- Skip to main content
- Skip to navigation
The indie film sector is scratching its head this week over what a combined Paramount-Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) will meaningfully offer it when the $111bn merger closes, which now looks inevitable after Paramount and a dozen US states settled their antitrust case.
Barring an unexpected roadblock today (September 24) when a federal judge reviews the legality of the settlement terms in the consent decree filed by Paramount and the states, CEO David Ellison and his team are going full steam ahead to wrap up a saga that has dominated media headlines for nearly a year.
As Ellison and co race to avoid as much as they can of the $7m-a-day ticking fee that kicks in after September 30, leading figures in the independent sector are trying to make sense of how the merger will impact them.
Four indie films a year
Some are fuming that the concessions Paramount has made to the 12 US states, led by California attorney general Rob Bonta, over a five-year post-merger period, are not nearly enough to protect them. At a time when the scarcity of pay 1 streaming partners for independent US distributors has made buyers understandably skittish in the marketplace, the independent sector needs all the support it can get.
Ellison, whose father and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison is personally underwriting a $40.4bn chunk of the equity financing costs (Elon Musk was reportedly being courted at time of writing, too), has committed to theatrically release at least four independent films a year. These films will reside within a total annual quota of 30 theatrical releases in each of the first two years post-merger, rising to 32 in each of the third, fourth and fifth years.
Of those 30 features, 20 will be “wide release” (opening on 2,000 screens), and 20% (six in the first two years, a fraction higher in the last three) will be “tentpoles” carrying aggregate production and acquisition budgets of at least $50m and playing on least 3,000 screens within the first four weeks of release.
In addition, Ellison has saidt within 30 days of the transaction closing, the combined company will set up and run an independent acquisition fund and contribute a minimum of $5m each year for five years.
Jackie Brenneman, president & CEO, Independent Film & Television Alliance, strikes a diplomatic note. “This is a good start,” she says. “It reflects some of the conversations that IFTA and Paramount have been having, and we’re glad to see their commitment to independent film. The next step should be a formal partnership with IFTA to help ensure that the independent sector is being supported in the way that Paramount intends, both during this period and beyond.”
However, these terms are bones of contention. While some of the independent producers to whom Screen has spoken are adopting a phlegmatic wait-and-see approach, and some feel hopeful, most scoff at the fund allocation. After all, Focus Features forked out around $15m in one fell swoop for the independently-produced Obsession at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), and Universal and Blumhouse Atomic Monster have just partnered on a $10m-plus acquisition of the TIFF Midnight Madness hit River.
“Embarrassing” indie fund
“That should last for maybe one film,” says one producer of the $5m annual allocation. “It’s embarrassing,” says another. Paramount has not elaborated on its plan, and a spokesperson told Screen that the priority was closing the merger in two weeks.
Who will run the fund? Will it be Lia Buman, the studio veteran who co-founded producer-financer Tango and joined Paramount in December 2025 to head global acquisitions and Republic Pictures? Will there be new hires, or a committee? Will other entities contribute to the annual fund to elevate what many see as a paltry sum?
Until further notice, all film slate decisions go through Paramount Pictures co-chairs Dana Goldberg and Josh Greenstein. If the combined company will indeed be on the lookout for acquisitions, independent filmmakers and sales agents agree this could provide opportunities.
How many slots could actually go to independent films? Where will Warner Bros Clockwork sit? The calculation is complicated. The decree loosely defines an “independent film” as either based on an original screenplay or originating from producers outside the combined entity, Disney, Universal, or Sony.
The terms appear to allow acquisition of projects in turnaround from streamers, and allow for up to 50% of the annual slate or 15 films to be produced by parties outside Ellison’s media empire.
Potential for opportunity
In theory, this could present an opportunity. The independents are seeking further guidance from Paramount, andd films on the open market. Ellison seems ready to make films and has never hidden his love of popcorn movies – Skydance co-financed Paramount films including Top Gun: Maverick and some of the Mission: Impossible franchise – and exhibitors like guaranteed inventory in their cinemas
Ellison has already pledged to spend $1.5bn over five years on US production, and will increase the proportion of US shoots if a federal incentive gets enacted. However, he is well aware that tentpole production, let alone a slate of 30 films a year, sucks up money. Paramount and Warner Bros combined released 19 wide-release features on 2,000 or more screens in 2025. They are on track to release 27 this year, and have 36 on the 2027 schedule, subject to change. Will Ellison go big on the production front, invest heavily in third-party features, or operate somewhere in between? Nobody outside his executive suite knows.
“Insultingly small”
Independent execs are smarting that California attorney general Bonta did not do more to protect their ecosystem, with one calling Ellison’s concessions “insultingly small”. Bonta accepted so-called behavioural remedies covering terms such as theatrical release quotas of films, 45-day theatrical exclusivity, a 90-day moratorium on PVoD debuts, and keeping cable distribution negotiations separate between the two studios.
These terms are harder to monitor and enforce than structural remedies like the divestiture of assets that Bonta previously called for in tough rhetoric leading up to the settlement.
In the end, Bonta did not secure any immediate structural remedies. The consensus is he succumbed to political pressure from outgoing California governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass to simply get the deal over the line, and preclude Ellison from relocating Paramount outside the state in the event the antitrust case scheduled for spring 2027 went ahead.
Structural remedies will kick in down the line should the combined company fall short of its theatrical output and cable distribution negotiation commitments, which, if not rectified within six months of occurring, would result in the divestiture of Miramax (Paramount owns 49% and beIN Media Group owns 51%) and a suite of channels including BET and Comedy Central. Neither assets are jewels in the crown, bolstering the argument that the provisions lack teeth.
As the independent community awaits further elaboration from Ellison and his executives and the combined workforce loses sleep over an imminent $6bn in cuts, one great irony remains. Whatever these initial concessions to the independent sector may mean, the consent decree is finite. After five years, the man who is about to become one of the most powerful people in entertainment could, in theory, walk back all of it.
-
Screen’s ‘Financing the Future of UK Film’ summit: one week to go
- Paramount Pictures
- Warner Bros Discovery sale
- Warner Bros.
