states that had sued to block the WBD takeover on antitrust grounds.

Newsom had reportedly warned that California employment could suffer if the merger was blocked in court, while Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison specifically thanked the governor after the settlement was announced.

---

Its ok to be a multi millionaire.

It's not OK to be a billionaire


/Mark Ruffalo

Logos Stick said:

---

Its ok to be a mufti millionaire.

It's not OK to be a billionaire
/Mark Ruffalo

---

Mufti millionaires!!!

Sounds like these restrictions all last for 5 years after closing.

Also, it says they can't sell the LA Backlots but not that they have to make the movies there.

They do have to spend more on Domestic production.

They can't close down Pluto, but their strategy has been to invest in it, as PLUTO is a money maker off the commercials.

This might provide some talking points to get some libs reelected but other than that....
It just means the withdrawal from LA will be planned out and orderly instead of a disorganized retreat.

Hopefully, they have a provision in there to protect themselves in case there is a major strike that shuts down production.

Could be right., They get their merger, then slow roll their way out of town.

The potential blocked merger is not the only thing Cali is on the wrong side of.

Does the contract say how large or good the movies have to be?

Just thinking what David Bowie and some other artists did when their labels held them to a number of albums they had to complete on the contract so they out out trash (not that most everything Hollywood puts out isn't already trash).

So they make 30 direct to streaming piles of inexpensive garbage in Cali and make the good stuff elsewhere?

Scruffy said:

---

Does the contract say how large or good the movies have to be?

Just thinking what David Bowie and some other artists did when their labels held them to a number of albums they had to complete on the contract so they out out trash (not that most everything Hollywood puts out isn't already trash).

So they make 30 direct to streaming piles of inexpensive garbage in Cali and make the good stuff elsewhere?

---

Had similar thought but more along the lines of they plan the movies they want to make and if it's not going to hit the 30 quota they throw in a bunch of crap just to avoid the <30 penalty. Of course, math, timing, count, and hassle factor could work out that it's cheaper to just pay the penalty.

Scruffy said:

---

Does the contract say how large or good the movies have to be?

Just thinking what David Bowie and some other artists did when their labels held them to a number of albums they had to complete on the contract so they out out trash (not that most everything Hollywood puts out isn't already trash).

So they make 30 direct to streaming piles of inexpensive garbage in Cali and make the good stuff elsewhere?

---

I think it said those 30 have to be theatrical releases. So they have to shown at least once on a Monday afternoon before going to streaming? In a single theater...

https://deadline.com/2026/09/paramount-merger-delayed-settlement-challenge-1237112480/

&&$# Judge blocks the merger

Mere hours before a court hearing on the much criticized settlement between Paramount and a coalition of blue state attorneys general on the $111 billion merger with Warner Bros Discovery, ParaBros foes have gained a victory that could see an expensive delay on the deal closing.

"The Court GRANTS the administrative motions to file amicus briefs," U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin just ruled on Block the Merger's Administrative motion filed earlier today. "All amicus briefs must be filed on the docket by no later than 12:01 a.m. PST on September 25, 2026. This deadline will not be extended, and tardy submissions will not be considered."

With an 11 a.m. PT virtual hearing before Martinez-Olguin widely viewed as a rubberstamping of the September 21 antitrust settlement and hence the mega-merger itself, the granting of Block the Merger's move makes it almost certain the deal won't be formally approved today.



Our judiciary needs a Pelican Briefing

(figuratively for those in the fedgov monitoring Texags)

Taylor Sheridan's work is leaving Paramount. What do they have without that?

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Taylor Sheridan's work is leaving Paramount. What do they have without that?

---

A $111B hole for one.

They shoudl stay there.

She's a Marxist..

Quote:

---

Almost her entire professional life was advocacy work on the left side of those issues: ACLU Women's Rights Project, Legal Aid at Work, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, and supervising attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. That is public-interest plaintiff-side work, not prosecution, corporate defense, or government enforcement.

---

Quote:

---

Nominated by Biden, confirmed 4948 with Vice President Harris breaking the tie. Every Democrat who voted yes, every Republican who voted no.

---

https://www.indiewire.com/news/breaking-news/paramount-wbd-merger-delay-judge-grants-last-ditch-lawsuit-1235218472/

Quote:

---

We believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger to the entertainment industry, diverse storytelling, independent filmmaking, consumer interests, a free press, First Amendment rights, and fundamentally, democracy,

---

Oh look, the commies are going to save democracy and our first amendment rights

Here's the real reason:

Quote:

---

Block the Merger saw the deal as toothless, as it didn't force any divestitures, and it didn't assure that production dollars would be spent in California specifically.

---

That first quote is laughable!

rumblings on X that Larry Ellison is going to ask Elon Musk to take over some of the stock of CNN and CNBC

how fun!

LMCane said:

---

rumblings on X that Larry Ellison is going to ask Elon Musk to take over some of the stock of CNN and CNBC

how fun!

---

I don't think CNBC is in scope. Its not part of WB HBO. Its owned by Universal/NBC.

I did hear that he was approached to help finance the Merger/Acquisition though.