Paramount Has Accused Netflix Of "Scorched-Earth Campaign" To Poison Regulators Against WBD Deal

Paramount Has Accused Netflix Of "Scorched-Earth Campaign" To Poison Regulators Against WBD Deal

Paramount Skydance's top lawyer is accusing Netflix of attempting to poison regulators and stakeholders against the recent Warner Bros. Discovery merger...

By MarkCassidy - Jun 09, 2026 07:06 PM EST
Filed Under: Netflix

One of the biggest talking points of the year has been Paramount and WBD's multibillion-dollar "megamerger," which was made official back in February.

The announcement followed the bombshell news that Netflix had decided to pull out of the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery just a couple of hours after the David Zaslav-led media company’s board declared Paramount's new bid a “superior proposal.”

Netflix has been largely silent on the matter (publicly, at least) since the deal went through, but Paramount Skydance's top lawyer is now claiming that the streaming giant is so worried about the prospect of going head-to-head with a merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery that they are "going all-out to try to poison regulators and other stakeholders.”

Makan Delrahim, Paramount’s chief legal officer, has alleged that Netflix is lobbying hard against the deal, while using "scorched-earth" tactics.

“We understand that as part of its broader proxy war against the Transaction, Netflix has tried to persuade the Teamsters and other stakeholders that Disney’s acquisition of Fox had a negative impact on content production and labor opportunities. Frankly, Netflix’s sky is falling narrative departs significantly from the ground-truth reality of what actually happened.”

A Netflix spokesperson told Variety the following when asked for a response:

“These claims from Paramount Skydance are absurd. We walked away from this deal months ago and remain focused on our own business, not theirs. Ultimately, it’s up to the regulators to approve this deal and determine if it is in the best interest of the industry and all concerned.”

As part of the deal, Paramount and Warner Bros. will operate as independent studios, with a commitment to 15 films from each every year, with full 45-day windows before going to premium video on-demand, with longer windows for hit films.

There were other concerns, of course, and many within the industry worry that Ellison’s close ties to the Trump administration could stifle free expression. 

“Ellison scares the shit out of me,” one A-list director told Variety. “Are the movies they put out going to be catered to Trump’s taste? Are they going to start cracking down on content that they don’t find to be ideologically aligned with the right?”

Paramount also disclosed in an April FCC filing that the merged Paramount-WBD would be 49.5% owned by foreign investors, with about 38.5% of the equity in the new company owned by the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

In any event, we're not expecting to see any major shakeups when it comes to the running of DC Studios, HBO Max and the like, although top executive reshuffles are always a possibility.

WB Pictures chiefs Pam Abdy and Michael De Luca are coming off a massively successful 2025 after the likes of Sinners and One Battle After Another, and there are whispers that "the executive turnstiles are about to swing once again."

“If they’re smart, they’ll keep Mike and Pam,” says one media executive. “But there’s only so much executive power to go around. Decisions will need to be made.”

About The Author:
MarkCassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Mark Cassidy is a writer, photographer, amateur filmmaker, and Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic from Dublin, Ireland.
Avatar: The Last Airbender Season 2 Trailer And Poster See Toph Join The Ranks Of Team Avatar
Related:

Avatar: The Last Airbender Season 2 Trailer And Poster See Toph Join The Ranks Of Team Avatar

Netflix Drops First Trailer For The Boroughs, A Supernatural Mystery With Strong Stranger Things Vibes
Recommended For You:

Netflix Drops First Trailer For The Boroughs, A Supernatural Mystery With Strong Stranger Things Vibes

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
UltimaRex
UltimaRex - 6/9/2026, 7:08 PM
No, they're not firing Gunn.

Next?
OneMoreTime
OneMoreTime - 6/9/2026, 7:24 PM
@UltimaRex - READ!

"In any event, we're not expecting to see any major shakeups when it comes to the running of DC Studios, HBO Max and the like, although top executive reshuffles are always a possibility."
UltimaRex
UltimaRex - 6/9/2026, 7:27 PM
@OneMoreTime - good on you.

I didn't even bother to quote it because I know the usual suspects won't read or acknowledge that.
harryba11zack
harryba11zack - 6/9/2026, 7:10 PM
"Scorched-Earth"....last time we heard that all we got was a broken a desk and sofa in the White House
User Comment Image
BlackStar25
BlackStar25 - 6/9/2026, 9:13 PM
@harryba11zack - We Got Singed Carpet Instead 😭😭😭
JackDeth
JackDeth - 6/9/2026, 7:16 PM
So people are concerned they're going to be too right wing? I wonder why they would think that, though. It's not like they're killing off STAR TREK and expanding the Taylor Sheridan universe. That would be absurd if it were true, right???
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 6/10/2026, 8:53 AM
@JackDeth - I mean, it's not like they have a track record of gutting news programs and firing people that don't toe the party line, right? RIGHT?!
TheRevelation
TheRevelation - 6/10/2026, 1:48 PM
@Clintthahamster - Cut off one head, another will take it's place...

User Comment Image
MCUKnight11
MCUKnight11 - 6/9/2026, 7:23 PM
Aw, what's the matter? Slightest bit of pushback and you point the finger at someone else.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/9/2026, 7:30 PM
"Netflix has tried to persuade the Teamsters and other stakeholders that Disney’s acquisition of Fox had a negative impact on content production and labor opportunities."

Sure. What actually happened was that indie companies like A24 were able to step up and go head to head with the major studios, offering a fresh perspective to the megacorps and injecting the industry with a burst of creative energy.

Nature abhors a vacuum. None of this creates a monopoly or a monopsony because that's not how the film industry works. There are always a million places to work and when the big studios consolidate it only creates more choice for employment at burgeoning studios.

People saying that the big 5 will become the big 4 are forgetting all the other times that the big 5 changed.
When Disney and Fox merged did the big 5 become the big 4? No. Sony became the 5th in Fox's place. Same thing will happen here. MGM will obviously be the 5th in WBD's place.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/9/2026, 8:44 PM
@ObserverIO - Yes, it did. It used to be Big 6.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/9/2026, 8:49 PM
@SpiderParker - Also, Sony used to be 5th but replaced Fox to become 4th. Paramount was 6th and became 5th.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/9/2026, 9:17 PM
@SpiderParker - Before the Disney/Fox merger The Big 5 were (in no particular order): Disney, Warners, Paramount, Fox and Universal.

After the Disney/Fox merger the Big 5 are now (again in no particular order): Disney, Warners, Paramount, Universal and Sony.

After the Paramount/Warners merger it will be: Disney, Paramount, Universal, Sony and MGM.

And on the cycle goes.

The sky is not falling. It didn't before it won't now.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/9/2026, 9:19 PM
@SpiderParker - Big 6? You mean these guys?
User Comment Image
TheCoonII
TheCoonII - 6/9/2026, 9:54 PM
@ObserverIO - they just want Netflix to get wb cause they hate movie theaters
lazlodaytona
lazlodaytona - 6/9/2026, 11:25 PM
@ObserverIO - man that's a whole lotta words to take in.
Is it bad I don't give a sh1t?

Except for the foreign whatever owning stuff in this?! WTF is that?!?!? Why is that even a thing???
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/9/2026, 11:54 PM
@ObserverIO - Not really. Before the merger it was Disney, WB, Universal, Fox, Sony and Paramount (in that particular order by market share).

But in any case, Sony was always part of the Big 6 ever since Sony Pictures became a thing when they bought Columbia Pictures 4 decades ago. That was right after the time Disney took MGM's spot after it became a shell of its former self from too many owner changes. Just about everything currently happening with WBD happened to MGM first. And history is about to repeat itself with WB.

The "sky" did fall before. Several times.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/10/2026, 11:28 AM
@SpiderParker - Looks like it's still there to me.

And it's always been the Big 5 since forever and a day ago. Those who said Big 6 for that brief period weren't observing tradition.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/10/2026, 11:33 AM
@lazlodaytona - Because commerce is international.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/10/2026, 11:42 AM
@ObserverIO - So, you are saying that Colombia Pictures/Sony Pictures who had higher market share than Paramount were somehow never part of the big leagues?

And I don't think anyone would agree with you that three and a half decade of being called the Big 6 could be written off as a brief period. The only brief period you could be talking about, that would make sense, would be the time when Disney first joined the big leagues just a few years before MGM's downfall when all of them were briefly called Big 7.
TheRevelation
TheRevelation - 6/10/2026, 1:52 PM
@lazlodaytona - You'd be surprised how many foreign interests "own" things in this country. It literally starts at the beginning.

ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/10/2026, 5:52 PM
@SpiderParker - Was that in the mid-eighties? Because if so then yes that's what I'm referring to.

Pretty sure Disney made them the Big 6 not Big 7 though. Unless I'm having a Mandella effect. Or early onset dementia.

There were always a Big 5 going back to the golden age with RKO, 20th Century Pictures/20th Century Fox, Paramount, MGM and Warner Bros.

We will have a Big 5 after this merger too. MGM are officially back it would seem. So it would likely be them. Or whoever has the 5th biggest market share.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/10/2026, 7:34 PM
@ObserverIO - Yeah, it was the mid-80s. It was Big 5 and Little 3 back when RKO and UA were still among them. The Big 5 were called as such only because of the theater chains they owned. A few of the little 3 had more market share than the Big 5 at times but it was named as such purely for the theater chains.

When it became illegal to own theater chains and RKO pretty much died in the 50's, it became Big 6 (for market share) until mid-80s when Disney came and it became Big 7. It came back down to Big 6 after MGM became a zombie. It stayed like that until Fox was bought by Disney. Now they are pretty much all about market share even though it's legal for studios to own theater chains again.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/11/2026, 5:58 AM
@SpiderParker - User Comment Image

But my point still stands. If the Big 5 is the top five studios based on market share then there's always gonna be a top 5. There's always gonna be a top 6 and a top 7, because there are many many studios doing business in Hollywood these days.
And when major studios merge it makes more room for smaller studios to gain a larger market share. Like A24 for example, after the Disney/Fox merger. And if Netflix is actually serious about going theatrical fr (which I doubt 100%) then they will also benefit from the Paramount-Warners merger in this way.

This is why it's perfectly okay for this merger to happen. Because it's not even approaching anything like a monopoly or a monopsony.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/11/2026, 9:31 AM
@ObserverIO - After the Disney/Fox merger, every studio struggled to keep up while Disney was calling the shots on how theaters and the industry ran.

A24 currently has less than 5% market share and they changed their strategy from purely indie roots to commercialized IP to stay in the business and still lack significant piece of the pie. Meanwhile, Sony's market share used to be in the double digits before the merger and it has since fallen to single digits. Even with the Skydance merger, Paramount is barely keeping a 5-6% market share. It used to be that you needed around 10% market share to even be in the Big Leagues, which neither Sony nor Paramount has anymore.

Disney completely ate Fox's market share initially but then all that just got shared between Disney, Universal and WB. With those 3 currently controlling around 70% of the market share together, it was already Big 3 in everything but name. It was just a matter of time before the Big 5 officially became the Big 3. And with the Paramount-WB merger, it's all but confirmed now. Sony is going to lose even more market share, which might eventually lead to the studio being sold off entirely. It will be the Big 3 era officially. And everything that the theaters and the industry had to go through after the Disney-Fox merger will be right back for Round 2.

But my Sarcasm-Sense was already tingling, so you probably already believe that the sky is falling, even if you haven't realized it yet.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/11/2026, 5:42 PM
@SpiderParker - You're saying that A24 having 5% means it's not in the big leagues but go on to say how Paramount 5-6% and Sony's is below 10%.

If Paramount has a small share then what's the problem?

Also A24 don't need to make commercial product to stay afloat. Indie companies like A24 generally do it for the art. I'm certain they would have been content to continue this way if it wasn't for the opportunity that presented itself with one less major studio (coupled with a newfound trending popularity).
They're stepping up to the plate that's all. There's success to be had and they're figuring out a way of capitalising on that while remaining as true as they can to their art-first indie roots.

And it's working. Now when an A24 movie comes out they're instantly in the discussion in terms of box office and how the latest A24 flick might be giving strong competition to the latest movie from a major studio.

That's a big deal and wouldn't have happened without the FOX merger.

The drop in box office returns for all these major studios that you mentioned is something that has been felt across the board from the combo attack of covid, streaming, strikes and subsequent price hikes. But cinemas are recovering now. Watch those market shares go up.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/11/2026, 8:22 PM
@ObserverIO - I specifically said A24 has "less than 5%," not "has 5%." Important distinction. And, like I said, it's all but confirmed that soon enough it will be the Big 3 only. I agree it was a combo attack of all that you listed, but the market share has pooled between three studios now.

Even if some indie movie studio manages to make decent bucks every now and then, it still won't change the hierarchy and control the Big 3 studios will have over the market. In the end, this will mean that indie studios get fewer screens for their movies, hence less box office, and eventually they'll sell themselves off as well. There is only one A24 movie that has grossed more than 100 million in the domestic market, which is The Backrooms, in 13 years and 200 movies.

It's pretty common in this part of the CBM corner to question if lightning can strike twice, so I don't know why you would take that as a sign that A24 will get a huge market share in the coming years. In fact, it will be even harder for A24 to make that happen after the merger. The only benefit anyone gets from this merger is that there will be one less streaming service, and that's it. There's a reason everyone is against this.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/12/2026, 12:30 PM
@SpiderParker - But A24 is more than 4% no? Pretty similar to what we consider major studios like Sony and Paramount. Warners used to be in the shit too until Zaslav came along with his merger and did what he always does: Whipped it into shape so he could sell it off to the highest bidder.

So if Paramount is a small studio and Warners is a big evil studio then shouldn't you be rejoicing that in buying Warners they now have a leg up the ladder? A small company becomes a big company. Is that bad or good? Maybe in becoming a big studio they are automatically bad in your eyes. I dunno.

Regardless, if major studios having a stranglehold on smaller studios is what you're guarding against then shouldn't they all consolidate and therefore reduce their numbers?

The fact remains, no matter how much you try to downplay or deny it, that smaller studios are thriving right now due to a lack of major studios in theaters.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/12/2026, 2:29 PM
@ObserverIO - Paramount is not a small studio, it's a big studio that lost its footing and is struggling to keep its market share.

And contrary to what you might believe, A24 had more success before the Fox/Disney merger. Their average gross per movie was higher, and considering their budgets were lower that meant even more profit. A $5 million movie making $50 million gave A24 almost 10 times ROI while a $50 million movie making $100 million is not only a big risk but is of a lesser profit. Now their average is lower but their budget is higher, and they know people aren't interested in watching 20 of their movies in a year, nor will they get enough screens for it, so they HAVE to commercialize their strategy just to compete with the major studios for theater screens.

Fact is, smaller studios were thriving before, now they are struggling to keep up. You really think there's a lack of major studios in theaters? Just because people don't make every single movie that comes out a massive hit doesn't mean these big studios aren't still capturing the industry. Like I said, market share of 3 major studios alone is over 70% of total gross, which "roughly" translates to how much percentage of moviegoers watched movies from these studios per year. The industry is down, but the market share only went up. These 3 studios have only captured more of the market not less. People just watch movies less so it's not that obvious.

BTW, it's more like 3% for A24 but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. The big leagues mean around a 10% market share. Paramount and Sony are still considered Big 5 because they are legacy majors who are just having a rough time. The last BIG merger got rid of 3 studios from the top tier and put two in mid tier. The next merger will do something similar, probably getting rid of all the mid tiers.

And in case it wasn't obvious from what I said, I'll be direct. The industry was hit and the total gross for the Big Studios decreased but mostly a piece of the pie from Sony, Paramount and Fox's share got eaten by Disney, Universal and WB. Smaller studios were hit as well but it was a niche group already who watched those movies so their audience "mostly" stayed but a few well performing titles like Backrooms and Civil War made it seem like they grew. They didn't. Their average gross is still lower than pre-COVID. Other studios doing badly, industry being down and one or two well publicized hits just makes their success look higher than it actually is.

The total industry pie shrank, but the big players just took a bigger bite of what was left while others are struggling to pay the electricity bills. IDK how you confused Twitter hype with actual financial market share. When has a Warner Bros. merger ever actually worked out? Anyway, that's just how the industry looks right now. I'm gonna leave it at that.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/12/2026, 7:50 PM
@SpiderParker - You can't have your cake and eat it. Yes Paramount and Sony are still considered majors that is a fact, but you can't write them off as just having a bad time of it in order to dismiss the fact that they aren't making much more than A24. We were talking about market share and those were the numbers you gave me.
You set the rules here. But then break them to suit you're whim.

You also can't just downplay the success of indie movies recently as not counting because it's lower than covid. Movies in general are lower, what we're doing here is comparing how they're all doing now.
Here's a handy chart, the Top 20 highest grossing movies of the year right now:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls4154830192/
What's the score?
Well that's Major Studios - 9
Independents - 11.

Wow. More indie movies than major studio pictures in the top 20? Something is going on here that cannot be dismissed.

These bad faith arguments are intellectually dishonest.

Also if you made a movie for $5 million and it made $50 million that's $45 million more, but then if you made a movie for $50 million and it made $100 million that's $50 million more.
What's a higher number $45M or $50M?
(A: $50M. It's $5m higher than $45M)
Hope that helps.

You'll also note that this means indie studios are spending more money and making more money. Again you are presenting me with facts that help my case.
And the fact that they are spending more money means cast and crew are getting paid as much as they would at a major studio.

Disney Fox release less movies, indie studios release more movies. The job market remains the same from a freelance perspective.

That means it's not a monopsony which means regulators can let it through.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/13/2026, 3:53 AM
@ObserverIO - The break-even rule is 2.5x. A $5 million movie makes profit at $12.5 million, while a $50 million movie makes profit at $125 million. It's not hard to see through the data and arrive at that conclusion. You are celebrating a flop while calling my argument intellectually dishonest. The fact that you had to argue about the obvious is, in fact... Well, you know what? Everyone makes mistakes so I'll let that one go.

"Paramount and Sony are still considered majors that is a fact, but you can't write them off as just having a bad time of it in order to dismiss the fact that they aren't making much more than A24"

I didn’t write them off. I pointed out that the industry gives them leeway because they are having a historically bad run. Personally, I don't even consider them true majors anymore. As I said before, this merger will simply expedite the inevitable, they have been bleeding market share year after year.

And, Paramount is still making twice as much money as A24 and Sony 3 times as much but the gap is getting closer and closer and not because A24 is capturing their share but because those two studios are failing. And if you think a struggling studio like Paramount, which is only failing since like forever, will get WB back on track, you have misplaced trust in them. WB will go bankrupt, just like MGM, and will lose their IPs then sold for scraps.

Also, you may think it's not a monopsony but from a freelance perspective, replacing a few high paying jobs with a dozen low paying ones isn't really that much of a flex. Disney-Fox started to release less to capitalize on the current market structure, getting assured money on a few all year long rather than making too many projects and losing on a few as well. Indie can afford to do that because the cost to them is much less to make a profit since their budget is much lower, but even they are having a tough time.

More studios means more movies, merger means less movies and even more power to a few top ones. As much as you want A24 to succeed, if they struggle due to a changing market, which they already are and will do again upon this merger, they will simply sell themselves to a bigger studio like Disney to keep the lights on. It's best for all top, mid and low tier studios to not have this merger on the horizon.
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/13/2026, 4:36 AM
@ObserverIO - Also, I just looked at the IMDB link, and 6 of those movies are international movies. Not exactly indie studios. I only see 3 independent movies, 2 from A24 and 1 from Lionsgate. To think you accused me of bad faith and intellectually dishonest. I meant to correct that it used to be Big 6 before the Disney-Fox merger, but if winning an argument by any means necessary is that important to you, let's just agree to disagree.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/13/2026, 10:48 AM
@SpiderParker - I'm going by what you have stated are the Big 5 major studios. Again, you're setting the rules that I'm playing by here. Therefore every studio that is not a major studio is by definition an indie studio, yes even foreign ones since movies are an international market.

Also it was you who said that A24 are spending more money on movies which means they are paying more money too. So my point about it not being a monopsony stands. And even if they paid less it still wouldn'r be a monopsony by virtue of the staggering amount of studios and employment opportunities.
It doesn't matter if there are only 3 or 4 majors, how many major burger franchises are there. Only 2 really (McDonalds and Burger King), but that's not a monopsony either, because there are many other burger joints to work at.

Now I have to ask you straight because your point seems to be lost in all the self-contradictions, are you saying that it's a bad thing to have less major studios (you are aren't you, that's what you're saying here)?

Because you're also telling me what a bad thing major studios are and how they crush the indie competition unfairly.
User Comment Image
SpiderParker
SpiderParker - 6/13/2026, 6:27 PM
@ObserverIO - You are creating a false dichotomy. Just because a studio isn’t one of the Big 5 doesn't automatically make it an "indie." Is Netflix, who also get small theatrical releases, an indie? Is MGM, which is owned by a trillion dollar company like Amazon, an indie? Obviously not. There are mini-majors and tech giants in the space too.

As for A24, The Backrooms made a nice ROI because it was cheap, but Civil War barely broke even once you factor in production and marketing. Exceptions don't disprove the trend.

And yes, fewer major studios is a bad thing. I never said major studios are bad by themselves. It's when they eat others that it becomes a problem. Removing the mid-tier doesn't help the lower tier, it just widens the gap between the ultra-rich and the struggling while giving free power to the market dominators. If you remove the middle class, the poor don't magically benefit.

I was kind of happy when Fox got swallowed because of my bias towards X-Men returning to Marvel, and even though I was split on it back then and understood both sides, especially considering my own bias but look at how that turned out.

Your burger analogy fails because anyone can open a local burger joint. Movies have too many bottlenecks. A better analogy is a food court with only two stalls. If McDonald's and Burger King own a monopoly on the physical space, a small burger shop will never get a lease, and if they do, they'll get kicked out in a week. Less competition at the top always crushes those at the bottom.

Another analogy which actually fits infinitely better is politics. If there are only two major political parties, does any other party even get a chance, even if they are vastly superior? Any third party is systemically blocked from winning because the two major parties control the debates, the ballots, and the media infrastructure. The system is rigged so that voters feel they are "wasting their vote" if they choose an "indie" party, just like theater chains feel they are "wasting a screen" if they give it to a tiny indie film over a Disney movie.

You aren't creating a "free market" for indies. You're just letting a couple of gatekeepers completely dictate who gets to play. If this Paramount-WBD merger happens to go through, I'll accept it, but I would have preferred if Netflix bought it, and I would have preferred 10 times more if it never happened at all.

User Comment Image
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/13/2026, 7:39 PM
@SpiderParker - It's already a free market. Political parties and food courts are simply not better analogies.

There are cinemas worldwide. And not just anyone can open a burger joint. I can't, I don't have the capital. But if I did then I could. Similarly if I had the capital I could start a movie studio. Anyone else can too.

And only one political party gets elected once all the votes have been counted. So if you vote for someone who doesn't get elected then that vote is no longer any good to them. But every movie ticket bought is money that the studios & theaters keep. It's not a good analogy.

I think I'll stick with the burger joint one thanks. Or we could use a streaming service analogy if you want. But then you'd automatically have to agree with me because you seem to have no problem with Netflix owning HBO Max.

And lets not split hairs over semantics. Indie studios are generally thought of as minor studios that run independent of the majors. But you're right, can we really call them indie if they're owned by big companies? We could call them minor studios or "lower tier" if you want. But whatever you call them they are the non-major studios that are now thriving thanks to there being one less major studio.

Speaking of "lower tier", you refer to the majors as "mid tier" and the merged majors I suppose would be top tier. A top tier that currently consists of what, 1 studio? Soon to be 2?!
Oh unless you count WBD (which is Warner Bros and Discovery not to mention actual film studios like Seven Arts Productions, Nelson Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment etc.), Sony (which is Colombia Pictures, Tri-Star Pictures, Destination Films, etc), Universal (merged with Lantz Productions, international Productions, Amblin, Dreamworks, Illumination, Working Title Films, Focus Features, USA Films, Good Machine, Interscope Communications, Propaganda Films, October Films, Gramercy Pictures and so many more film studios), Paramount (that like all these studios has a long history of merging with other studios from Republic to Skydance)...

...you know I'm starting to think that the "mid tier" you refer to is the same as the supposedly more evil top tier you allude to.
A major studio is a major studio is a major studio.

This is not removing (or lessening) the mid tier but the top tier.

And yes Backrooms is doing very well and Civil War broke even despite having a large budget. Failing to see a point here.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 6/9/2026, 8:04 PM
These clowns couldn't negotiate themselves out of a paper bag, so maybe Netflix will get it after all.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 6/9/2026, 9:14 PM
@TheJok3r - Well they did outnegotiate Netflix.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 6/9/2026, 10:09 PM
@ObserverIO - They threw more money at the issue, which won't work here. Considering how quickly Netflix walked away, I can't help but wonder if they knew this would happen.
DraculaX
DraculaX - 6/9/2026, 11:17 PM
@ObserverIO - as Logan Roy once said: "congratulations on saying the biggest number, you [frick]ing morons"
lazlodaytona
lazlodaytona - 6/9/2026, 11:27 PM
@TheJok3r - I was all for Netflix winning this thing..
Just to see how much it'd f***-up the industry. So entertaining.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder