company

It took months of effort, lobbying and mounds of cash for Paramount Skydance to finally clinch its prize of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Now, however, the David Ellison-led company faces a long and challenging road to merge these two media giants and set it up for a successful future.

Key to that will be striking a delicate balancing act between investment and paying down its debt load of $79 billion, which is massive even by Hollywood standards.

Notably, the figure is even greater than Warner’s nearly $55 billion of debt post-merger with Discovery, a burden that hamstrung the company for years and led to successive rounds of layoffs and relentless cost cutting.

Last week, my colleague Meg James wrote about the concerns Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings have about Paramount’s credit, given the mountain of debt the company will now carry. Fitch downgraded its credit to BB+ — “junk” territory — from BBB-, and S&P Global Ratings placed the company’s ratings on “negative watch.”

Carrying that amount of debt comes with significant risks.

For one, a company with a lot of debt that is “junk”-rated is going to be under pressure to cut costs. “Junk status” means a company’s debt is rated below the level that credit agencies consider investment grade. Such a rating means it can be more expensive to refinance or take out new loans, raising the cost of capital.

Paramount executives have already said they plan to find $6 billion in “synergies” within three years, though they’ve emphasized that the majority of their cost cutting will come from “non-labor sources,” including consolidating their streaming technology and cloud providers, combining IT systems across the company and “optimizing the combined real estate footprint and the broader corporate overhead,” among other ideas.

And as I wrote last week, most Hollywood observers and those familiar with Ellison’s plans predict that Paramount will be forced make steep layoffs to offset the cost of the deal and eliminate overlapping roles and functions between the two historic studios.

At the same time, in order to compete with well-funded rivals, Paramount-Warner Bros. will also need to invest in new programming — something that can be difficult for a heavily leveraged business .

Paramount executives have said their cost-cutting efforts won’t include a reduction in production capacity, and Ellison has reiterated that there will be continued spending on programming. Beyond content, he’ll also likely need to invest in improving the technology along with the look and feel of the streaming platforms.

“Whether or not they have the capital to do all of that and to try to get their leverage down is something I’m curious to hear about,” said Naveen Sarma of S&P Global Ratings.

It’s possible that Paramount may not be able to pursue a good opportunity in the future because it has used up all its debt capacity and can’t raise additional financing, said Kelly Shue, a professor of finance at Yale School of Management.

“It might cause them to underinvest in good projects in the future,” she said.

And the company needs to spend on good projects.

The economics of this deal hinge on the combined heft of Paramount and Warner’s two libraries and valuable intellectual property, which will unite Harry Potter, DC Studios, SpongeBob SquarePants and “Mission Impossible” all under one roof.

Building up its streaming platform, which will combine Paramount+ with HBO Max, is important for competing with the behemoth Netflix, which bowed out of the Warner Bros. auction.

And on the theatrical side, Ellison has said the combined company will release 30 films a year — 15 from each studio. That would be a substantial increase from 2025, when the two companies released 18 films — eight at Paramount and 10 from Warner Bros.

“While studios content budgets might not come under immediate focus for cost cutting, we have a hard time seeing no content costs savings considering opportunities to reallocate or pull back from at least the linear networks,” MoffettNathanson’s Robert Fishman wrote in a note to clients last week.

Of course, all of this would come only after the deal’s completion. On the immediate horizon, Paramount needs to secure international regulatory approval as well as at home. Although state attorneys general including Rob Bonta of California have said this is not a “done deal,” most analysts expect that any opposition there is only likely to slow — not stop — the transaction.

A very masculine year in film

A recent study from San Diego State University put a number on something we all suspected: The percentage of female protagonists in the top 100 films last year dropped. A lot.

Female protagonists made up just 29% of the top-grossing films in 2025, down from 42% in 2024, according to the university’s annual study of women’s representation in top films. A selection of film titles from the last year says it all: “The Running Man,” “A Working Man,” “Superman.”

That 29% figure has, unfortunately, been very consistent over the years — it was the same in 2016 and has largely hovered in the range of high 20s to low 30s for the last decade, with a few exceptions (40% in 2019 and 42% in 2024).

Focusing on just the protagonists in the top 100 films means that small fluctuations can change that percentage greatly.

But when the study looked at a broader sample size of the more than 1,900 characters in those films, the results weren’t much better.

The percentage of women in speaking roles was 38%, up just 1% from 2024. And the percentage of major female characters declined to 36% in 2025 from 39% the year before.

The fact that these figures have not moved much, in spite of the countless panels and think pieces about the issue, suggests there isn’t much will in Hollywood to change, said Martha Lauzen, author of the study and founder and executive director of San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film.

“Representation is social relevancy and social capital,” she told me. “So when you see fewer women than men, that’s a message.”

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Hoppers” came in big at the box office this weekend with a $46-million opening in the U.S. and Canada — the strongest domestic debut for an original animated movie since “Coco” in 2017. Globally, the film made $88 million.

The reception is an encouraging sign for original animated movies, which have largely struggled at the box office since the COVID-19 pandemic while their sequel counterparts have shined.

What I’m watching

Several months ago, some friends and I started a movie club, where we each nominate a film we want to watch and we rotate who gets to make the final selection. Last week, we watched the 1996 comedy “First Wives Club,” which I had never seen but loved for its goofy antics, unexpected song-and-dance number and the focus on the enduring power of female friendships.

As Hollywood writers continue contract negotiations with major studios, one topic remains front and center: the role of artificial intelligence.

On Friday, the Writers Guild of America released a list of contract demands, which 97% of the union membership supports. Though some details have yet to be revealed, many of the union’s asks involve expanding protections over the use and abuse of AI, in addition to improved health coverage and higher residuals.

AI and streaming residuals were central issues in strikes by actors and writers in 2023.

WGA’s current contract, which expires May 1, established that AI isn’t a writer and nothing it produces is considered literary material. It prohibits companies from giving writers AI-generated scripts for a rewrite fee or requiring writers to use AI software, and a company must disclose whether any written materials were developed using AI.

The union says its current demand is to simply “expand” these protections. Other priorities include increasing contributions to the WGA benefit plans, raising minimums for “page one” rewrites and boosting streaming residuals.

The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists has identified similar issues as it negotiates a new contract for actors. Last week, SAG-AFTRA and the bargaining group for the major studios disclosed that they are extending their negotiations for seven days. The discussions began Feb. 9.

The union, whose contract expires June 30, is expected to propose what has been called the Tilly tax, a fee that studios would have to pay to the union in exchange for using an AI actor. This demand is in response to the first AI actor, Tilly Norwood, being introduced to Hollywood. Though the bot has yet to star in a major project, the fear of AI-generated characters taking jobs is real for many actors. The bot’s creator, Xicoia, also recently announced the expansion of its AI actor universe, called the “Tillyverse.”

WGA’s negotiations are set to start Monday and will be led by Ellen Stutzman. The studios will be represented by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers’ new president, Gregory Hessinger.

The negotiations are happening as WGA West’s own staff members have been on strike, forcing the guild to call off its L.A.-based award show. The staff union, with more than 100 employees, are similarly demanding higher pay and protections against AI.

Live Nation has reached a settlement with the Justice Department in an antitrust case that put the entertainment giant at risk of being separated from Ticketmaster.

The ticket vendor’s settlement offer was announced, in a court hearing on Monday, less than a week after the long-awaited trial began. With pending approval from the judge, Live Nation will have to pay damages to the suing states and allow competitors to sell tickets on its platform. Media reports have said the company agreed to pay more than $200 million as part of the settlement.

The settlement caught Judge Arun Subramanian off guard. He said no one informed him of the tentative deal until late Sunday, even though a term sheet for a possible settlement was signed on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

A 12-person jury was seated last Tuesday in a Manhattan federal courthouse and the trial had reached witness testimony by the end of last week. The complaint was filed in 2024, when the federal government, 39 states including California and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.

Live Nation could not immediately be reached for a comment.

Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers. But the new settlement offers major structural changes to the company’s ticketing services.

If the trial judge approves the settlement, the Beverly Hills-based company will have to open parts of its platform to rival ticketing operators. This means third-party sellers like SeatGeek could list tickets and have access to Ticketmaster’s technology.

Another key claim in the lawsuit concerned Ticketmaster’s alleged exclusivity contracts, which required artists who booked Live Nation-owned venues to also use its ticketing services. The settlement now limits these contracts to four years and allows venues to place a number of its tickets on competing platforms.

The original lawsuit also argued that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America — all while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and is increasing its involvement in the resale market. Under the pending legal agreement, Live Nation would have to divest more than 10 of its venues and Ticketmaster would also have to cap service fees at 15%.

Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said this outcome can be understood in two ways — it’s either a win that addresses anti-competitive behaviors or a deal that does not go far enough.

“It is important to understand that it is not illegal to be a monopoly and control a large portion of the market,” said Elton in a statement. “What is illegal is the use of anti-competitive tactics. In analyzing the settlement, the question to ask is if it does enough to address the alleged tactics and the harm they may have caused.”

Elton added that venues could benefit from these adjustments, but “music fans should not think this is going to bring ticket prices down to an affordable level as there are other causes behind the sky-high ticket prices.”

Stephen Parker, the executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, similarly expressed some skepticism about the potential settlement.

“The reported settlement does not appear to include any specific and explicit protections for fans, artists, or independent venues and festivals,” he said in a statement.

“Reported details also indicate that ticket resale platforms could be further empowered through new requirements for Ticketmaster to host their listings, which would likely exacerbate the price gouging potential for predatory resellers and the platforms that serve them,” Parker added . “If these facts are true, NIVA views this as a failure of the justice system.”

A settlement could mark the potential end to one of the major legal battles Live Nation is facing. The company is also being sued by the Federal Trade Commission and is dealing with a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.

After the news of the settlement broke, Live Nation’s stock jumped over 5% to $164.03.