The Current - Netflix vs. Paramount: The Streamer That Would Be King

Episode Date: December 9, 2025

Netflix is looking to take over the TV, film and streaming assets of Warner Bros. Now another company, Paramount, is making its own play, with a hostile takeover bid. We talk to Globe and Mail film editor Barry Hertz about the possible end results of all this: a corporate monolith with even more control over how we consume films and TV shows, and who gets to make them.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always over-delivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors, all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing.

Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. That's the now iconic opening of the Sopranos. That show helped put HBO on the map and ushered in the so-called second golden age of television. But now, that theme song might come with another distinctive sound. Now, Netflix looks set to take control of the TV, film, and streaming assets of Warner Brothers Discovery. That includes the streaming powerhouse HBO Max plus Warner Brothers and DC Studios.

The deal would be worth $72 billion. But hold on, not so fast, Netflix. Yesterday, Paramount announced its own bid for Warner Brothers. Whatever happens, industry watchers think the world of film, TV, production may never be quite the same. Barry Hertz is one of those people. He's deputy arts editor and film editor for the Globe and Mail. Barry, good morning. Good morning, Matt.

Let's start with the basics. What is Netflix looking to buy here? Netflix is looking to buy the entire catalog of Warner Brothers Discovery. So that includes their film studio, that includes their television production outfits. It does not include their linear broadcast television networks. But basically, that would include the entire raft of intellectual property, 102 years worth of blockbusters and acclaimed cinema all under one roof. Run through the names of some of the bits of blockbuster history that would be part of this bid.

Well, I mean, we have everything from, you know, golden age cinema classics like Casablanca and the Maltese Falcon to almost the entire catalog of Stanley Kubrick to modern-day. blockbusters in the worlds of Harry Potter, D.C. Comics, including Superman and Batman, Lord of the Rings. And then, you know, on the television side, everything under that HBO umbrella, Game of Thrones, Sopranos, but also Big Bang Theory, Friends, you know, huge sitcom staples here. So we're talking about a very significant chunk of 20th and 21st century pop culture. And so Netflix, which is already big, would get a whole lot bigger. What does that mean? I mean, first streaming service. Does it become kind of the one-stop shop? This is where you go if you want to stream things? I mean, basically, it is a, you can only kind of put it in terms of world

domination. And I would already say that, you know, Netflix has kind of become that de facto streamer. Like if you are a household and you are looking to cut back and you are looking at your streaming options, I would say more than likely Netflix is the last one that you will suffered ties with. It is just that huge and it has just that large a catalog. But yeah, so you're exactly right, it would become that one-stop shop. There would be just that fewer competitors on the landscape. What does that mean for us in Canada? I mean, Crave is the place where HBO shows are available. And so if HBO then ends up being part of Netflix, what does that mean for Crave? I think it can only mean bad news for Crave. I mean, Crave has an output

deal with Warner Brothers Discovery for all that wonderful content, including HBO. And from my understanding, that, you know, that deal lasts for several years into the future. But who's to say that when Netflix does, or if it does, acquire the Warner Brothers' treasure chess, they wouldn't, you know, pay handsomely to break that deal. But that would leave Crave in a very perilous situation because I would say the majority of subscribers to that service are doing so to access that Warner Brothers content. This deal was announced on Thursday night, and you wrote in the Globe and Mail, movie going might have died on Thursday night. That sounds dramatic. I mean, it was dramatic, but I had to use

the language of Hollywood to get across the urgency of the situation as I see it. And, you know, to be clear, you know, it's not dead. It's not dying today. It's not dying tomorrow. It'll probably will die for another year or so. But, you know, I still believe that if this deal with Netflix does indeed go through, and there are very large regulatory hurdles and a long timeline for this to happen, theaters would be decimated. There are, you know, Warner Brothers as a standalone studio entity was responsible for delivering, you know, a dozen to 15 big, high-profile movies to movie theaters.

each year, with long theatrical run dates. If theaters are robbed of those movies, if Netflix says, no, we're going to punt those straight to streaming under our new kind of corporate ownership, then, you know, exhibitors are going to be in that much more of a perilous situation with the amount of product they have to entice filmgoers into their buildings. Ted Serendos, the co-CEO of Netflix yesterday, said, calm down. None of this is actually going to happen. He said that there's no intention to shut down parts of Warner Brothers or metal.

with the way that it's operated, its film studio, releasing those movies that you're talking about in theaters. Have a listen to Ted Sarandos. We're deeply committed to releasing those movies exactly the way they've released those movies today. The theatrical business, we've not been talked a lot about it in the past

about wanting to do it because we've never been in that business. When this deal closes, we are in that business. And we're going to do it. If we did this deal 24 months ago, all those movies we saw this year do so well at the box office for Warner Brothers would have been released in the same way in theaters with the Warner Brothers operating entity. We think it's really important the way that they create

and the way that they drive value. We didn't buy this company to destroy that value. What do you make of that, Barry? Nothing to see here. Yeah, you know, I'll believe it when I see it, Matt. You know, Netflix has been built on a business model that is indifference to theaters at best, hostile at worst. I mean, this is a direct-to-consumer business

that cuts out the middleman, very intentional. very smartly. I mean, they are huge innovators, and I'm not denying the amazing work that they have done in upending this business to their advantage, but they are not in the theatrical business. And though that clip did not

say it, there was an earlier quote by Ted Serendos that talked about the theatrical window and the evolution of that and what that will look like once Netflix gets a hold of it. And the theatrical window, just to break it down in the easiest terms, is the amount of time

it takes for a movie to go from a movie theater to a home entertainment space, be that streaming or, you know, transactional on-demand video, et cetera, et cetera. And that's getting shorter and shorter. I mean, they just released Jake Kelly, this film with George Clooney, which was in the theaters for, what, five minutes? And now I can watch it on Netflix. Yeah, exactly. I mean, that's, you know, Netflix likes to talk a big game about how they released, you know,

two dozen movies in theaters last year or over this past year, rather. but what they don't really underline is that okay what theaters were those playing very few because very few exhibitors are willing to cannibalize their business and how long have those films been playing in movie theaters uh yeah very short like one or two week runs and then they are immediately available to stream so it is really more of a move to placate the kind of prestige filmmakers and stars netflix wants to work with the george clunies of the world rather than any affection or desire to increase that theatrical landscape. If you have a colossus that is in charge of the stories that are told, what does that mean for the kind of stories that get told, do you think? Fewer stories get told, more homogenous stories get told. If there are fewer places to shop your stories, if there are fewer places to convince that this is a film or television series

that needs to be made, then there will be fewer voices out there. Competition is good. competition breeds creativity, competition breeds variety. And to have one huge umbrella over so much of culture, global, worldwide, is I feel bad for storytelling and bad for audiences. Is it bad for the business here? I mean, there is a huge film and television industry in this country. What would that mean for that industry here?

That's an open question. I mean, Netflix does a lot of business here in terms of what we call foreign service production. basically, you know, shows that have an American or non-Canadian creative team, writer-director, stars, but they come here to take advantage of our tax credits and our, you know, low dollar and our big infrastructure. You know, Netflix seems to be saying, you know, this will increase production. We are doing this to leverage, you know, our distribution method and we'll make more of the things that you watch. So, theoretically, yes. But at the same time, I can't really buy that necessarily.

I can only see fewer feature films being made and thus fewer jobs. And that includes in the Canadian ecosystem. What about control? One of the things people have talked about this is the vault. In the digital age, once things get removed from a platform, it is really hard to find them again, at least in a legal source that is not going to fill your computer with spamware. What influence could Netflix owning that much intellectual property, have on actually getting access to those films and TV shows?

I think it's huge and it can't be underestimated. I mean, if you were to look on Netflix today for a film, say, made before 1975, good luck. You know, Warner Brothers, you know, for all of its, you know, faults and missteps, just like any major contemporary studio, they are very committed to physical media and the preservation of such. Netflix, on the other hand, has not put almost any of its titles onto DVD, and for, you know, for good reason in terms of their business philosophy, they want you to stream. They don't want you to go to a, you know, a Best Buy and buy a DVD. But, you know, as you say, like, all those titles will be locked away and inaccessible.

And when you have different streaming services out there, like the Warner Brothers owned HBO Max in the States, they're creating. here, you know, there's that many more options to seek those titles out. And there's a competitive edge to putting those out because you want to, you know, undercut the competitor and appeal to the consumer. But if Netflix holds the one key to everything, well, should we be trusting them with that responsibility? I have to let you go. But, I mean, this isn't a done deal. There is this rival bid by Paramount Skydance. There are also antitrust laws that could come into place. You have said, and the piece that you wrote, the headline was that this is going to be a disaster. Is there the possibility that it could be disruption as well, that this could be an

opportunity for reinvention to change how we think about film and television maybe for the good, that there will be, yes, some carnage, but that this could actually end up being, being a necessary reinvention or disruption? I'm going to take the cynical view and say, no. I don't, I cannot see any good coming out of this other than lining the pockets of shareholders and, you know, executives in the C-suite who will walk away with sweet paydays. You know, it's not as if Warner Brothers was this distressed asset whose house was on fire. We have two major corporations willing to pay tens of billions of dollars to gobble up its assets. I cannot really see any innovation coming out of this other than more of the same and homogeneity

and really corporate greed, to be honest with you. Sorry. Sorry, everybody. Sounds like a movie in and of itself. Barry, thank you very much for this. Thank you. Barry Hertz is the film editor for The Globe and Mail. This has been the current podcast.

You can hear our show Monday to Friday on CBC Radio 1 at 8.30 a.m. At all time zones, or you can also listen online at cbc.ca. Or on the CBC Listen app or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.