AexOp: Paramount acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery sparks debate over creative freedom

By Staff Writers Dhaeshna Booma, Cecilia Cheng & Warren Su

In the gleaming offices of Paramount’s Los Angeles headquarters, executives celebrated their victory over Netflix in a bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery, a win that would quietly seal the fate of the artistry of filmmaking and viewing worldwide. However, the success that concluded the months-long battle was far more than just another corporate acquisition. This is the latest chapter in the gradual consolidation of the entertainment industry into the hands of a select few billionaire-backed corporations, a trend that threatens to fundamentally alter what stories get told in America and who gets to tell them. 

Past Consolidation

The consolidation reflects a pattern stretching back decades. Disney acquired Pixar in 2006, Marvel in 2009, Lucasfilm in 2012, and both Hulu and 20th Century Fox in 2019. Across the industry, major studios pursue the same playbook, buying existing intellectual property and franchises to eliminate competition. However when corporations prioritize owning the past by acquiring proven hits and beloved characters, they stop investing in the future. A screenplay from an unknown writer or an indie filmmaker faces an uphill battle against a safer new Marvel sequel. This is shown in Paramount’s recent trends of prioritizing previously successful franchises such as Star Trek and Top Gun in its upcoming releases, reducing variety within cinematic stories overall. With media already taken over by large, corporate-run businesses, small creators require a fair playing field for the slight chance of success. Nearly 65% of film directors only make one film in their career, with the percentage of returning directors dropping below 10% in 2017. This further narrows the amount of voices that are showcased in theaters, making consolidation even more dangerous. For viewers, this means fewer stories that challenge or represent voices outside the mainstream. In 2025, nine out of the top 10 highest grossing films were part of a series or based on pre-existing concepts. For emerging artists, it signals that originality has no market value in Hollywood. 

Acquisitions also go further by harming theater industries. As streaming services have gotten more popular, studies by the Henry Fund from the streaming service users in America had an average of 3.6 subscriptions each in 2024. Last year, the gross for the domestic box office was $8.6 billion, down from roughly $10–11 billion in the 2010s. Since there are already such few options in the streaming market, acquiring HBO Max — which is part of Warner Bros. — would place Paramount Skydance with nearly the same amount of market share as Netflix. The lack of options stifles competition, with streaming services continuing to drive up prices against a dying film industry. 

Political Consolidation

What makes this deal uniquely alarming is the clear political interference behind it. President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr both signaled opposition to Netflix’s bid. Rather than blocking it on antitrust grounds, Republicans attacked Netflix’s content as “overwhelmingly woke,” punishing editorial choices and rewarding a competitor aligned with conservative politics. Antitrust laws protect market competition, not political ideology. By allowing political preference to dictate which media company acquires competitors, future administrations — whether left or right leaning — can veto any company’s editorial choices. These accusations demonstrate the ultimate goal of Trump’s actions: not to break up a potential danger to the industry, but instead to promote their specific  political agenda. These external influences reflect dangers of consolidation as it shifts media focus towards content that align with political values rather than artistic storytelling. By placing the power of storytelling in the hands of a few powerful individuals, they are able to control the political narrative. Diversity in the entertainment industry is lost, pushing guiding creative decisions away from artistic visions and towards ideological expectations. Consolidation is no longer limiting who owns media; it increases the ability of political powers to shape stories, excluding key voices from creatives and the public alike. 

Counterargument

Paramount CEO David Ellison has framed the merger as beneficial for both consumers and creators, promising consumers more choices and creators more opportunities to sell their work. The company has committed to producing at least 30 films annually and pledged that HBO will operate independently, projecting over $6 billion in operational savings through technology integration and streamlining. However, beneath these reassurances lies a harsher reality. The deal carries an enormous $79 billion debt load placed on Paramount that will inevitably force brutal cost-cutting. Such conditions make large-scale layoffs inevitable, the loss of both employees and high-level executives reducing the amount of creative voices that go into new projects. This situation was already expressed in a previous Paramount merger with Skydance. An anonymous person working with the situation reported to CNBC that their layoffs would eventually amount to more than 2000 employees. Having already cut 3.5% of their US-based staff in June, the change only exacerbated the job market for filmmakers. Instead of expanding opportunity, Paramount’s struggle with debt illustrates how financial pressures resulting as a consequence of consolidation narrows creative outputs and pushes studios towards unoriginal, franchise-driven storytelling. 

Conclusion

The Paramount-Warner merger is the endpoint of an industry-wide consolidation that treats entertainment as a commodity to be owned and exploited. As a handful of corporations tighten their grip on what stories reach audiences, artists lose agency and opportunity while viewers lose the diversity of vision that makes cinema matter. The film industry is notoriously difficult to break into, even more so for small creators as corporate demands of quantity and consistency directly conflict with the time and personal investment necessary for original storytelling. With media becoming increasingly driven by profit, support for indie filmmakers becomes more important than ever. 

Theaters everywhere are also experiencing the effects of the merger. The pandemic prompted labor strikes and production shutdowns across the world, leading to delayed movie releases and box office losses upwards of  80% of its sales. Theaters have yet to recover from the major blow, the deal only exacerbating the issue by shifting releases towards streaming platforms. Cinema United, led by movie theatre owners, said to CNBC that the merger “would risk removing 25% of the annual domestic box office,” as well as decrease licensing fees for studios looking to stream new movies. The loss of theaters not only compromises thousands of jobs, but also removes consumers’ ability to enjoy films in a space specifically designed for uninterrupted viewing. This discards any form of art and entertainment that once defined watching movies, leading viewers to miss out on a fundamental part of the cinematic experience. 

As consolidation continues to concentrate power, individual choices are becoming the only way to push back against the system. Watching at theaters rather than streaming services, attending film festivals that showcase upcoming productions, and actively searching for creative voices can help ease challenges that small creators face. Even seemingly insignificant actions such as researching filmmakers and engaging critically with them can shift attention away from corporate storytelling. Through intentional viewing choices, students are able to advocate for creative diversity, allowing artistry to flourish under a system that has repeatedly tried to suppress it.