How Hollywood and Maga aligned over Warner Bros deal
Katie RazzallCulture and media editor
ReutersHow fast things change in Trump’s America.
It wasn’t long ago that the Netflix takeover of Warner Bros looked a done deal, bar regulatory approval, after its board accepted an $82.7bn offer in December.
Now Netflix has walked away, declining to match Paramount Skydance’s new $111bn offer because the price has got too high.
“The deal is no longer financially attractive,” it said in a statement – so what happened?
On Thursday, Netflix boss Ted Sarandos went to the White House and is reported to have met Department of Justice officials and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Whatever conversations went on – and I understand the meeting had been arranged several weeks before – Sarandos would likely have already realised he was facing a political battle over what he insists was purely a business deal.
In Trump’s America, business and politics are often entwined – and for weeks, it has been clear that many in the administration and the wider Maga sphere did not support the Netflix bid, with predictions it would not make it over the line for that reason.
According to CNN’s chief media analyst Brian Stelter, many observers had been expecting the justice department to block it.
Now it won’t have to.
ReutersThis comes after the president got involved directly this week, posting on Truth Social that Netflix needed to fire board member Susan Rice “IMMEDIATELY or pay the consequences”.
That raised eyebrows. Rice was national security advisor to Barack Obama and said on a recent podcast that it was “not going to end well” for companies that “take the knee” to Trump.
The president’s post was in response to one by the far-right activist Laura Loomer, who had accused Rice of being “anti American”.
The Republican Senator Ted Cruz repeated Loomer’s rhetoric, asking “does Netflix stand by their board member threatening punishment and persecution for half of America that dares to disagree with her”.
Loomer is one of many Maga supporters and conservative commentators in the US who also believe that Netflix is in hoc to the Obamas because the company has a multi-year deal with the production company Higher Ground, which the former president runs with his wife Michelle.
In their version of this story, Netflix is a liberal outfit – and a bigger Netflix with more media power should be opposed.
When he appeared before the antitrust committee earlier in February, Sarandos pushed back on the suggestion from a Republican lawmaker that the company is “overwhelmingly woke”, insisting that its programming reflects all side of the political debate.
Certainly, the company has always presented itself as a service without any political agenda, with a goal to entertain the world.
Maga wasn’t buying it.
What is interesting is that, for once, parts of Hollywood and Maga have aligned.
Many in Tinseltown blame Netflix for the demise of cinema as we knew it because the advent of streaming has dramatically shortened – and, in some cases, ended entirely – the window between a movie being shown in a cinema and being available to stream at home.
For many, including Sarandos, that is simply giving audiences what they want, but it has created a pincer movement uniting Trump’s allies and some major Hollywood figures.
ReutersThe director James Cameron is no Trump supporter but he made clear his opposition to Netflix’s takeover of one of Hollywood’s oldest and best known studios.
In a letter to the chair of the Senate’s anti-trust subcommittee this month, which was first reported by CNBC, Cameron wrote: “I believe strongly that the proposed sale of Warner Brothers Discovery to Netflix will be disastrous for the theatrical motion picture business that I have dedicated my life’s work to.”
Sarandos argued that Cameron “knowingly misrepresents our position and commitment to the theatrical release of Warner Bros films”, and reiterated his “firm commitment” to a strong showing for the company’s output in cinemas.
It’s been bruising for a company that has always looked like a winner.
Not all of Hollywood agrees with Cameron. Some point out that he has worked with the people behind the Paramount Skydance bid before and he has previously indicated support for their takeover.
The actor Mark Ruffalo has suggested a Paramount Skydance takeover would also be “monopolization”.
By definition, one of the five major Hollywood studios taking over another is consolidation. The fear is that it will lead to serious job losses.
If the bid is accepted and makes it through regulatory hurdles, the new company will own the news channel CNN, as well as CBS News, which it acquired when Paramount and Skydance merged last year.
On top of the likely job cuts as two newsrooms are aligned, there will be claims that the news services are becoming concentrated in the hands of allies of the president.
Its chairman and CEO David Ellison, as well as his billionaire father Larry, are associates of Trump, who is a long-time critic of CNN and has previously urged the winning bidder to oust its “dishonest” leadership.
It’s worth remembering that Netflix had not bid for CNN. Its proposal was to take over Warner’s studios and streaming services, but to spin off the news part of the company.
Paramount Skydance, on the other hand, is buying the whole company, including CNN.
If it goes ahead, Trump may get what he wished for.