Comments on: Paramount Could Be Merging With Sony Or Universal

By: Rodney

Rodney — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:11:30 +0000

Maybe a merge would void that arrangement? Who says you would be restricted from watching Paramount films too? A merger doesn’t mean that one company wipes the other out and overrides all their policies. It means they join and become a bigger new entity.

By: nerrojj

nerrojj — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:15:26 +0000

This could effect me personally. I work at a movie theater chain called Kerasotes. Kerasotes has a deal with Sony that states, employees can’t watch Sony movies for FREE during the first 2-3 weeks from the release date. Meaning if a Sony movie came out this friday the 19th (Year One) then I and the other Kerasotes employees can’t watch it for FREE until Friday, July 3rd. So IF Paramount Pictures merges with Sony then that doubles the amount of movies that I and the other Kerasotes employees wont be able to watch the opening weekend.

By: cloud720

cloud720 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:01:49 +0000

Wait, if Paramount did Iron Man, is doing Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and Avengers, and Sony does Spider-man, would that mean that we might see Spider-man in the Avengers movie?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:53:08 +0000

Actually I think the biggest threat is simply consolidating control with in a few companies. It looks like we are moving back to the old system of film.

By: Darren J Seeley

Darren J Seeley — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:46:06 +0000

I don’t put much into this either. Yes, times are tough- but wouldn’t the better solution be simply to be either a) cutting back on production and/or production costs b) make pictures with modest/lower budgets. or c) make a higher budgeted picture (s) but share the cost of production with another studio- with one getting domestic, the other foreign, and so on.

Has Paramount been having a string of high cost duds in the past few years? I can understand if it is such a case but it isn’t.

While not “all” mergers are “bad” (that’s a myth, Guther, although in some mergers, some jobs are indeed cut or downsized) as far as film studios go, it hasn’t been stellar. I think a lot of folks are still ticked about most of the majors buying up smaller studios only to dissolve them a short time later, or the way Warners handled New Line. It’s almost like, why merge with them in the first place?

By: Gunther

Gunther — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:06:11 +0000

Let’s say this news is true then it would be indeed depressing. If they are in problems there are countless other ways to get fit again.

Other than that, merging is one of the most stupid things two companies can do. Any manager or investor who believes this task of merging two worlds and cultures on an operative level (with countless other problems ahead) is easy and cheap seems to be stupid and should be fired.
It didn’t work for DaimlerChrysler and it didn’t work for AOL TimeWarner.

By: cloud7_20

cloud7_20 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:48:43 +0000

Just dont merge with Fox

By: Kristopher Tapley

Kristopher Tapley — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:46:16 +0000

Rumblings by one guy who owns some shares. This was poor, poor journalism on the part of Reuters. Looking before leaping. Stirring a shit storm where there isn’t one.

That said, the implications of such a possibility are depressing indeed. Four or five corporations already control how information is dispersed in this day and age. If Hollywood gets streamlined, that’ll choke competition out of the equation, effectively rendering the studio system obsolete. Which is why this goes no further than the stockholder with a big mouth.

Points the Reuters guy, obviously, didn’t deem worthy of bringing up. Like I said, shoddy journalism.