So I'm not an expert on this at all, as I need to learn more about the business side of Hollywood. But I spent some time doing research last week on Hollywood Reporter, and here are my thoughts. As I understand it, one of the big pros of the merger according to Paramount is it will allow more money to be put into budgets and invested into film technology. It will also enable a studio like Paramount to stay completive with the bigger streaming companies like Apple and Prime Video. It would also help WB overcome its debts as I guess it's in a lot of trouble at the moment. On the flip side, the cons are that there's a belief this will lead to massive layoffs, as typically happens after a big merger like this or a large leadership change. According to the op ed by actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Benedict Wong, and Alan Cummings, it also puts the majority of (US?) historical news archives into the hands of one entity, as Paramount would control CBS and CNN, and that could be dangerous. Lastly, some theater companies argue it would hurt smaller theaters because reducing the owners of wide releasing high grossing films would lead to higher prices for consumers, and less diversity of content. So with my limited research, I'll do my best here - I guess it sounds like layoffs / loss of work could happen either way if WB is in so much debt that it might not survive. Though, I'm skeptical this is the ONLY way for WB to survive. The idea that this allows Paramount to put more money into budgets and tech investments is probably true, but I'm not sure that really matters right now in the current movie landscape. According to Hollywood Reporter, theatrical returns are up this year from this time in 2025, and some of the most successful films of the year were smaller budget ones like Backrooms and Obsession, while films like Mandalorian and Grogu and Supergirl underperformed at best and flopped at worst. I think younger audiences are proving they will still come to the movies (to SEE the movie, and not just for meme purposes like Minecraft or Madame Web), but they want something different, something creative, and not necessarily something expensive.

I appreciate a post like this. I've been one of those naysayers to this point, and largely, it's because the editors and creatives I've heard from have also been largely against AI. I went to an Editors Bootcamp in Boston last November and AI was very frowned upon there. But go on Linkedin and every CEO and tech bro is raving about AI (which kind of makes me hate it more to be honest). Therefore it's very refreshing hearing an editor give a perspective that's more optimistic about it. I remember reading Walter Murch in "In the Blink of an Eye" talk about how film was this emerging niche art form in the days of opera, and people largely dismissed it. 100 years later, film largely replaced opera as the kind of art the masses consumed. I often think about that passage now - I feel like we're in a similar time now with AI, and so whether we like it or not, it's probably wise to pay attention to it and get a jump on how this technology takes space in our field. That said.... the environmental impact of AI is supposed to be horrible, and I think everybody should be conscious of that. I myself definitely want to learn more about that side of the issue to know how to use it responsibly. Idk if that came up at all in the conference but I think it's important

This is good to know. Perhaps Quibi was ahead of its time after all