Bros

It was a crowning moment. Netflix appeared to have prevailed in an audacious $82.7-billion deal to scoop one of the industry’s most prestigious studios: Warner Bros. The move seemed to cement Netflix’s status as the ultimate Hollywood gate-crasher and its dominance as the leading new player in media.

Now, nearly a year later, the plotline for Netflix has dramatically changed. The streaming giant lost out to Paramount Skydance in its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery and is facing headwinds on multiple fronts.

That was underscored this week when the streaming giant Netflix began shedding 6% of its workforce, or about 1,000 jobs — believed to be the largest layoff in the company’s history and exceeding the last round of job cuts in 2022, when it reported subscriber declines.

On Wednesday morning, Ted Sarandos and Co-Chief Executive Greg Peters sent a note to employees confirming the job losses, adding that the bulk of the cuts would affect the tech, product, legal and human resources teams.

“Our mission — to entertain the world — is ambitious, and delivering on it requires us to be disciplined about where we prioritize our people and resources,” wrote Sarandos and Peters in the memo obtained by The Times.

The cuts mark the latest reductions across the film and TV industry. Other entertainment and media companies have slashed their payrolls, including Walt Disney Co., Paramount and Sony Pictures Entertainment during a period of economic uncertainty in Hollywood.

But the scale of such downsizing is unusual for Netflix. Industry analysts and insiders chalk up the reversal of fortune to several factors. Although it still dominates the television business, the Los Gatos company hasn’t been able to produce enough new hit franchises to replace culture-defining shows from years past such as “Stranger Things” and “Squid Game.”

At the same time, Netflix faces rising competition from rivals such as HBO Max, Apple TV, Hulu and others that have upped their game. Free, ad-supported streaming platforms such as YouTube are increasingly taking a larger slice of consumer streaming hours. And Netflix’s efforts to diversify its business into new areas such as games have yielded mixed results.

A Netflix building on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles in 2025.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The upshot: Netflix continues to be the dominant video subscription streaming player with more than 325 million subscribers, but the time that consumers spend on the platform is growing at a slower pace than what investors want. In the first half of this year, consumer watch time on Netflix increased only 2% compared with a year earlier, even as content spending increased 11% to $20 billion this year. Netflix also narrowed its annual revenue forecast last summer, disappointing some investors.

“Netflix’s layoffs show that even the top streaming companies are not immune to stagnation and financial difficulties,” said Ross Benes, senior analyst at research firm Emarketer.

Amid the sobering signs, investors have grown restless. Netflix shares, which closed at $70.57 on Wednesday, have plummeted 42% in the last year. Part of that decline was fueled by anxiety among investors over Netflix’s deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, but the share price hasn’t rebounded even after that deal fell apart.

“They need to better prepare their balance sheet and economics since engagement has plateaued,” said Brandon Katz, director of insights and content strategy at Greenlight Analytics.

Katz said that Netflix’s five most-watched English-language scripted summer movie releases in their first eight weeks posted the lowest average hours watched compared with the streamer’s top five summer releases in 2025, 2024 and 2023, citing Nielsen data.

Sarandos acknowledged concerns about engagement at a Bloomberg Screentime event Sept. 30.

“Overall we’re not growing as fast as I want us to, and we’re working on making that move faster,” Sarandos said.

Netflix declined to comment on the layoffs.

“We’ll continue to invest aggressively in high-impact areas to improve our service and further drive growth and innovation,” Sarandos and Peters said in their memo to employees.

In some ways, Netflix has been victim of its own success. It has produced a string of shows and movies that have hit the cultural zeitgeist such as “KPop Demon Hunters” and “Squid Game.” But finding enough new popular shows that continue to drive subscriptions has been a challenge.

“A lot of these major hits are coming to an end at similar times, and they don’t yet really have heir apparents to replace them,” Katz said.

Sci-fi hit “Stranger Things” released its finale last year, followed by the young-adult drama “Outer Banks” and “Emily in Paris,” which ends this year. Netflix also announced that “The Witcher” and “The Lincoln Lawyer” will wrap after their next seasons.

What’s more, the second seasons of some shows with big followings have seen large view drop-offs compared with their first seasons. For example, the fantasy series “Avatar: The Last Airbender” season 1 debuted with 21.2 million views, but views for its second season dropped 59% to 8.7 million, according to Netflix data.

New series from Netflix also haven’t captured as much consumer demand as other competing shows from rival streamers, according to Parrot Analytics.

Last year, Netflix had just one show — the Japanese anime and manga series “Sakamoto Days” — that made it in Parrot’s top 10 list of first season original series on streaming platforms. Parrot’s ranking measures consumer demand in the U.S. and is based on digital interactions such as social media chatter and Google searches. By comparison, Netflix had three titles in 2022 alone: the true crime show “Monster,” the documentary series “Harry & Meghan” and the sci-fi mystery show “1899,” Parrot said.

Sarandos told investors in July that such declines are typical and that second season falloff is slightly improved this year. But popular shows on rival streaming services such as the medical drama “The Pitt” on HBO Max have not seen such declines. “The Pitt” drew even more viewers in its second season than the first.

To diversify its business, Netflix has expanded its programming offerings beyond TV shows and movies to include live sports, such as football and baseball games.

Although live programs have helped to spur significant subscription sign-ups, they still represent just 1% of watch time on Netflix while costing 5% of the company’s content budget, Sarandos has said.

Netflix also has added video podcasts that have helped to boost daytime viewing on the platform, and has made deals with YouTube creators to bring their content to the streaming service.

But some of the new content hasn’t clicked, particularly in games, analysts said. In August, Netflix shut down Hollywood-based Night School, the maker of supernatural adventure game “Oxenfree,” and said it was closing a Helsinki-based games studio.

“They are spending on a lot of things that haven’t necessarily proven to be effective yet,” said Rob Rosenberg, a partner at law firm Moses & Singer and former Showtime Networks general counsel. “It feels a lot like they’re trying to send a message to Wall Street that ‘we’re re-examining how we do business.’”

Meanwhile, Netflix continues to face more competition from rivals such as YouTube, which offers a free, ad-supported version of its video library.

Unlike Netflix, YouTube does not pay for the creation of many of the videos on its platform. Instead, creators or companies upload and produce the programs themselves and YouTube shares ad and subscription revenue.

YouTube’s share of streaming watch time in the U.S. on TVs has steadily increased. In July, YouTube represented 14.2%, compared with Netflix’s 7.8%, according to Nielsen.

The pressure to boost engagement on Netflix has caused tension within the company, particularly between the teams of people responsible for how programs are promoted on the platform and the employees responsible for bringing shows and movies on Netflix, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Some blame the content for not being enticing enough, while others contend that the programs could be promoted better on Netflix.

“It’s a bit of a quagmire,” said one of the sources familiar with the matter. “There is a tension when things aren’t working. People tend to point fingers.”

In their staff memo, Sarandos and Peters said Netflix is on track to deliver its full-year forecast and will continue to invest in areas that improve its service and drive growth and innovation.

“Doing that means making focused choices across the business so we can keep delivering for our members, partners, employees, and investors,” they wrote.

Despite the downsizing, Netflix remains highly profitable. In the second quarter, the company generated $3.4 billion in net income, up 9% from a year earlier. Revenue rose 13% to $12.6 billion last quarter, including double-digit revenue growth in all of its regions. Next week, the company will share its third-quarter results.

The streamer is expected to get a boost from new seasons of popular shows — including season 4 of the political drama “The Diplomat” and spy series “Lupin: Part 4,” as well as Thanksgiving Eve and Christmas Day NFL games.

Having new seasons of popular shows such as “Lupin” and “The Diplomat” will help boost Netflix’s engagement, said Alejandro Rojas, vice president of applied analytics at Parrot Analytics.

“The new season is like a catalyst for people to watch the previous seasons,” Rojas said.

On the theatrical side, Netflix also has high hopes for upcoming movies including La Bola Negra, starring Penelope Cruz; and “The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth” featuring Brad Pitt. Next year, Netflix will release the Greta Gerwig-directed film, “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew” on Imax screens.

Netflix has not signaled any changes to its strategy for releasing movies or TV shows. But some analysts said it could benefit from having more theatrical releases and by dropping episodes of shows once a week, instead of all at once, to generate more buzz for programs. They also expect that Netflix will be more disciplined in its content spending.

“While the company will expand its sports roles, it’s cutting back at a time when revenue matters much more than subscriber additions,” said Benes of Emarketer. “With pressure mounting, Netflix will look to turn the tide by getting a boost from low-cost content. The battle for top creators will become more pitched.”

Times staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

IF Leonardo DiCaprio, a man who seems to have dated half the Victoria’s Secret catalogue, can’t whip his shirt off on a Hawaiian beach without critics likening him to a beached whale, what hope is there for the rest of us blokes?

The recent photos of Leo catching some rays sparked a frenzy of online trolling, with keyboard warriors gleefully pointing out that the actor – shock horror – no longer possesses the boyish physique he sported 30 years ago on the bow of the Titanic.

Apparently, we are now fair game and it’s open season on the male waistline. 

Leo’s holiday flab, the internet decided, was public property, ripe for mockery. 

They disparagingly call it the “Dad Bod” – even though Leo, as far as we know, has yet to produce any sprogs. 

It’s a term delivered with a patronising smirk, conjuring images of a bloke whose primary exercise consists of walking to the fridge between repeats of Top Gear.

But let’s pause for a second and reverse it. Would any sane person ever dream of pointing a camera at a woman on a beach and laughing at her “Mum Bod”?

You’d be cancelled in an instant with feminists queuing up to condemn you. 

Yet, when it comes to blokes, it seems the rules against bodyshaming don’t apply. 

Now, I’ll acknowledge the elephant in the room, women have put up with relentless, toxic body scrutiny for decades. 

But it’s the women in my life who have been most gleeful when scrutinising poor Leo.

It’s only fair they argue, after all 51-year-old Leo isn’t shy at letting his own preferences be known, dating a string of twenty-somethings who look like they’ve never consumed a carb in their short lives.

But underneath the jokes about Leo’s paunch, there is a serious side to all of this.

The pressure to look like a muscle bound Marvel actor is driving ordinary blokes to desperate measures – and contributing to poor male mental health.

Gym memberships are skyrocketing, not just because men suddenly care about their cardiovascular health, but because they are chasing the Hollywood aesthetic.

We are witnessing an epidemic of normal blokes turning to unregulated peptides and sometimes illegal supplements, desperately trying to keep up with the unachievable, steroid-assisted standards plastered across their Instagram feeds.

I’ll hold my hands up and confess I am one of the millions who has tried the fat jabs.

After years of miserable yo-yo dieting, I would always end exactly back where I started, so I finally caved and got on the Mounjaro.

The pharmaceutical quick fix certainly worked, helping me to lose a couple of stone within six months despite the dreaded side effects.

But despite my smaller frame – and annoyingly pricey new wardrobe to match – I still have to contend with the toxic pressure of the perfect body burrowed in my own brain.

And I’m far from the only one. Just look at the male celebs who are supposedly at the top of the food chain. 

Pop icon Robbie Williams has been open about his own torturous battle with his weight and his use of fat jabs, telling fans: “I could write a book about self loathing where my body image is concerned, like pure self hatred.

“The struggle is real. The sadness is shocking. I’ve had it all my life. And it won’t abate.”

James Corden has faced abuse from those obsessed with his waistline, even channelling his frustration with the industry into Nessa and Smith’s love story in Gavin & Stacey. 

He once said: “If an alien came back and they had to take a reading on planet Earth by just watching films or TV, they would imagine that if you are chubby or fat or big, you never really fall in love, you never have sex. Certainly no-one really ever finds you attractive.”

Even the supposed “hunks” are miserable. While Jason Momoa has shrugged off “Dad Bod” criticism, Zac Efron has spoken out about the severe dehydration and “pretty bad depression” he suffered to get his Baywatch body.

While Chris Pratt had to ditch his Parks & Rec “dad bod” to break Hollywood as the ripped Star-Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy.

But then found himself criticised for being too thin, forcing him to warn critics to back off: “Just because I am a male doesn’t mean I’m impervious to your whispers. Body shaming hurts.”

So it’s little wonder that the next generation of young men are endlessly preening themselves in the mirror. 

They call it looksmaxxing, a dystopian online cult where young lads obsess over every facet of their appearance to fit a very specific alien-like visage.

We have genuinely reached a point where an influencer known as Clavicular, literally smacks himself in the face with a hammer in a bid to attempt to reshape his jawline, and is watched in this mindboggling process by millions of impressionable youngsters. 

We have created a world where teenage boys are learning that blunt-force facial trauma is preferable to looking like a normal human being.

It’s time to call time on the madness.

If the price of a Hollywood physique is a lifetime of misery, macros counting, and taking a hammer to your own cheekbones, you can count me out.

Let’s leave Leo to enjoy his Hawaiian holiday in peace, and please give us blokes a bloody break too.

The Tom Cruise-led “Digger” is poised for a massive loss after ticket sales for the political satire fell 60% in its second weekend in theaters in the U.S. and Canada.

The Warner Bros. film made just $3.2 million in those theaters over the weekend, according to a studio estimate. Its opening weekend brought in $8 million, Cruise’s lowest opening as a leading man since 2007’s “Lions for Lambs.” Global ticket sales for “Digger” were only $35.3 million.

The tepid box-office returns mean the studio is now expected to lose at least $150 million on the film, including ancillary revenue streams such as premium video-on-demand and streaming, industry sources said. Historically, a film has typically needed to make 2½ to three times its budget to recoup its costs.

A Warner Bros. spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s a tough result for the film, which stars Cruise as an aging oil tycoon whose company sets off an environmental catastrophe. Analysts have said that the film was challenging to market, given a major twist in the plot, and that Cruise’s nearly unrecognizable appearance could have dissuaded his fan base from coming out to support the film.

The film suffered from polarizing critical reviews, notching a 53% on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Opening-night audiences gave it a C+ on CinemaScore, a grade that typically points to weak word of mouth and steep drops in the weeks that follow.

The budget for “Digger” raised the stakes. Warner Bros. has said the film cost $125 million to produce, though some industry experts and trade reports have estimated the cost was at least $160 million, citing production delays.

That figure also doesn’t include marketing costs, which sources said could have increased in the days after the film’s opening since Warner Bros. began using the divided reviews in social media and TV ads to encourage people to see the film for themselves.

The film will have value to Warner Bros. — and Skydance, the newly combined company that now owns it — beyond its theatrical reception. “Digger” probably will make money through downstream revenue sources such as streaming. If Cruise wins his first competitive Oscar, that also would be a plus for the film.

But a film’s domestic reception, and to some extent, its international box office revenue, does play a role in the value of those downstream revenue opportunities, experts said.

“Even with respectable ancillary income based on the film’s pedigree, the movie is going to lose a lot of money,” David A. Gross wrote in his FranchiseRe movie industry newsletter shortly after the film’s opening.

The reception for “Digger” comes during a tough time for Warner Bros.

The film opened Oct. 2, the same day the studio’s film chiefs, Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy, departed. Four days later, Paramount completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, and the combined company took the name Skydance.

The studio has had a string of disappointments this year, including Maggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!” and DC Studios’ “Supergirl.” None of its 2026 releases has crossed $100 million at the domestic box office.

But the prospects for Warner Bros. should improve next year, according to the research and brokerage firm Bernstein. Skydance has said it will keep the Warner Bros. and Paramount studios distinct, though Paramount Pictures chiefs Dana Goldberg and Josh Greenstein are expected to oversee both. Bernstein expects the Warner Bros. film and TV studios to amass $11.7 billion in revenue, driven by strong titles that include the sequel to “Minecraft” and a new “Lord of the Rings” movie.

Oct. 9, 2026 11:08 AM PT

David Zaslav, the longtime TV executive who created Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. but ultimately failed to keep it going as an independent company, made about $600 million on the sale of the business to Paramount Skydance Corp. this week.

Much of Zaslav’s compensation came in the form of stock options. Warner Bros. stockholders received $31 a share in cash in the sale, a nearly 25% increase from when the stock first began trading in April of 2022. The Standard & Poor’s 500 rose 76% over that period.

Many other Warner executives received large paydays, including streaming boss JB Perrette and strategy chief Bruce Campbell. A spokesperson said Zaslav doubled the number of employees overall who received stock awards.

The new company, now called Skydance Corp. and led by technology scion David Ellison, is one of the largest media businesses in the world, comprising the century-old Paramount and Warner Bros. movie studios, dozens of TV networks, like CBS and CNN, as well as the Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services.

Christopher Palmeri and Dylan Sloan report for Bloomberg.

David Ellison emerged with his prized Hollywood juggernaut Tuesday as the merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery officially closed.

The $111-billion transaction culminated a year-long battle by the 43-year-old tech scion to add Warner Bros. Discovery to his family’s growing portfolio.

The Ellison family now controls one of the largest traditional media companies ever formed, with HBO, CNN, CBS, Comedy Central, TBS, Food Network, two traditional Hollywood studios and two major streaming services.

Shares of the new company began trading under the ticker SKYD, a switch from last week when the company went by PSKY for Paramount Skydance. Ellison has called the merged company, Skydance, the name he selected two decades ago when he began building his Hollywood studio.

This is a developing story.