Connect with us

Business

Paramount’s Delrahim slams ‘fear-mongering’ and partisan politics clouding Warner Bros. deal

Published

on

Paramount’s Delrahim slams ‘fear-mongering’ and partisan politics clouding Warner Bros. deal

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has been circling the globe, meeting government regulators who will ultimately decide the fate of his controversial $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Last week, Ellison spent two hours answering questions from U.S. Justice Department antitrust lawyers in a bid to secure a key government approval — one that few people believe is in doubt because of President Trump’s strong support of tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his son’s ambitions to amass more power.

Throughout his travels, David Ellison has been accompanied by a savvy wingman: Makan Delrahim.

Delrahim, Paramount’s chief legal officer, served as the nation’s top antitrust regulator in the Justice Department during Trump’s first term. The 56-year-old Iranian American, who grew up in Los Angeles, is the architect of shrewd moves that have brought Paramount within reach of its blockbuster merger that would redefine Hollywood.

Politics have permeated the process — even before Trump announced he would get involved. Opponents have been suspicious of the Ellisons, given the family’s ties to Trump and programming changes to redefine Paramount’s CBS, including last month’s departure of late-night comedian Stephen Colbert and a shakeup at “60 Minutes,” CBS’ newsmagazine.

Advertisement

Buying Warner Bros. Discovery would give the Ellisons control of both CBS News and CNN.

Paramount’s bid for Warner Bros. has sparked dread in Hollywood for another reason, too: Thousands of jobs already have vanished through a string of media mergers.

More than 5,000 artists and entertainment industry workers have signed an open letter, calling on California Atty. General Rob Bonta to try to block the deal on antitrust grounds.

In an interview with The Times, Delrahim responded to concerns and criticisms. This interview has been edited for length and clarity:

Where does the regulatory process stand?

Advertisement

We are still going through the regulatory approval process. We actually started planning for the regulatory approval filings last summer. We knew we were going to be pursuing this transaction but it took a few months longer to sign the transaction than we thought. There were some interveners [Netflix, Comcast], but we planned ahead.

Do you have a commitment from Trump or his administration that you’ll get a thumbs up?

There are no deals with the president. We have a deal with the Warner Bros. shareholders. We’ve submitted [applications] to the governments of Europe, Canada, U.K. and the U.S., and that’s where it is.

You got a head-start because you filed a regulatory approval in December — months before Paramount had a deal with Warner. Why so soon?

We were always very skeptical [the Netflix deal] would ever go through. The only way to really show the [Warner] board that our deal would get through — because it doesn’t have antitrust problems — was to move as fast as we could.

Advertisement

One of the benefits being a former [DOJ] enforcer and having a team of outside lawyers who are also former colleagues and enforcers was that we anticipated what the government would ask for. Those were questions that we would have asked, and so we provided those answers.

Your timeline is aggressive. Some suggest Paramount wants this deal done before the mid-term elections.

I don’t think it’s aggressive. It has nothing to do with the midterms. The midterms do not change the officials at the Justice Department or the FCC — we have that minor application there. The midterms have no effect on the European Commission or anybody else. We’ve been very transparent and proactive with members of Congress and with the state attorneys general and the federal authorities.

Are you preparing to defend a potential antitrust challenge from Atty. General Bonta?

Well, no matter what field you’re in, whether it’s antitrust or whether you’re preparing for a football game, you always prepare the best you can for the worst, and you hope it never gets there. So, we’re preparing for challenges from anybody and everybody. But I don’t think any serious antitrust enforcer who looks at the facts, the law, the economics of this transaction will see an antitrust violation.

Advertisement

Why are you so confident?

There’s no element of this merger that is anti-competitive. Once you look at it, it’s incredibly pro-competitive. It increases output, it increases jobs, and it lowers the cost to the consumers. If you actually try to block this deal, you’re going to harm consumers, you’re going to harm creative talent, because you’re going to harm the creative ecosystem — the vision that David [Ellison] is trying to deploy here. It’s transformative from the efficiencies that it creates.

David Ellison has promised to release 30 films a year. Was that commitment to show that this merger will not be a repeat of Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 purchase of Fox?

I’m quite familiar with that one because I was at the Justice Department and reviewed it. Disney-Fox was a transaction with a different thesis. Disney wanted to get into streaming and they wanted to get scripted series. It wasn’t about studios trying to increase output.

Our transaction, as David has described, is motivated to create more content to feed the theaters, then streaming. We have a natural economic incentive to create more content. We’ll still be in fourth place after this transaction on the streaming side — almost half the size of Netflix.

Advertisement

David Ellison hasn’t made any commitments on the television side or pledged pledge to keep the various TV studios intact. Why?

I don’t think there’s much of an overlap on the television studios. Look, you have incredible studios in HBO, Warner Bros. Television, certainly our own studio. We’re not paying money to limit supply. It’s the exact opposite.

There is overlap between CBS News and CNN. How are regulators looking at that issue?

We’re very proud of CBS News and hopefully CNN, post-transaction. There is very limited overlap. Why? Because CBS News only airs a few hours a week of programming whereas CNN is 24/7, and it has international reach.

Antitrust regulators are going to see that it’s going to create synergistic effects. You might be able to cross-program and more people will be exposed to the incredible programming of CBS News. They’ll benefit from each other’s independent strengths.

Advertisement

During the first Trump administration, you said merger conditions were problematic because it’s difficult for the government to enforce behavioral remedies. Has your thinking changed?

No, I’ve been quite consistent. If there’s an antitrust problem, you need a divestiture [selling assets]. I don’t think there’s a remedy needed in this transaction. But having said that, we’re happy to engage with regulators to discuss where they see a problem and a possible solution. We’re always wanting to engage in constructive dialogue.

Would Paramount spin off CNN?

I don’t see that. I can’t see any antitrust reason to do so. That would be a weaponization of the antitrust law, and that would not be appropriate.

Many people in Hollywood view the merger with trepidation because of the prospect of more job losses. Others see it through a political lens. How do you evaluate the politics?

Advertisement

Politics is part of life. It’s part of the beautiful process of democracy. Generally, we are very empathetic to the folks in Hollywood, but this transaction will actually create more and better and exciting jobs. David is an absolute lover of films; he’s a filmmaker himself. For the first time, you are getting an owner who comes from the creative side.

Let’s be honest. There’s a lot of fear-mongering, particularly from people in Washington, D.C. They are running a political campaign. Some of these people are trying to inflict harm on this transaction really because of their own antisemitic views. Regulators and law enforcement officials will see right through that.

Do regulators share others’ concerns about the merger debt — $79 billion — for the combined company?

Some regulators appropriately have asked about it. They say: ‘This is what we have heard, that you guys are not going to be around because of this debt,’ which is just silliness. David and his family are owner-operators. They’re not rented CEOs. They have over 50% ownership. They put their money at stake and my money is on them.

Advertisement

Business

‘Moana’ loses its way at the box office with a $43-million domestic opening

Published

on

‘Moana’ loses its way at the box office with a -million domestic opening

Walt Disney Co.’s “Moana” lost its way at the box office this weekend as the company’s latest live-action remake opened to a sluggish $43 million in the U.S. and Canada.

The domestic haul for “Moana” underperformed studio expectations, which ranged from $60 million to $65 million. Globally, the film brought in a total of $95 million on a production budget of about $250 million.

Despite its lackluster debut, the film still came in first at the box office during a weekend where it had few new competitors in the family film space.

The “Moana” franchise has been a box-office and streaming juggernaut. The original 2016 animated movie brought in more than $643 million worldwide and is the most-watched movie on Disney+, while a 2024 sequel grossed more than $1 billion at the global box office. On the merchandise side, more than 22 million “Moana”-themed toys have been sold. “Moana” also appears in the Disney theme parks.

But the theatrical reception for the live-action film may signal that audiences think there’s been too much “Moana” in just 10 years. (The 2024 film sequel was originally set to be a streaming series before it was moved to Disney’s theatrical calendar.)

Advertisement

Most of Disney’s previous live-action remakes have come decades after the original animated movie, such as 2025’s “Lilo & Stitch,” which arrived 23 years after its animated predecessor and grossed more than $1 billion in worldwide box office receipts.

The theatrical haul for the latest “Moana” may also have suffered from poor reviews — the film got a 34% on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, with several critics highlighting its nearly frame-by-frame similarity to the original film. The audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, however, was 90%.

Still, as the last of this summer’s major family films, “Moana” could see a longer tail in theaters, particularly with many children still on break from school. Disney’s live-action “Mufasa: The Lion King” opened in 2024 to a middling $35 million, but ended up grossing more than $722 million globally through the holiday season.

Universal Pictures and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters” came in second at the domestic box office this weekend with $20.5 million. Disney and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5” continued its strong run with an $18.5-million haul, enough for third place and contributing to a total global gross of $879.1 million.

Warner Bros.’ “Evil Dead Burn” ($13.7 million) and Angel Studios’ “Young Washington” ($6.4 million) rounded out the top five.

Advertisement

Also notable this weekend: Lionsgate’s musical biopic “Michael” crossed $1 billion in worldwide box office revenue, the first time that the studio has reached that milestone and the second film this year after “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” to hit that mark.

Continue Reading

Business

L.A. cardrooms applaud court ruling to allow blackjack

Published

on

L.A. cardrooms applaud court ruling to allow blackjack

California cardrooms welcomed a court decision to let them continue to allow visitors to bet on blackjack, one of their most lucrative games.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge struck down regulations that would ban cardrooms from offering blackjack in California.

Authorities wanted to close what some consider a legal loophole allowing cardrooms to offer blackjack and games in which players play against the house. Those types of games are supposed to be offered only in Native American casinos, but cardrooms were getting around the restriction by using designated outside dealers.

In the June 30 ruling, Judge Richard Darwin said Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and the California Bureau of Gambling Control exceeded their authority by introducing the change.

Advertisement

The California Department of Justice officially introduced the proposed regulations in May 2025, and responded to over 1,700 public comments.

The California Office of Administrative Law green-lit the rules in February, and they were set to go into effect on April 1, but in March, the California Gaming Assn. filed a suit to invalidate them.

In May, Darwin filed a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the state from imposing the new rules.

There are more than 70 cardrooms across California employing about 20,000 workers, according to the California Gaming Assn. It estimated that the changes could cut the number of cardroom jobs in half and significantly reduce the industry’s positive economic impact.

A 2019 analysis commissioned by the group estimated that tax revenue generated by California cardrooms was roughly $500 million a year.

Advertisement

Kyle Kirkland, the president of the California Gaming Assn. and owner of Club One Casino , said the regulation would have not only affected the cardrooms themselves, but also the cities and communities that rely on the money they generate.

“We give the city of Fresno a million dollars a year in table tax revenue, and they were actively asking me how could they budget for this going forward, given the impact that it’s going to have,” he said.

At Club One, about 60% of revenue comes from blackjack, Kirkland said.

“I can’t survive on the other 40%,” he said.

If the regulations had gone into effect, Kirkland said he would have had to lay off nearly 200 of the cardroom’s 250 employees.

Advertisement

Cardrooms in L.A. County generate more than $2 billion in economic activity and support more than 9,000 jobs.

Kirkland said the regulations would have especially affected cities like Bell Gardens and Hawaiian Gardens, where casinos represent nearly 70% of the general fund.

In the City of Commerce, the Commerce Casino generates 40% of the city’s general fund, and employs 2,200 people. When the regulations were first passed, Mayor Kevin Lainez said the city was “devastated”.

In response to the potential revenue losses, the city declared a state of fiscal emergency, and introduced a higher sales tax.

Lainez said the city would have had to make cuts to senior programs, public safety services and capital improvement projects.

Advertisement

“We’ve responsibly built our budgets and shaped them around the revenue that the cardroom generates, so along with all of the other businesses here in the city, right, and we’ve developed some quality of life services that our community really relies on, and so for this to no longer be hanging over our heads is a relief to our community,” he said.

The ban wouldn’t have affected Native American casinos.

Proposition 1A, passed by California voters in 2000, gave tribes the right to conduct Nevada-style gambling, such as casino-banked card games, on reservations.

Cardrooms have continued to offer blackjack and other banked games such as baccarat by giving players the option to take turns dealing the game and by relying on third-party businesses that employ people to act as bankers.

The Bureau of Gambling Control for years accepted the practice, which attorneys representing cardrooms say is “completely legal” and has been approved by Bonta’s predecessors, but the state’s new rules crack down on the use of these third-party businesses and tighten rules for “player-dealers.”

Advertisement

While the California Gaming Assn.’s suit was successful, Kirkland said he expects the Justice Department to appeal, and said the conflict is far from over.

“There’s not really a lot of celebration,” he said. “It’s concerning that the attorney general would think that that was a valid way of going out and regulating the cardroom industry, so I’m just wondering what’s the next step, what’s coming behind, but at least in this battle, it was a pretty strong and resounding victory.”

Continue Reading

Business

‘Moana’ debuted just 10 years ago. Why Disney is remaking it as a live-action movie

Published

on

‘Moana’ debuted just 10 years ago. Why Disney is remaking it as a live-action movie

In 2016, Walt Disney Co.’s “Moana” became a box office hit, captivating audiences with catchy earworms from Lin-Manuel Miranda and a spunky young heroine who rejected the label of princess.

Now, just 10 years later, it’s the latest Disney animated film to be given the live-action treatment.

Burbank-based Disney has long reached into its vault in search of animated classics to redo in a live-action format. But a decade is the shortest time between one of the company’s original animated movies and the reimagined film. (2025’s “Lilo & Stitch,” which originally debuted in 2002, is the next closest with a gap of 23 years.)

Why go back to “Moana” so soon? The Polynesian wayfarer is extremely popular.

The 2016 animated film grossed more than $643 million at the global box office, then spawned a 2024 sequel that made more than $1 billion worldwide. The original is the most-watched movie in Disney+ history with more than 1.5 billion hours of viewing.

Advertisement

“Every once in a while in Hollywood, we make a film that is more than a film,” actor Dwayne Johnson, who reprises his role as the demigod Maui, said onstage during the movie’s premiere Tuesday at the Hollywood Bowl after a Polynesian dance performance. “I think you could feel it already tonight, with our culture and with what we have represented. But also not only our Polynesian culture … it’s also a shared culture around the world.”

The latest “Moana,” out this weekend, will join a cadre of family films at the multiplex.

That includes Disney and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5,” which has now racked up more than $774 million worldwide, and Universal Pictures and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters,” which debuted domestically last week to a softer-than-expected opening of $62 million for the five-day Fourth of July holiday weekend.

The weaker haul for “Minions & Monsters” has led to questions about whether there are too many family films in theaters, which could affect the reception for the latest iteration of “Moana.” But as the last of this summer’s trio of major animated films, the runway could be clear for the film to build steam.

“I don’t think two movies make saturation,” said Andrew Cripps, head of theatrical distribution for Walt Disney Studios. “There’s a huge fanbase for the ‘Moana’ franchise.”

Advertisement

But with two “Moana” movies in the last decade, will audiences flock to another film? Analysts are expecting an opening weekend haul of $75 million, though studio estimates are closer to $60 million to $65 million. The film’s production budget is about $250 million.

“When you look at these massive movies that were just incredible — ‘The Lion King,’ ‘Aladdin,’ ‘Beauty and the Beast’ — they were brought back after years and years,” said David A. Gross, who writes the industry newsletter FranchiseRe. “I think there’s an argument that says absence makes the heart grow fonder with some of these. We’ll see.”

Early reviews of the film have been mixed, and “Moana” has so far notched a 37% rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The movie is a nearly frame-by-frame re-creation of the original.

Disney’s live-action remakes have largely been box-office boons for the company, with a few exceptions.

In the last 16 years, five films have grossed more than $1 billion globally, including 2017’s “Beauty and the Beast” and 2019’s “The Lion King” and “Aladdin.” (Other live-action spin-offs based on classic animated movies, such as 2024’s “Mufasa: The Lion King” and 2014’s “Maleficent,” also had solid performances.)

Advertisement

“It goes back to the original [intellectual property] of these movies,” Cripps said of the importance of live-action films for Disney’s slate. “People grow up with it, they become fans of it, they live with it. When you’ve got IP that resonates so well literally around the world with fans, I just think it’s a clever extension.”

There have been some notable misfires, including last year’s “Snow White,” which cratered at the box office amid a myriad of controversies, including racist backlash to the casting of Rachel Zegler, who is of Colombian descent, as the titular princess, its depiction of little people and its lead actors’ views on the Israel-Hamas war.

In general, live-action retellings have also typically performed well overseas — a marketplace that isn’t always reliable these days.

Across 13 recent live-action films from Disney and other studios, all made more than 60% of their global box office revenue in international markets, Gross said.

By comparison, films across all genres typically bring in about half of their revenue overseas, he said.

Advertisement

“When these movies connect,” Gross said, “they work everywhere.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending