Entertainment

The holiday season is Hallmark’s Super Bowl.

This year alone, Hallmark has 80 hours of original holiday-themed programming, including two unscripted series, two scripted series, a holiday special and 24 movies with titles such as “The Snow Must Go On” and “Christmas at the Catnip Cafe” that run from mid-October to Christmas.

The company also has branched out into the experiences business with a Hallmark Christmas Cruise and the Hallmark Christmas Experience festival in Kansas City, Mo., where the company is based.

“I think that’s one of the most brilliant business decisions they’ve made, and they’re expanding there because they have to,” Anjali Bal, associate professor of marketing at Babson College, said of Hallmark’s experiences business. “It allows a connection between the consumer and the brand on a direct level in a way a movie can’t provide.”

It may seem like a far cry from Hallmark’s roots as a greeting card purveyor, but company executives say the holiday feelings evoked by its cards, ornaments and gift wrap translate into the type of content they produce.

And that plethora of content has turned Hallmark into a Christmas juggernaut, fueling competitors such as Lifetime and Netflix, which also produce holiday romantic comedies in the vein of Hallmark movies.

But Darren Abbott, Hallmark’s chief brand officer, doesn’t seem overly concerned.

“There’s a reason everyone else is trying to do this, and it’s because consumers are looking for this,” he said.

Hallmark’s legacy is rooted in celebrating holidays and Christmas, he said, “and no other business or brand has that.”

Countdown to Christmas

Founded in 1910 by an 18-year-old entrepreneur hawking postcards, Hallmark built its brand over the years through cards, holiday ornaments and retail stores.

The family-owned business ventured into entertainment in 1951 with the television presentation Hallmark Hall of Fame. Today, Studio City-based Hallmark Media operates three cable networks, including the Hallmark Channel, which debuted in 2001, as well as a subscription streaming service.

Though Hallmark had aired holiday movies practically since the inception of its cable channel, the company doubled down on the season in 2009, rolling out “Countdown to Christmas,” a 24-hour-a-day programming block focused solely on holiday content, a tradition that has lasted for 16 years.

Hallmark produces about 100 movies a year, both holiday and non-holiday films.

As a privately-held company, Hallmark did not disclose its finances, though executives acknowledge the holiday season is a key driver of entertainment revenue.

The expansion into entertainment is a way for Hallmark to stay in the zeitgeist over multiple generations and to diversify its business beyond just cards and retail products, analysts said.

“Their television stations and experiences business allows them to stay culturally relevant while staying true to their origin,” said Bal, the marketing professor.

Holiday programming — and the breezy, romantic fare Hallmark has become known for — has become increasingly popular with audiences.

Holiday features, both old movies and new, typically make up more than a third of total movie viewing time in December, according to U.S. television data from Nielsen. That percentage has remained fairly consistent for the last three years, though it reached 42% in December 2021.

Hallmark’s television viewership also edges up in the months leading into the holidays. In October, Hallmark commanded 1% of total viewership across linear TV and streaming, ticking up to 1.2% in November, according to Nielsen data. During that same time, competitor A&E, which owns Lifetime, remained constant at 0.9%.

Hallmark’s feel-good movies typically resonate with audiences across the country. They invariably conclude with happy endings (and at least one kiss), where romantic misunderstandings, financial difficulties and family drama all get resolved. After years of criticism, the movies’ casts and plot lines are diversifying, though experts say there is still room for improvement.

“These films are designed to be highly appealing to broad audiences,” said Kit Hughes, associate professor of film and media studies at Colorado State University, who watched every single Hallmark film released in 2022 for research on the portrayal of small business owners. “They’re good consensus movies.”

To grow its audience and the types of stories it tells, Hallmark has increasingly turned to brand partnerships, including with the NFL.

Last year, the company released a movie centered around a Kansas City Chiefs romance; this year, it released one about Buffalo Bills fans. Hallmark also has a partnership with Walt Disney Co. to release a holiday movie next year set at Walt Disney World. The film stars Lacey Chabert, who Abbott describes as Hallmark’s “Queen of Christmas.”

Meeting Hallmark stars on cruise ships

Hallmark’s foray into the cruise business might seem odd, but it follows a long tradition of entertainment companies
creating real-world experiences with their fans, whether that’s on a ship, in a theme park or on a stage. As part of its massive tourism business, Disney operates its own line of cruise ships that promote the company’s classic characters.

Hallmark launched its first “Hallmark Christmas Cruise” last year on Norwegian Cruise Lines. The inaugural cruise from Miami to the Bahamas sold out even before a planned TV marketing campaign. After racking up a wait list of 70,000 people, Hallmark had to add a second cruise, Abbott said.

For this year’s cruise, from Miami to Cozumel, Mexico, Hallmark had to book a bigger ship to accommodate demand. During the November cruise, attendees participated in various Christmas festivities, such as ornament-making workshops and cookie-decorating, and mingled with Hallmark stars in various on-stage games.

The cruises even spawned an unscripted Hallmark show focused on the experiences of several attendees and their interactions with Hallmark actors.

Many are not exactly household names, but they’ve starred in dozens of Hallmark holiday movies over the years and have loyal fan bases.

Abbott joined the cruise last year, and while he’s not a “cruise person,” he said he was fascinated to see how guests interacted with the stars.

“We’re a bit of a respite from what’s going on in the world right now,” he said, “and these experiences sort of hit on that at the right time and the right place.”

New Delhi, India – A newly released Bollywood spy thriller is winning praise and raising eyebrows in equal measure in India and Pakistan, over its retelling of bitter tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

Sunk in a sepia tone, Dhurandhar, which was released in cinemas last week, is a 3.5-hour-long cross-border political spy drama that takes cinemagoers on a violent and bloody journey through a world of gangsters and intelligence agents set against the backdrop of India-Pakistan tensions. It comes just months after hostilities broke out between the two countries in May, following a rebel attack on a popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India blamed Pakistan for. Islamabad has denied role in the attack.

Since the partition of India to create Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought four wars, three of them over the disputed region of Kashmir.

The film stars the popular actor Ranveer Singh, who plays an Indian spy who infiltrates networks of “gangsters and terrorists” in Karachi, Pakistan. Critics of the film argue that its storyline is laced with ultra-nationalist political tropes and that it misrepresents history, an emerging trend in Bollywood, they say.

What is the latest Bollywood blockbuster about?

Directed by Aditya Dhar, the film dramatises a covert chapter from the annals of Indian intelligence. The narrative centres on a high-stakes, cross-border mission carried out by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), and focuses on one operative who conducts operations on enemy soil to neutralise threats to Indian national security.

The film features a heavyweight ensemble cast led by Singh, who plays the gritty field agent tasked with dismantling a “terror” network from the inside. He is pitted against a formidable antagonist played by Sanjay Dutt, representing the Pakistani establishment, and gangsters such as one portrayed by Akshaye Khanna, while actors including R Madhavan portray key intelligence officers and strategists who orchestrate complex geopolitical manoeuvering from New Delhi.

Structurally, the screenplay follows a classic cat-and-mouse trajectory.

Beneath its high-octane set pieces, the film has sparked an angry debate among critics and audiences over the interpretation of historical events and some key figures.

Why is the film so controversial in Pakistan?

Despite the longstanding geopolitical tensions between the two countries, India’s Bollywood films remain popular in Pakistan.

Depicting Pakistan as the ultimate enemy of India has been a popular theme retold for years, in different ways, especially in Bollywood’s spy thrillers, however. In this case, the portrayal of Pakistan’s major coastal city, Karachi, and particularly one of its oldest and most densely populated neighbourhoods, Lyari, has drawn strong criticism.

“The representation in the film is completely based on fantasy. It doesn’t look like Karachi. 
It does not represent the city accurately at all,” Nida Kirmani, an associate professor of sociology at Lahore University of Management Sciences, told Al Jazeera.

Kirmani, who has produced a documentary on the impact of gang violence in Lyari of her own, said that like other megacities in the world, “Karachi had periods of violence that have been particularly intense.”

However, “reducing the city to violence is one of the major problems in the film, along with the fact the film gets everything about Karachi – from its infrastructure, culture, and language – wrong”, she added.

Meanwhile, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has taken legal action in a Karachi court alleging the unauthorised use of images of the late former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007, and protesting against the film’s portrayal of the party’s leaders as supporters of “terrorists”.

Critics, including Kirmani, say the film also bizarrely casts gangs from Lyari into geopolitical tensions with India, when they have only ever operated locally.

Kirmani said the makers of the movie have cherry-picked historical figures and used them completely out of context, “trying to frame them within this very Indian nationalistic narrative”.

Mayank Shekhar, a film critic based in Mumbai, pointed out that the film “has been performed, written, directed by those who haven’t ever stepped foot in Karachi, and perhaps never will”.

“So, never mind this dust bowl for a city that, by and large, seems wholly bereft of a single modern building, and looks mostly bombed-out, between multiple ghettos,” Shekhar said.

He added that this is also in line with how Hollywood “shows the brown Third World in action with a certain sepia tone, like with Extraction, set in Dhaka, Bangladesh”.

How has the film been received in India?

Dhurandhar has been a huge commercial success in India and among the Indian diaspora. However, it has not escaped criticism entirely.

The family of a decorated Indian Army officer, Major Mohit Sharma, filed a petition in Delhi High Court to stop the release of the film, which, they claim, has exploited his life and work without their consent.

The makers of the film deny this and claim it is entirely a work of fiction.

Nonetheless, the film’s storyline is accompanied by real-time intercepted audio recordings of attacks on Indian soil and news footage, film critics and analysts say.

Is this an emerging pattern in Bollywood films?

Shekhar told Al Jazeera that focusing on a deliberately loud, seemingly over-the-top, hyper-masculine hero’s journey is not a new genre in Bollywood. “There’s a tendency to intellectualise the trend, as we did with the ‘angry young man’ movies of the 1970s,” he said, referring to the formative years of Bollywood.

In recent years, mainstream production houses in India have, however, favoured storylines that portray minorities in negative light and align with the policies of the Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Kirmani told Al Jazeera that this frequently means “reducing Muslims across India’s borders and within as ‘terrorists’, which further marginalises Muslims in India culturally”.

“Unfortunately, people gravitate towards these kinds of hypernationalistic narratives, and the director is cashing in on this,” she told Al Jazeera.

Modi himself lavished praise on a recent film called Article 370, for what he said was its “correct information” about the removal of the constitutional provision that granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. Critics, however, called the film “propaganda” and said the film had distorted facts.

Another Bollywood film Kerala Story released in 2023 was accused of falsifying facts. Prime Minister Modi praised the film, but critics said it tried to vilify Muslims and demonise the southern Kerala state known for its progressive politics.

In the case of Dhurandhar, some critics have faced online harassment.

One review by The Hollywood Reporter’s India YouTube channel, by critic Anupama Chopra, was taken down after outrage from fans of the film.

Went looking for Anupama Chopra’s Dhurandhar review? It’s gone. The Hollywood Reporter India quietly made the video private.

For context, The Hollywood Reporter India was launched by RPSG Lifestyle Media, part of the RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group, which also owns Saregama –…

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) December 9, 2025

India’s Film Critics Guild has condemned “coordinated abuse, personal attacks on individual critics, and organised attempts to discredit their professional integrity”, in a statement.

“More concerningly, there have been attempts to tamper with existing reviews, influence editorial positions, and persuade publications to alter or dilute their stance,” the group noted.

For more than a century, Warner Bros has been one of Hollywood’s biggest players, a legacy studio that helped define the Golden Age of cinema with iconic blockbuster movies. Now, it’s at the centre of a contentious, billion-dollar bidding war between Netflix, the world’s leading streaming platform, and Paramount Skydance, owned by the powerful Ellison family, which has close ties to President Trump.

Whichever way this goes, the outcome isn’t looking great.

Contributors:
Matt Craig – Reporter, Forbes
Daheli Hall – Writer and director
Lee Hepner – Antitrust lawyer
Dominic Patten – Executive editor, Deadline

On our radar

This week, Australia became the first country in the world to impose a social media ban for children less than the age of 16. The Australian government says it is taking on Big Tech and safeguarding children, but some young people were able to quickly bypass the new rules. Ryan Kohls reports.

The Imran Khan rumour mill

Despite being in jail for more than two years, Imran Khan continues to occupy airtime in Pakistan. After the army restricted access to Khan, rumours of his death ricocheted across social media.  Pressure from his supporters and family forced the military to lift the restrictions and grant Khan’s sisters access to speak to him. Meenakshi Ravi reports on the showdown between Imran Khan and powerful Field Marshal Asim Munir, and what it reveals about power, politics and narrative control in Pakistan.

Featuring: 
Amber Rahim Shamsi – Pakistan Editor, Nukta
Moeed Pirzada – Political YouTuber
Mohammed Hanif – Author and journalist

What Happened

Netflix has announced a proposed $72 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery, aiming to absorb HBO Max and consolidate a subscriber base of 428 million. To justify the massive scale, Netflix argues it needs this merger to compete effectively with YouTube, which Nielsen ranks as America’s most-watched TV platform. However, antitrust experts and former regulators are deeply skeptical, noting that YouTube’s model built on user-generated content, influencers, and advertising, differs fundamentally from Netflix’s premium, scripted, subscription-based ecosystem. The Department of Justice and global regulators are expected to scrutinize the deal closely, particularly Netflix’s claim that it competes in the same market as YouTube.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just another media merger, it’s a defining test for how regulators view competition in the digital entertainment era. If accepted, Netflix’s “YouTube as rival” argument could set a precedent allowing giant streaming platforms to consolidate further by defining their market extremely broadly. The deal would give Netflix unprecedented control over both premium original content and major legacy film/TV libraries, potentially allowing it to dominate pricing and distribution in the paid streaming sector. How regulators respond will signal whether antitrust enforcement can keep pace with the evolving, platform-driven media landscape.

Critical Analysis

Netflix’s YouTube argument faces several critical weaknesses. First, content and business models are fundamentally different: Netflix invests billions in exclusive, scripted originals and operates on a subscription-first model, while YouTube monetizes user-generated videos through ads and creator partnerships. Second, historical precedent works against Netflix: regulators have repeatedly rejected broad market definitions in favor of specific “sub-markets” (e.g., “premium natural supermarkets” in the Whole Foods case), and internal company documents often reveal how firms really view their competition.

Third, new merger review rules will force Netflix to turn over internal strategic documents early, which could undermine its public claims if those materials don’t mention YouTube as a primary competitor. Finally, Netflix’s claim that bundling will lower prices for consumers is viewed with extreme skepticism by regulators, who often see such promises as unenforceable and worry more about price hikes for non-bundled users.

Conclusion

Netflix faces an uphill battle to convince regulators that swallowing Warner Bros Discovery is necessary to compete with YouTube. The DOJ is likely to define the relevant market narrowly, around premium, subscription-based streaming, where the combined entity would hold overwhelming share and pricing power. Unless Netflix can produce compelling internal evidence that it genuinely views YouTube as a direct competitor for the same viewer time and dollars, this deal is at high risk of being challenged or blocked. The outcome will not only shape the future of streaming consolidation but also test the boundaries of modern antitrust logic in a platform-dominated world.

This briefing is based on information from Reuters.