Paramount’s made no secret that they want to become the new owners of Warner Bros. Discovery—all of it, both the Warner Bros. side (HBO, DC Comics, Looney Tunes, etc.) and the Discovery side (CNN, HGTV, Food Network, etc.). This is despite Warner Bros. repeatedly rejecting their offers, mostly for being too low/undervaluing the worth of the cable channels. The current plan, of course, is Netflix buying the Warner Bros. assets, while the Discovery assets (i.e. the cable channels) will be sold to a yet-to-be-determined buyer. Still, Paramount’s now engaged in what amounts to a hostile takeover attempt (similar to how Oracle bought PeopleSoft years ago), refusing to take “no” for an answer.
But why does Paramount want Warner Bros. so badly? Especially since they just had the Paramount/Skydance merger? Below I offer my guesses why Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison (backed by his billionaire father Larry Ellison, the owner of Oracle) wants to be the new boss of Batman, Yogi Bear, and Bugs Bunny.
Media consolidation
Like other media mergers, Paramount buying Warner Bros. would just be another example of media consolidation, and all the reasons and problems behind such: greed, expansion for its own sake, etc. Warner Bros.’s likely fate would be becoming a subsidiary of Paramount, similar to 20th Century Studios’ status under Disney. It’d also reduce the number of major Hollywood film studios to four: Universal, Disney/20th Century Studios, Paramount/Warner Bros., and Sony/Columbia.
In Paramount’s case, they’ve been a smaller conglomerate compared to Disney, Comcast, and Warner Bros. in terms of assets; as such, they can’t just raise theme park ticket prices/broadband bills or churn out a Batman movie to print money. Buying Warner Bros. would put Paramount more in a position to do so? Cartoon-wise, they’d not only own “South Park,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” “Garfield,” “SpongeBob SquarePants,” and Nickelodeon, but also Looney Tunes, the DC superheroes (and DC Comics), Hanna-Barbera, and Cartoon Network/Adult Swim. Overall, they’d also own HBO Max and Paramount+, two major streaming services. And of course, CNN and CBS News.
All this ignores that while the Trump administration could force through/rubber stamp a merger (between the conservative Ellisons and the administration’s general corruption), outside the US would pose more challenges. Paramount+ and HBO Max have a presence in the European Union (the former either by itself or with Comcast as part of “SkyShowtime”), as do European versions of the cable networks, and the EU isn’t likely to look on a Paramount/WB merger favorably.
Becoming the next Murdoch family/News Corp.
It’s no secret that the Ellisons have conservative views, and have been working to make CBS News reflect such. Gaining ownership of CNN would give them control of a major TV news outlet, as well as one that conservatives have hated for years.
Making Paramount’s news assets into a conservative force similar to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. would be helped by owning not just CNN, but Warner’s properties. Just as Fox’s Sunday night cartoons, Fox Sports, and Tubi prop up Murdoch and his prized asset, Fox News, so would owning Warner Bros. IP help support CBS News/CNN. (While Murdoch sold 20th Century Fox’s assets to Disney, the over-the-air TV network is still under Murdoch’s ownership.)
As a “bonus,” a merged Paramount/Warner Bros. would be harder to boycott. Don’t like a combined CBS News/CNN sucking up to Trump, but still a huge Superman fan? Too bad; it’s either indirectly support CBS News/CNN by buying Superman comics every Wednesday (and watching the various DC films), or never see anything new with the Man of Steel again. (Ignoring the existence of public libraries or outright piracy.)
The popularity of Warner Bros. properties
As I’ve written before, Warner Bros. makes up a huge portion of popular culture—much of what Disney doesn’t own. As such, many of Warner’s properties are quite popular or ingrained in culture, some more so than Paramount’s counterparts. To wit:
- SpongeBob SquarePants is popular, and the face of Paramount animation-wise. However, he’s not Bugs Bunny. Similarly, “Paw Patrol” is a money-spinner, but it’s not Scooby-Doo.
- Paramount’s got a sizable animation library (mostly via Nickelodeon, “South Park,” or MTV), but they’re no match for Warner Bros.: Hanna-Barbera, Looney Tunes, Tom and Jerry, Warner Bros. Animation (“The Iron Giant”), and Cartoon Network/Adult Swim.
- The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are Paramount’s only major superheroes. While popular, they’re not Batman… let alone Superman, Wonder Woman, the Justice League, etc. DC Comics, of course, include virtually every popular superhero that isn’t under Marvel.
- Showtime has been a perennial second place to HBO in prominence for years. Despite having some successful shows like “Dexter” and “Yellowjackets,” they’re still overshadowed by “Game of Thrones,” “The Sopranos,” and HBO’s hottest new hit, “Heated Rivalry.” (Though that one’s via a Canadian third party, Crave.)
- “South Park” has seen a resurgence in popularity, but they’re not a whole lineup like Adult Swim.
- CBS News is prominent, but CNN is a cornerstone cable news outlet.
- “Star Trek” is popular and has its traditional fan following, but it’s long been eclipsed in popularity by “Star Wars” (owned by Disney). Owning “The Matrix,” “Dune,” and “Blade Runner” might be appealing?
- Paramount’s “Transformers” films do OK, but in terms of “stuff licensed from third parties,” they’re apparently not deemed as lucrative (in terms of box office) as Warner Bros.’s “Harry Potter.” (*Sigh*.)
- Similarly, Paramount’s current film strategy is basically “hope Tom Cruise doesn’t retire or quit”/”they don’t lose the Transformers license from Hasbro.” Compare that to the hot streak Warner’s films saw in 2025 (“Sinners,” etc.).
And so on. Owning Warner Bros. properties would give a big boost to Paramount. Though that brings me to…
A lack of faith in Paramount’s own properties
The Ellisons’ aggressiveness in wanting to buy Warner Bros. speaks to a lack of faith in their own properties, especially ones they only recently just bought. It also doesn’t address fixing Paramount’s existing problems… issues that suddenly becoming responsible for DC Comics and HGTV won’t fix, of course. Paramount’s 2026 film slate is completely abysmal, and they just lost a major showrunner, Taylor Sheridan, to Comcast.
Never mind that while Warner Bros.’s stuff is popular, the properties Paramount does own aren’t anything to sneeze at: Nickelodeon, CBS, MTV, BET, and a large library of properties, from “Star Trek” to “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” Instead of trying to become the owners of Batman, their approach should be “who needs him?,” and make the best of what they already have.
Conclusion
Overall, the Ellisons and Paramount want Warner Bros. because: the usual greedy, short-sighted media consolidation reasons; to shore up the Ellisons’ goal of becoming the next Murdoch family/News Corp.; a lack of faith in Paramount’s own properties; and some of Warner’s properties are more popular or ingrained in culture than Paramount’s counterparts.
Of course, none of these companies—Paramount, Netflix, or Warner Bros.—should be allowed to merge, as they’re all already too large as they are. If anything, there’s probably an argument in favor of breaking up Paramount and Warner Bros. into smaller stand alone companies. Warner Bros. and Discovery as separate stand alone businesses not under any owner would put things back to the way they were for the House of Bugs Bunny before the mid-90s.
That said, again, Netflix is the better option; any flaws Netflix has pale in comparison to the Ellisons being allowed to own CNN.
Image: Plankton from “SpongeBob SquarePants” (Paramount); “Looney Tunes” (Warner Bros.)
