ListNook

BeholderLivesMatter Apr 23, 2026 +312

Any day now movies are going to have micro transactions.

312

HEYYYYYYYY_SATAN Apr 23, 2026 +107

*Subscribe to Paramount+ Premium+ to see the second act of the film you are watching.*

107

Rawrsomesausage Apr 23, 2026 +36

To view Scenes 5, 9, 12, 27, 34-42, 58, and the ending, please subscribe to the "Paramount Full Access" tier, as part of the Paramount+ Premium+ Titanium package.

36

adx931 Apr 23, 2026 +12

Available \*FREE\* with your Oracle OpenAI ChatGPT Codentic Agentful T**** Cartoon Generator Pro Gold Deluxe Plus Platinum Edition subscription (only $75,289,314.71/mo, not including tax).

12

bruinslacker Apr 23, 2026 +7

You also have the option to pay in tokens, crypto, cash or some combination of all 3. For the best value, set up a monthly subscription to buy Paratokens at a 15% d*******.

7

adx931 Apr 24, 2026 +1

Crazy Larry will only accept cash.

1

Acronymesis Apr 23, 2026 +5

Don't. Give them. Ideas.

5

jaredmanley Apr 23, 2026 +2

This already exists… micro dramas/verticals. And the studios are actively working to expand the sector

2

saurus-REXicon Apr 23, 2026 +25

“Would you like to see the ending? Pay now; or Pay for the add free version”

25

Dairy_Ashford Apr 23, 2026 +6

"due to streaming rights and licensing terms, the following content is unavailable to show without ads"

6

radiohead-nerd Apr 23, 2026 +18

I’ve made the conscious decision to not support Meta, OpenAI, Fox News, Paramount and I guess now Warner Brothers. Vote with your pocketbook

18

cwx149 Apr 23, 2026 +7

They're called ads

7

s0da_pressed Apr 24, 2026 +2

If you want Calculon to race to the lasergun battle in his hover Ferrari, press 1. ($8.99) If you want Calculon to double-check his paperwork, press 2. ($2.99) Enter now!

2

ibddevine Apr 23, 2026 +416

Doesn't David Ellison own everything?

416

ChainLC Apr 23, 2026 +288

he and a handful of other billionaires own it all.

288

ibddevine Apr 23, 2026 +70

I believe you are right 👍 It's a small world and getting smaller as the day's go by.

70

Accidental-Hyzer Apr 23, 2026 +10

🎶 It’s a small world after all It’s a small world after all It’s a small world after all It’s a billion-aire owned world! 🎶 (Apologies. I’m in Disney right now giving money to other billionaires.)

10

SirRichardLove Apr 23, 2026 +49

You mean him and Saudi princes own everything.

49

huxtiblejones Apr 23, 2026 +86

We need a broad political movement to destroy this kind of shit exactly like they did with telecoms back in the day. It's horrible for everyone. I just feel with the Citizens United ruling, it will never happen as all of congress is bought and paid for by corporate interests. It would take a constitutional amendment to fix it and there's pretty much zero chance of getting 2/3 of Congress to do it.

86

Hillary4SupremeRuler Apr 23, 2026 +11

When it comes to fixing/reversing/neutering/weakening Citizens United, I'm not sure Congress can do much directly as far as legislation considering the case was brought to the court in the first place specifically to overturn the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 which was specifically passed in the first place to regulate corporate/PAC spending in elections. So unless I'm missing something, then the only things Congress could do is impeach the Federalist Society/Powell Memo cabal or at least some of them (extremely unlikely), or pass legislation to expand the court. Personally, I think something like Biden proposed is a good idea as it's careful, measured, and evens the playing field instead of just trying to instantly create like 4 more seats to match the number of judicial circuits and then having Republicans just immediately add a bunch more seats as soon as they get back in power. However even that I'm almost certain will take a House majority, 60 votes in the Senate, and a President that's not a Republican. Maybe there's a possibility that Democrats can squeeze it in legislation for funding the courts to get by with a simple majority vote?

11

huxtiblejones Apr 23, 2026 +17

It can absolutely be overruled by a constitutional amendment, it’s even been introduced in the past. The hitch is that it’s obviously not simple to amend the constitution and takes absurd amounts of bipartisan support. https://jayapal.house.gov/2025/02/13/jayapal-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-reverse-citizens-united-2/

17

klubsanwich Apr 23, 2026 +2

The supreme court could overturn Citizens United right now if they wanted. You don't need to change the constitution.

2

huxtiblejones Apr 23, 2026 +8

Right. But there’s a 0% chance that will happen.

8

klubsanwich Apr 23, 2026 -2

Why not? All you need is a left leaning majority.

-2

huxtiblejones Apr 23, 2026 +7

Because the court is stacked to the right? And there’s a very good chance two more justices will step down under Trump and be replaced with young conservatives. At that point there will have been 5 appointments by him alone. We lost that fight in 2016 because people didn’t understand how critical the SCOTUS was in that election. We’re saddled with a right wing court for a generation outside of some major change to the number of justices.

7

klubsanwich Apr 23, 2026 +2

That's the situation *right now*, and it can be stacked in the other direction, it just takes time. On a related note, I hope everyone in this thread is participating in their local primaries.

2

ACW1129 Apr 23, 2026 +7

No he doesn't. Larry does.

7

gamesbackward Apr 23, 2026 +1

And who owns him?

1

WarriorNeedFoodBadly Apr 23, 2026

I thought Nestle and Disney owned everything.

0

zach_doesnt_care Apr 23, 2026 +917

Billionaires need to be taxed back into being millionaires.

917

KimJongFunk Apr 23, 2026 +272

I’d accept them being taxed at all. It makes me angry to know I paid more in taxes than they did.

272

Krewtan Apr 23, 2026 +160

BuT ThEy dOnT hAv# lIQuID AsSeTs! They are obviously very cash poor. Musk could barely scrape up the money to buy twitter.

160

MC_chrome Apr 23, 2026 +122

We need to outlaw being able to take loans out against unrealized gains. That's how billionaires fund their lifestyles.

122

ImpulseAfterthought Apr 23, 2026 +46

...and just defaulting on loans so they can forfeit untaxed assets as collateral.

46

Zealousideal_Aside96 Apr 23, 2026 +6

Defaulting on a loan is taxable. Thats not what they do

6

PhazePyre Apr 23, 2026 +6

100% this.

6

Zncon Apr 23, 2026 -15

The loans are not against unrealized gains, they're against the value of an asset. Getting a home mortgage is also taking a loan against the value of an asset.

-15

Eljimb0 Apr 23, 2026 +29

A mortgage against the value of the asset *that is taxed*. Property taxes go up against "unrealized gains" when an outside appraiser raises the value of the property, right?

29

TheDarkAbove Apr 23, 2026 +17

The county is real quick to tax the perceived value of my home even though it may never be sold at that value.

17

timetravelerfrom2027 Apr 23, 2026 +6

No fair. You wanna tax my Picasso?

6

Zncon Apr 23, 2026 +2

Property taxes are a terrible solution, and not one we should be using as a basis for new policy. They price people out of their homes through no fault of their own based on external factors they cannot plan for. Property taxes FORCE people to consider their home as an investment, and that's a huge part of what has created the housing crisis in the first place.

2

Eljimb0 Apr 23, 2026 +3

I'm not arguing whether property taxes are sensible or not. I'm arguing that the increase in property value coincides with a higher tax burden, whether or not the owner has sold and "realized" those gains. Why can't we do the same with stocks?

3

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 24, 2026 +3

> Why can't we do the same with stocks? Because those who own the most stocks also bribe the officials who write and control the law. Unfortunately, there's only one way to get that to change.

3

Zealousideal_Aside96 Apr 23, 2026 -1

Yeah one is real estate and one stocks, they’re two completely different assets. If a billionaire got a loan and used a billion dollar property as collateral, they’d be paying property taxes too.

-1

Eljimb0 Apr 23, 2026 +2

I'm aware that they're different assets. Property value gains can and are taxed, even though that gain isn't actually realized. If a billionaire uses a property as collateral, the property is taxed. Yes. A property that appreciates in value gets a similar increase in property tax at its newly assessed value If the same billionaire gets a loan using stocks as collateral, somehow that asset and it's appreciation isn't taxable? I don't buy it.

2

Zealousideal_Aside96 Apr 23, 2026 +1

Then same thing with peoples retirement or savings then no? If Joe Schmo has his asset portfolio grow over the years, he isn’t being taxed either like he does for his home. I’ll note too that I’m in no way defending the billionaires, just more specifically discussing taxation of assets, because I’m a tax nerd.

1

Eljimb0 Apr 23, 2026 +1

Retirement accounts like 401's and annuities already exist in a different lane from plain ol stock portfolios. There are heavy penalties associated with pulling money out of them early. I also know you aren't permitted to utilize 401's as collateral for loans, though I'm not sure about other retirement accounts. I don't think it would be all too difficult to carve out an exception for retirement accounts, or to set up a system where accounts under a certain dollar figure are not taxed. Even if it is across the board. As it stands, having untaxable assets that aren't assets unless billionaires want to magically make them an asset to secure funding does not work. My whole thing in this thread is arguing that we *already tax some forms of unrealized gains*. To argue that we can't, to me, is wrong. I have yet to have an individual respond in this thread convincing me that it isn't possible or feasible to tax unrealized gains. I used property taxes as an example, because I personally don't see much of a fundamental difference. Stocks and properties can both be used as collateral assets. They can both appreciate in value. That appreciation in value is only taxable for one asset and not the other? Why?

1

Loquater Apr 23, 2026 -17

Tell me you don't understand banking without telling me. Don't get me wrong, we need to absolutely tax billionaires more, but this is not how you do it.

-17

MC_chrome Apr 23, 2026 +16

Why not? Billionaires go to banks and say "I have X amount of stock in a company that is worth X amount of money" and they take out loans based on that. Elon Musk, for example, is "worth" north of $800 billion at the moment. He can't actually liquidate most of what that net worth is comprised of, but he uses those assets to take out loans that he uses to fund whatever he is doing

16

bishop375 Apr 23, 2026 +5

Then what’s your suggestion?

5

Loquater Apr 23, 2026 -7

I'm not smart enough to solve this problem, but I do know a non-starter when I see one. I like the new NYC tax on expensive homes that aren't lived in. Taxing luxuries and absurdly expensive transactions might be somewhere to start.

-7

bishop375 Apr 23, 2026 +1

Seems like a multi-pronged attack, also including stronger banking regulations, including taking out loans against unrealized gains might just work, though? It's going to be extremely difficult to buy luxury properties if you don't have the liquid cash for them.

1

socialistForDE Apr 23, 2026 +3

Realistically what will happen at least in the short term is they won't be taxed and will do whatever they want, and there will be random acts of violence against them that won't actually solve the problem but it'll be the only outlet people have

3

rain5151 Apr 23, 2026 +2

Serious question as someone who wants heavy taxes on the ultra-wealthy, how *do* we handle the question of liquid assets? Just to use your example, Musk had to cash out $20 bil in stocks and assets, get around $20 bil in loans, and secure $7 bil from investors. Selling assets to raise that cash requires someone willing to buy them, which could get complicated if the market gets flooded with wealthy people looking to sell (and get bought by foreign entities not also experiencing the same tax crunch?), and I don’t know how readily people will be able to get loans to pay their taxes (probably no investors). How do we make it work?

2

Krewtan Apr 23, 2026 +31

We don't have to. They do. Nobody cares how we pay taxes when we have no liquid assets. If they can buy a 100 million dollar home or a yacht they can pay taxes.

31

zach_doesnt_care Apr 23, 2026 +21

The Government seizes the non-liqudated asset and auctions it off in pieces. The same way they do when poor people can't pay their taxes.

21

adx931 Apr 23, 2026 +5

Buying twitter at auction on the courthouse steps does have a nice ring to it.

5

wahoozerman Apr 24, 2026 +5

When you realize that property tax, which the vast majority of Americans pay, is also a tax on illiquid assets, you kind of stop caring.

5

avcloudy Apr 24, 2026 +4

Everything you said is what needs to happen. Devaluing assets because you're selling so many of them is precisely what needs to happen so that they stop abusing systems. Saying it would be inconvenient for them to pay taxes is not a valid reason. If they want to hold themselves hostage, let them do it. The next year they would efficiently liquidate their assets to pay taxes while touching their wealth the least.

4

dkf295 Apr 23, 2026 +3

Step 1: Law passed requiring x% annual federal tax on assets above $Y Step 2: The ultra-wealthy (and their accountants) are aware of what they'll owe at the end of the year Step 3: Liquidate the necessary amount of assets come tax time and/or quarterly payments. So basically the same as any other notable expense they deal with all the time.

3

RafeDangerous Apr 24, 2026 +1

I'm partial to the idea of taxing loans against illiquid assets when it's above a certain amount. If they want to treat those assets as money, then converting it into actual purchasing power should trigger a tax. If they're content to let them sit on the scoreboard with no particular practical use, then that's fine too.

1

Traherne Apr 24, 2026 +1

I certainly have liquid assets; I've been pissing away my money for years.

1

count023 Apr 24, 2026 +1

Id accept them being taxed, physically, on a chain gang for 12 hour days until their debts to society are repaid

1

ibddevine Apr 23, 2026 +21

They own everything and I mean Everything!!

21

Confident-Beyond6857 Apr 23, 2026 +18

And they have demonstrated that they do not give a f*** about any of us. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff

18

Due_Warthog725 Apr 23, 2026 +4

this is why the AI drone push is so hard, they need a war to work out the bugs and then give it 10 years for roboguards for their bunkers

4

zach_doesnt_care Apr 23, 2026 +1

Sounds like they have quite a bit of liability.

1

ibddevine Apr 23, 2026 +2

Are you insinuating something could happen???

2

zach_doesnt_care Apr 23, 2026 +1

For sure, accidents are inevitable, and the more ownership is consolidated the fewer people have an interest in making sure they don't.

1

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 24, 2026 +7

I'd argue even that is too lenient. Billionaires shouldn't exist - period. In order for them to maintain the level wealth that they do, there are people who will wake up today that won't wake up tomorrow; some may freeze, others may starve, or succumb to sickness they couldn't afford to treat. It's difficult to track how many people that may be, but we *do* absolutely know that there's a correlation between disparities in wealth and increased deaths within a given population. Being a billionaire isn't just avaricious behavior; it is the same as *actively killing* somebody else to satisfy that avarice. We must not tolerate that at any level; I'd argue that if we as a society have decided the death penalty must exist, and that such penalties be given to those who kill others with intent, then we should at least be consistent and treat billionaires as the murderers they actually are.

7

AVGuy42 Apr 24, 2026 +2

Duopolies need to be recognized as a form of monopoly and media companies need to be broken up. So do ISPs

2

CarryBigStickorElse Apr 23, 2026 +2

Or actually enforce the rules with things other than additional fines like the death penalty.

2

HEYYYYYYYY_SATAN Apr 23, 2026 +164

Next administration needs to start busting up these monopolies. Consumers are getting squeezed.

164

synapse187 Apr 23, 2026 +3

[ Removed by Listnook ]

3

AmericaVotedTrump Apr 23, 2026 +48

Dems are too in the pocket of the same billionaires to care. Even if they ran and won on that platform once they recieved their first ~~bribe~~ "political contribution" from their PAC that would be the end of it. Controlled opposition.

48

Ajhale Apr 23, 2026 +54

wtf are you talking about we just had the greatest ftc chair in our lifetimes and the Republicans couldn't wait to get rid of her.

54

MarsBarz37 Apr 23, 2026 +33

Kamala wouldn't even commit to keeping her on if she won. Lina Khan was a concession to Warren and Sanders, it was more of an anomaly then a firm structure of the current democratic party.

33

hovdeisfunny Apr 23, 2026 +4

Doesn't mean we can't push for more progressive candidates in the primaries

4

MasterPuppeteer Apr 24, 2026 +5

Can’t allow the Dems to have any positive word of mouth without equivocating it away huh. Even though Biden is the one who actually did it “It WaS a CoNcEsSiOn” so it doesn’t count. Such clownery.

5

MarsBarz37 Apr 24, 2026 +3

You aren't even disputing what I said, you're just mad at the truth. It was absolutely a concession to Sanders and Warren, and Kamala was not guaranteed to keep Lina Khan. Idk why that's triggering to you

3

SudoDarkKnight Apr 23, 2026 +3

I give a 2% chance of that ever happening lol

3

HEYYYYYYYY_SATAN Apr 23, 2026 +3

Ah, man. You’re much more positive than I will ever be.

3

SudoDarkKnight Apr 23, 2026 +3

I mean deep down I know its 0 but I wanted to leave some room for improvement lol

3

hovdeisfunny Apr 23, 2026 +1

Nah, it's happened before, even somewhat recently, well, partially anyway. It could absolutely happen again if we get more progressive candidates running and run aggressive primary campaigns.

1

[deleted] Apr 23, 2026 +110

[deleted]

110

Ibeepboobarpincsharp Apr 23, 2026 +53

Boo Baa Beep. We're sorry. The number you have dialed has been disconnected or is no longer in service.

53

hovdeisfunny Apr 23, 2026 +2

*If you feel you have reached this recording in error, please go look up your own ass.*

2

huxtiblejones Apr 23, 2026 +30

*You have reached the Citizens United Go F*** Yourself line. To get fucked, press 1.*

30

Dairy_Ashford Apr 23, 2026 +3

"i wanna new trust, one that won't kill trade...An invisible hand, makin small firms dead"

3

Phenizzle Apr 23, 2026 +36

Batman going to start cracking down on marijuana users

36

Phenizzle Apr 23, 2026 +2

Stop an frisks

2

ChainLC Apr 23, 2026 +60

oh well look for James Gunn to leave at the first opportunity.

60

codexcdm Apr 23, 2026 +27

Yeah... Superman was considered to be woke propaganda... Don't be surprised if Gunn is ousted.... and they ratfuck the new movie universe either by rebooting it immediately... Or something absurd like making Luthor the hero. After all, he is a tech bro... With similar goals to these schmucks.

27

TheBewlayBrothers Apr 25, 2026 +1

Idk, paramount hasn't done anything about south park. I'm more concerned about the news channels than I am on movies or shows

1

LymeRicks Apr 23, 2026 +48

Mergers like this need to be made illegal

48

The_All-Range_Atomic Apr 23, 2026 +22

Absolutely, because this is really bad. Criminally so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfCs_dSqPRM **tl;dw** - the two banks who evaluated the fairness of Paramount's offer both have financial ties to Oracle, with one that has an active ongoing deal. This was originally hidden from shareholders, who had to sue for this to be released. Also nobody is talking about it, because Paramount engaged in heavy censorship to cancel those who talked about it: they canceled an ad buy deal over some "stop the merger" pins. It's as corrupt as you can get. Worse yet, big oil countries like Saudi Arabia become shareholders, allowing foreign adversaries known for trampling on free speech through imprisonment and executions to influence US media. If this deal is allowed to go through, consider TV effectively dead as a reliable source of news.

22

NervousK1d Apr 23, 2026 +45

Paramount was down half a billion dollars Q4 and they had 81 Billion dollars to buy another company? Sure thing.

45

Low-Umpire236 Apr 23, 2026 +22

Sovereign wealth funds

22

Puzzled-Instance3211 Apr 23, 2026 +59

We really need to revolt against the upper classes. I don't see any of this stuff ever improving through traditional channels.

59

radiohead-nerd Apr 23, 2026 +2

Exact, vote with your wallet

2

Keirebu1 Apr 23, 2026 +19

Voting with your wallet is meaningless when the majority of money is in the hands of a few thousand. Violence necessitates Self-Defense.

19

DanMasterson Apr 23, 2026 +16

oh we’re a bit past that

16

Fangasgaf Apr 24, 2026 +3

That doesn't really work the way you think it does bud. They'll own that other thing too

3

BalerionSanders Apr 23, 2026 +48

And just like that, the dictator had personal influence with 30%+ of all United States media. Good luck, America.

48

evhan55 Apr 23, 2026 +6

Need more than luck ...

6

Far_Adeptness9884 Apr 23, 2026 +14

RIP Hollywood, but I guess that really happened a long time ago

14

ewillyp Apr 23, 2026 +2

it's always been an arm for war, pro-America & Imperial propaganda; the only thing this changes is a bigger monopoly.

2

Euphoric_Anxiety_162 Apr 23, 2026 +13

Time to stop subscribing to lousy services that want to use us.

13

Software_Quiet Apr 23, 2026 +22

Netflix didn’t counter as they knew this deal would break Paramount and they can get it all for far less in just a few years. They also got a nice 2.8 billion as a “breakup deal” on the failed purchase.

22

RabidJoint Apr 23, 2026 +8

Paramount is financed by Saudi’s…they won’t run out of money.

8

Software_Quiet Apr 23, 2026 +17

Paramount is on the verge of bankruptcy and yes, while Saudi money helped the merger go down it won't stop the bleed. That vanity project investment won't be fruitful, they'll see the writing on the wall and gtfo.

17

FlashyG Apr 23, 2026 +2

This must be extremely relieving to hear to the management team at LIV golf.

2

airship_of_arbitrary Apr 23, 2026 +3

That would have been a lot more true before Trump invaded Iran. They're going to have to dump tens if not hundreds of billions to redevelop the oil infrastructure destroyed so far, so deals like this are going to start to look less attractive.

3

-praughna- Apr 23, 2026 +9

Name me one time when shareholders all got together and collectively said “nah let’s not make more money“ Of course it was approved

9

Toadfinger Apr 23, 2026 +17

A takeover does serious damage to the streaming TV industry. What's available now on my ROKU will dwindle to extreme boredom levels.

17

KwisatzHaderach94 Apr 23, 2026 +5

somehow one dying company is dying less quickly than another dying company and merges with it to create...a company that survives and grows? seems like we're watching the director's cut of what was originally a bad movie in the first place.

5

ohanse Apr 23, 2026 +2

Can’t you set up Kodi or something on a Roku

2

Toadfinger Apr 23, 2026 +3

I just tried and there's a fee.

3

-_sumac_- Apr 23, 2026 +6

Grab Plex and put on your sailor's cap, matey.

6

Toadfinger Apr 23, 2026

I have Plex. I still won't be able to watch the kick-ass Clint Eastwood movies unless I pay Paramount. I had Paramount for a month and canceled. Nu Star Trek sucks!

0

Additional_Quiet2600 Apr 23, 2026 +2

He's telling you to sail the seven seas matey.

2

Toadfinger Apr 23, 2026

Lol. I think I'm too old to know what that means. ELIA (Explain Like I'm Atari).

0

beer_engineer_42 Apr 23, 2026 +4

Piracy ain't just for boats, matey. It's also for media!

4

Toadfinger Apr 23, 2026 +1

On a ROKU? I don't want to do anything like that. But I just don't see how it's even possible.

1

Dt2_0 Apr 23, 2026 +1

You use an app called Plex, it connects to a server, sometimes your own, sometimes someone elses, and that server has a ton of content on in that you stream from their private server.

1

Additional_Quiet2600 Apr 23, 2026

I'm almost 50 myself, but I've sailed them seas since dialup modem boards in the 80s. Not so much anymore, but I'm not giving these companies that want to control our news a dime.

0

ohanse Apr 23, 2026 +1

That don’t seem right… I recall doing this not so long ago. The new utorrent has a t****** search function, btw. Completely unrelated note, and all.

1

Kataphractoi Apr 23, 2026 +1

The digital season call to you, matey.

1

Islanduniverse Apr 23, 2026 +15

Evil pieces of garbage getting fat and rich off of hardworking people who will now lose their jobs. If this doesn’t get stopped as a blatant violation of the fairness doctrine, then the whole goddamn system is a joke. And I know, it’s already a joke and nobody will do the right thing and stop this merger. Our whole world is run by evil greedy cunts and nobody is brave enough to stand up to them.

15

ReasonableAside1655 Apr 23, 2026 +6

I like how the government is so bought by corporations that breaking up monopolies isn't even a thing anymore.

6

legendary_sponge Apr 23, 2026 +8

Brutal but not surprising

8

YodaForceGhost Apr 23, 2026 +9

CNN gonna be changed to TNN

9

TheMeatballMafia Apr 23, 2026 +9

Wow. So thankful to have been part of layoffs to help them achieve this success. As big boss man always said, “you have to think of the shareholders” So proud of them 🥹 /s

9

WaterFriendsIV Apr 23, 2026 +9

So the shareholders who will benefit from the merger are the ones deciding if monopolies are OK? For some reason, I don't think they have everyone's best interests in mind. 🤔

9

docmarvy Apr 23, 2026 +7

I don’t think they’re aware of the problems they’re going to have once they open the water tower and let out Yakko, Wakko, and Dot.

7

RabTheCrab Apr 24, 2026

Pinky and the Brain now run Paramount

0

Daveit4later Apr 23, 2026 +3

Teddy Roosevelt is going manic is his grave right now

3

SleepingToDreaming Apr 23, 2026 +3

Well, expect streaming platforms to get even worse with this acquisition.

3

Sterling239 Apr 23, 2026 +3

This is why I dont care about pirating

3

mysticzoom Apr 24, 2026 +3

Of course they did, Netflix pulled out and wasn't going to buy it now. They are smart, Netflix will wait a year or two, watch WB continue to crash and burn, then buy it pennies on the dollar. Now I wonder if the Ellisons are still getting that Saudi Investment Fund loan to make the purchase.

3

ksgt69 Apr 23, 2026 +4

And the funny part is that both of the banks that were hired to double check the finances and verify that it was a good deal had financial ties to Paramount, both had reason to approve the deal, the one WB hired and the one Paramount hired.

4

CFCYYZ Apr 23, 2026 +2

How did [Yakko, Wakko and Dot ](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Yacko%2C+Wacko+and+Dot&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fwarner-bros-entertainment%2Fimages%2F1%2F19%2FYakko_wakko_and_dot_profile.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20201123202242)vote?

2

Suns_In_420 Apr 23, 2026 +2

I’m going to enjoy watching their shares become worthless.

2

Careless_Jury154 Apr 24, 2026 +2

Kids go hungry in the United States every single night

2

Bleakwind Apr 23, 2026 +3

Well, shit… Let see if they can bring their debt to revenue down from 6-6.5% Their legal and hr team would be the first to go. But how they’re going to cut budget when zaslav already butchered WBD is beyond me. My guess,,, anyone wants to buy their news division? It’ll be on the market in…. 3 years.. I see Elon licking his gross lips..

3

Raven_Photography Apr 24, 2026 +2

The Ellison family can kiss me in the brown eye between the cheeks.

2

No-Common-1801 Apr 23, 2026 +2

Bugs Bunny would never.

2

[deleted] Apr 23, 2026 +1

[removed]

1

Stambro1 Apr 23, 2026 +3

God forbid the government step in and stop this monopoly!!!

3

ThePLARASociety Apr 23, 2026 +1

What happened to Ted Turner? Couldn’t he have bought WB?

1

BurgeroftheDayz Apr 23, 2026 +1

Paramount should try spending some money on their app not being the slowest piece of shit app there is

1

Infinite_Respect_ Apr 24, 2026 +1

Wouldn’t it be funny if everyone just….stopped consuming this content and went with different studios? Why does literally anything good need to come out of the shit hole that is now LA?

1

LunarMoon2001 Apr 24, 2026 +1

Next admin needs to come in and smash all these big companies up.

1

Straight_Document_89 Apr 24, 2026 +1

Oracle is full of debt. Eventually they’ll have to sell Warner bros assets and this time Netflix will get it for dirt c****.

1

OwlbearAviary Apr 24, 2026 +1

`cult-favorite titles like “Harry Potter”` ??? In what universe does mega blockbuster franchise Harry potter classify as a "cult classic"?

1

BrandonLang Apr 24, 2026 +1

Paramount... owned by larry elisson... who owns tiktok/oracle... ceo of paramount is devid ellison, his son... and these people are one of the biggest funders of israel/the idf... but all of that has nothing to do with them being jewish.

1

SYLOH Apr 25, 2026 +1

Shit like this is why I stopped watching Star Trek. The message rings hollow when you know what's behind it.

1

Dopingponging Apr 23, 2026 +1

Why did the shareholders vote this way??

1

MSERRADAred Apr 24, 2026 +2

$...as always

2

throwitfarawayfromm3 Apr 23, 2026 +1

I hope The State of California does something to stop this.

1

008Zulu Apr 23, 2026 +1

The sale also has to be approved by the EU.

1

throwitfarawayfromm3 Apr 24, 2026 +1

Thank Jeebus.

1

RandleMcMurphy1962 Apr 24, 2026 +1

Soon it will all be replaced by generative AI anyway. No need for movie backlots. No expensive on location sets, no whiny actors. Just a few creative people and some large GPUs.

1

Simply_Epic Apr 23, 2026

People are too desperate for money to do the right thing nowadays

0

No-Common-1801 Apr 23, 2026 -1

A bleep a bleep a bleep that's all folks!

-1

Warner Bros shareholders approve Paramount's $81 billion takeover of the Hollywood giant

💬 Send a Message

165 Comments