In less than a decade, Netflix has gone from being a digital underdog challenging old Hollywood to becoming the leading contender to consolidate it under its domination. $82.8 billion bid for key Warner Bros. assets Discovery – … including HBO Max, Warner Studios and the DC catalog – is not just an industrial operation: it is a masterstroke that could seal the fate of the streaming war, marked by years of overexpansion, fragmentation and unsustainable costs.
The message to the market is unequivocal: the era of “everyone against Netflix” is over. The era of the total integrator, the player with global scale, deep intellectual property and direct distribution capabilities, is beginning. For Netflix, acquiring Warner is the consecration of his model: data, production and distribution in a single ecosystem. It is no longer a question of competing with traditional studies: it is a question of absorbing them.
But the move sparked a high-voltage reaction. Paramount Skydance, cornered by losses, debt pressure and a loss of relevance, responded with a $108.4 billion hostile takeover bid. Its objective is twofold: to stop Netflix from functioning or, at least, to make it more expensive and to buy time in a market where only three or four major players will survive. His story is intelligent: an alliance between “classic” studios, more acceptable to the regulator and without the risks of technological concentration implied by leaving Warner in the hands of the global streaming giant.
This corporate clash reveals two radically opposed management styles. Netflix, led by Ted Sarandosis committed to algorithmic efficiency, vertical integration and global hegemony of on-demand content. His interest excludes linear channels like CNN or TNT, which he despises: he is looking for assets compatible with his digital logic, and not regulatory constraints. Its acquisition is part of a vision that favors ARPU, profitability per subscriber and intensive exploitation of the catalog.
Paramount, directed by David Ellisonson of billionaire Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, represents the old media ecosystem: diversification of channels, presence in the news, traditional bets at the box office and symbolic attachment to classic entertainment structures. Although financially weakened, he plays his cards on the political scene: he appeals to the sympathy of the Trump II administration, which views with suspicion any operation strengthening the “cultural enemies” of Trumpism: the news brand of CNN, Netflix or liberal Hollywood.
The political context is not minor. The Justice Department under Trump already made clear during his first term that it could use the regulator as ideological weaponas the AT&T-Time Warner merger shows. In this new cycle, control of the news media is a strategic priority. Trump does not need to block the Netflix-Warner deal to derail it: he just needs to slow it down or impose conditions, such as a forced divestiture of CNN.
In this scenario, Paramount’s takeover bid is not just a financial act: it is a political move. He is presented as the “friendly” alternative to the Republican government, with a proposal that preserves a media status quo in favor of Trump. It is even rumored that investors linked to the MAGA ecosystem could be at the origin of part of the financing, with the aim of repositioning conservative actors in the American media structure.
But beyond the corporate and political drama, what is at stake is the final phase of the streaming wars, a war that erupted in 2013 with House of Cards and experienced its chaotic expansion between 2018 and 2022 when all the major entertainment brands created their streaming in an attempt to eat Netflix’s toast. Today, the rules have changed: subscribers are stagnating, revenue per user is falling, and studios are once again licensing content to survive, which is almost like selling your daily wardrobe. What was a battlefield for innovation has become a fight for focus and survival.
The Netflix-Warner operation is reminiscent of Disney’s takeover of Fox in 2019, but on a different scale: it is not just about content, but about cultural, technological and regulatory control of a global industry. If successful, Netflix will establish a new standardmerging digital disruption with Hollywood heritage into a single entity. In the event of failure, this could open the door to Amazon, Apple or even a share of Warner, which would distribute its catalog to buyers with more ideological than industrial objectives, just like its cable television channels, in clear decline.
The battle for Warner Bros. is, at its core, a battle for the definition of entertainment over the next two decades. The question is no longer who produces what, but who decides what stories are told, how they are disseminated and according to what cultural logic. What began as a platform war is now a struggle for symbolic power in the digital age. And like any battle for history, its outcome will mark not only Hollywood, but also the global imagination.
About The Author
