In recent months, audiences and viewers have not only been keen to know what movies are going to hit theaters, but they have also been really eager to know everything about the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Initially, it was considered that Paramount acquiring WBD would be better than Netflix doing the same. However, things are not looking good for Paramount as well, and several states in the US are trying to block the merger by arguing that the $110 billion acquisition would reduce competition in the industry.

Experts have been vocal about what is happening and what is going to happen in the future if the merger gets blocked or gets clearance. Joel Roodman, who worked with Miramax for more than two decades and handled projects such as Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, The English Patient, the Scream series, and more, believes that this might be the biggest merger he has seen in the entertainment industry.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with Netflix Junkie, Roodman, who has witnessed major changes in the industry firsthand, reflects on the potential impacts of the deal and the challenges of preserving creative freedom within a larger corporation.

Aayush Sharma: To begin broadly, what was your initial reaction when Paramount Skydance's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery was announced? From your perspective, does this deal reflect financial necessity, strategic ambition, or a deeper structural change in how Hollywood is evolving?

Joel Roodman: That is a big question. I think it comes down to what we have been watching for quite some time: the consolidation of not only the entertainment industry, but many other industries as well, and trying to take advantage of the efficiencies that might come from that. But there are a lot of very big concerns on both sides of the issue about how this affects the industry, the people who work in it, the content, regulation, etc., etc. My question is probably very similar to what most people in the business are asking: Are we going to have as many opportunities to create good-quality content with fewer places for us to go and pitch? And if that's the case, then from that perspective, I don't think it's particularly good.

By the same token, assurances have been made that that isn't going to be the case. If that's true, then perhaps there are a lot of positives from being able to, I guess, maintain some of these iconic brands. For example, you have the difference between HBO, CBS, CNN, and DC. Are these going to remain on their own? And if that's the case, are we going to continue developing those brands with content that appeals to the widest possible audience? Those are the big questions. It's a back-and-forth. I mean, I understand what's being thrown around in a deal like this, but will that trickle down to others who are necessary to create the content that's ultimately going to live within these types of big media companies?

Aayush: This transaction values Warner Bros. Discovery at over $110 billion and would unite two of Hollywood's biggest legacy studios. Beyond the headline numbers, what operational or strategic synergies do you believe Paramount Skydance was actually pursuing? Are there assets or capabilities that make this combination uniquely compelling compared to previous studio mergers?

Joel: That is another good question. I mean, I think you are looking at a situation where, if I were to look at it from the perspective of whether or not investors are evaluating this, the big question is: Can the combined company create efficiencies while continuing to invest for growth? Can we recognize long-term value? Does it depend on balancing all of these operational disciplines with that creative ambition? If I understand your question correctly, it really is an important seesaw. You have stakeholders, to use their term; you have investors, you have stockholders, and you have people saying, "Look, I want the highest yield on this investment." But at the same time, if I want the highest yield, am I going to be sacrificing how that pours down into the creative process?

So, it's a really interesting dynamic that could play out if this happens. The business was running along fairly well before this came along. But at the same time, there seems to be a real question as to whether creative independence can continue. Like I said before, are these iconic brands still going to be preserved? How does that affect the future of streaming? What's the future of the competitive landscape? These are important things that you can dig into and delve into, and we won't know until it happens—or we'll never know unless it doesn't happen. Right now, you have got the state government filing lawsuits, and you have Paramount and Warner saying, "Okay, we'll take a break. We'll hold. Let's see where we can get on something like this."

Aayush: The antitrust lawsuit argues that combining two of the five major legacy studios would significantly reduce competition in theatrical distribution and streaming, while Paramount argues that the market should also include Netflix, YouTube, and other digital platforms. From an industry standpoint, how should regulators define the modern entertainment marketplace?

Joel: It is tough for me to say definitively what I think it'll be. But I think if you take a step back, the larger question remains whether the transaction ultimately satisfies the regulators, right? And there is a whole conversation about who these regulators are these days. But stakeholders recognize that major media companies and consolidation naturally attract close scrutiny. They just do, and a thorough review is part of the process for a deal of this scale. It is really important. So, if that is indeed where this goes, I mean, something like this has to take the time to be looked at as deeply as possible. If they need additional time to do that, that's really important, too.

"That's Off"- How the Paramount Merger Delay Just Disrupted the NFL's Entire Negotiating Strategy

Aayush: One interesting aspect of this case is Paramount's decision to voluntarily pause the merger and move directly to a full antitrust trial instead of spending months battling preliminary injunctions. From a corporate strategy perspective, what does that tell you about Paramount's confidence in the transaction and the legal arguments they intend to make?

Joel: Well, I am not in Mr. Ellison's head, but I would say they've put enough money on the table that, what is it, a billion dollars a quarter or something like that? I think that is the amount they are paying as the ticking element of the deal. Obviously, they have got a lot of confidence that this will get passed. And if I were a betting man, I would bet that it will get passed. Maybe it will be changed somewhat. Maybe they will have to divest something. But clearly, they have the pocketbooks and the backers to be able to do this. For you and me, a billion dollars seems like an absurd amount of money because I don't have a billion. And if you do, I don't know why you're doing this interview. But, you know, it's a rounding error for a lot of people at that level.

I mean, it is obviously a lot of money, but they probably have a lot of confidence that it is going to get done. If it takes an extra six months and they have got to write a big, fat check, they will probably make it back over a period of time. You sort of forecast and say, "Okay, write a billion now, and we'll get it back over, you know, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36 months." I am not behind the numbers, but I would say that probably went into their calculation.

Aayush: You've spoken about audience engagement becoming more valuable than simply chasing subscriber numbers. If this merger eventually succeeds, what metrics do you think executives should prioritize over traditional streaming growth? How should success be measured in today's entertainment ecosystem?

Joel: First and foremost, from an industry standpoint, I think bringing in new, young talent to replace talent that is leaving is important. I also think maintaining the number of people employed within the industry is key. As long as that number doesn't continue to go down, I think that's one of the key measurements. Profitability, for sure, across the board. And the ability to distribute as much product as possible to the largest possible audience. Look, employment and organizational structure are really important in this entire merger or this type of environment. And I think a commitment to content investment has to continue.

There was a shift in the balance over the past 10 years, where streaming became a key component. And now you've got people saying, "Well, hang on, maybe I don't always have to be streaming. Maybe I can go back to..." You know, actors who used to predominantly do feature films are now working in television because television is streaming. I mean, there's just so many different things that can happen here that are measurable. But one thing is certain: as long as new content is being created, jobs are created from that, and people are entertained, I believe it will continue to grow. Where the dollars come from and where they shift to, I think they'll continue to stay the same and grow. It's just a question of where and how we're consuming it.

Aayush: Having helped build Miramax during one of Hollywood's most creatively influential eras, you've seen firsthand how studio culture shapes filmmaking. When two organizations with distinct creative identities merge, what are the biggest challenges in preserving creative decision-making while also delivering the financial efficiencies investors expect?

Joel: I was fortunate enough to work at Miramax Films in the early days, or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it. But I was fortunate enough to work on many feature films, from the days of the Scream series, The English Patient, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and hundreds of other films. But during that period of time, interestingly enough, we went from being an independent company to being owned by Walt Disney. We were purchased by Disney during that period, and all of a sudden, there was this dynamic where we were the small, scrappy independent company started by the Weinstein brothers, who would do anything to get a feature film made and distributed, even films that weren't necessarily that great, and get them seen by audiences.

What's interesting is that they continued to have a lot of success because they were left alone to do what they did, right? So the question is, how much independence can you get from a larger organization? I remember when we were there, we had a film once called Kids, and it was, by most people's standards, very provocative. The Disney company didn't want to let us release it. They didn't want to release it at all. So we created a separate entity and released it under another label. And the film did extremely well and became very iconic. So, you know, you sort of have to figure out how to make it work as you move forward. But when you start talking about large corporations and watching the bottom line, at the end of the day, if you have good creative executives who have a strong sense of what the audience wants and what constitutes good content, I think they'll continue to be able to meet the financial requirements that the larger organization demands.

Look, I never worked on a film that cost $200 million to make. A lot of our films cost under $5 million to make, right? Some of them cost more, and some cost $30 million. So that's a hell of a bet. And that's a hell of a bet because not only are you spending $200 million to make the film, you're probably spending another $200 million to get people to watch it; to reach that audience, build awareness, and do all those sorts of things. So that's a heck of a bet. It's a heck of a bet. It better be good.

Aayush: We have seen an unusually strong response to this proposed merger, with state governments and courts getting involved, while actors, directors, and other filmmakers are publicly pushing back and signing petitions to oppose it. In all your years in the industry, have you ever seen a merger face this level of resistance and scrutiny? Or have you seen a merger this big before in the world of entertainment? Are there any previous deals that you think offer a useful comparison to what's happening now?

Joel: I cannot think of anything in the entertainment business, frankly. I just can't. Obviously, there have been a lot of consumer product mergers, and I think particularly when it comes to medicine, drugs, and airlines, where there is less competition or fewer entities doing it. But nothing really comes to mind as far as the entertainment business is concerned. This is a pretty big merger. I mean, the Time Warner merger was fairly significant way back in, I guess, the early 2000s, but that went through. So I think, at this point, nothing really stands in its way. I mean, these numbers are crazy. They're crazy dollar values, but someone sat down and figured it was worth it.

Aayush: If the courts ultimately block this merger, what message would that send to the rest of Hollywood? Could it discourage future mega-mergers, or would studios simply pursue different forms of partnerships, licensing arrangements, and joint ventures to achieve similar strategic goals without triggering antitrust concerns?

Joel: I think what they would probably do is go back to looking at how they can get deals like this passed by shedding some of the assets involved, so that it better fits with whoever is involved in the regulatory decision-making process. As you know, this has become rather political, and with this particular issue, you can have your own opinion about how that works. I would say that it seems to me that this is not such a bad environment for mergers. I'm going to say that it seems like it's pretty much a free-for-all. But, you know, you have the states that want to, and have legitimate reasons to, take another look at it. So it's hard to predict, but I think as we go forward, if it becomes a harder regulatory environment to get these things through, you'll see companies trying to carve out certain assets or restructure deals in a way that makes the process much smoother.

Aayush: Stepping back and looking at the broader picture, do you believe the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger will ultimately be remembered as a turning point in Hollywood's evolution—regardless of whether it closes—or is it simply one chapter in a much larger transformation where success will depend less on owning the biggest studio and more on creating the most enduring relationships with audiences across every medium?

Joel: Like any business where you start to see less opportunity for creation and distribution, it creates an environment where entrepreneurs become much more creative about how they're able to get things made and distributed. So, if anything, there probably will be some additional consolidation. But at the same time, you're going to see upstarts come along. The Lions Gates of the world, those types of smaller companies, the Miramaxes where I worked in the past, are going to start saying, "Look, we can't get in, so we're going to start our own thing." A24, NEON, these types of companies can continue to be there. Maybe they'll be bought up. Maybe they won't. Maybe their libraries are of higher value than the entities themselves. I think you'll just continue to see this. It won't get to a point where you won't have the opportunity to make something. The question is, how do you get it made?

Warner Bros. Discovery's Q2 Revenue Takes a Hit With ‘Supergirl’ and NBA Impact

Will the Paramount-WBD merger happen? Let us know your thoughts.