The Shameless Golden Globes, and Paramount Takes Warner Bros. to Court

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Shameless Golden Globes, and Paramount Takes Warner Bros. to Court"
The Town with Matthew Belloni | The Ringer
January 12, 2026

---

Main Theme

This episode dives into the corporate spectacle and behind-the-scenes drama of the 2026 Golden Globe Awards, unmasking the business interests now shaping the ceremony. Host Matthew Belloni and guest Lucas Shaw (Bloomberg) break down the show's "shameless" corporate promotions, media consolidation, and the creeping influence of billionaires. In the second half, the discussion pivots to the escalating legal war as Paramount sues Warner Bros. Discovery over the ongoing Hollywood megamerger, examining strategic maneuvers, shareholder interests, and political interference—especially with a looming Trump administration.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

---

1. Golden Globes: "The Most Fun and Least Consequential" Award Show (03:23)

• Lucas Shaw’s inside view:

  • “It is the most fun and least consequential of the major award shows." (03:23)
  • The bar scene is lively and candid; attendees mingle freely except those front-and-center for the cameras.
  • Emma Stone, unbothered by decorum, enjoyed herself at the bar; Sean Penn was caught smoking, a Beverly Hills no-no.

• Atmosphere shift:

  • Parties around the Globes are relaxing compared to more "corporate" industry events, allowing actual revelry away from ever-present phones.
  • "It's so rare to see that at parties anymore because everyone's terrified of phones and it's all corporate." – Matt Belloni (04:12)

---

2. Top Five Corporate-Corruption Moments at the 2026 Golden Globes (04:08–15:06)

Belloni’s Satirical Rankings:

1. Polymarket Gambling Partnership (13:39)

   • Golden Globes broadcast betting odds live:
     “They were showing gambling odds during the show thanks to a paid partnership with Polymarket, encouraging people to bet... Pretty new low for an award show.” (13:39)
   • Paid partnership speculated at $20–30 million.
   • Satirically, spoils winners since favorites are even more likely to win.

2. VIP Table Maneuvering: Vivi Nero Sits Next to Zaslav (11:12–13:01)

   • The “who’s who” of moguls and financiers takes center stage.
   • Speculation over influential investor Vivi Nero's placement by Zaslav, possibly as an accommodation for Leo DiCaprio's entourage.

3. Billionaire Camera Time & Executive Cutaways (08:24–11:12)

   • David Ellison, Todd Boley, George Cheeks, and Helen Hone all shown on camera; conspicuously, Jay Penske avoids the spotlight.
   • “All of these cutaways are very deliberate.” – Matt Belloni (11:09)
   • Promoting condo developments: Jay Penske had Variety host a party supporting Todd Boley's Beverly Hills resort project, tricking stars like Sydney Sweeney into unintended endorsements.

4. Variety’s Mark Malkin as Golden Globes Announcer (07:22–08:28)

   • Inserted for corporate synergy; performance widely panned.
   • “Not his fault. It is Jay Penske's fault.” (07:59)
   • Suggestion: use podcasters or comedians for future broadcasts.

5. UFC Security Guards for CBS/Paramount Cross-Promotion (04:38–05:51)

   • Gamified stage introductions—awkwardly using UFC guards to promote network brands.
   • “You can only do that when introducing nobodies… You try that shit with Julia Roberts, her publicist is shutting that down.” (05:51)

---

3. Media and Industry Consolidation: Ownership Webs & Corporate Grifts (Entire First Half)

• Golden Globes are now a vehicle for billionaire owners' ventures:

  • Jay Penske now owns trade outlets (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, IndieWire) and the award show.
  • Todd Boley uses the night to promote his Beverly Hills real estate interests.
  • Network (CBS) owner David Ellison makes a public appearance—from the company trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

• Media collusion and conflicts of interest on gaudy display:

  • Deliberate boosting of internal talent and business assets through both broadcast and party circuits.
  • Stars are unwittingly converted into brand ambassadors for properties and media products.

---

4. Merger Melodrama: Paramount’s Bid to Acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (17:27 onward)

• Breakdown of the lawsuit:

  • Paramount, after being rebuffed by Warner Bros. Discovery’s board, resorts to litigation, aiming to force the company’s hand or sway shareholders.
  • “If you've progressed to the phase of suing someone to let you buy them, it's usually not a good sign." – Lucas Shaw (18:25)

• Economic arguments:

  • Paramount claims its $30/share offer is “superior” but won’t raise it.
  • Warner Bros. Discovery board believes the Netflix deal is less risky due to less assumed debt and simpler asset divestitures.
  • "Shareholders just want the best offer. And I think that Paramount has done an effective job of... creating a lot of uncertainty." – Lucas Shaw (20:22)

• Math, markets, and maneuvering:

  • Valuations are contentious; analysts mostly agree Netflix’s math works with cable networks at $3–$4/share.
  • Paramount seizes on Warner’s potential debt load and uncertainty about Ellison’s commitment or Middle Eastern financing.

---

5. The Trump Factor and Political Interference (24:22–27:13)

• Regulatory anxiety:
  • Belloni notes a perception that Netflix has DOJ support “sewn up,” tied to the presidential administration.
  • Trump administration signals possible opposition (or desire for concessions); retweets anti-Netflix commentary.
  • “Are they actually interested in blocking this, or are they just interested in some concession, pound of flesh, some payoff, whatever you want to call it? And this is all positioning for that.” – Matthew Belloni (25:18)
  • Netflix fields experts to argue for approval, but risk remains of extended regulatory wrangling.

---

6. New Podcast Categories and Award Show Absurdities (27:33 onward)

• Podcasts at the Globes:
  • Podcast nominees sat far from the center; clips privileged over film segments during nominations.
  • “Another tough, kind of shameless Globes ploy… showing clips of podcasts… and not clips of actual movies during those nominations.” – Craig Horlbeck (28:03)
  • Audience mixed on comedic broadcast bits (e.g., AMC podcast parody segment).

---

7. Industry Gambling: Award Show Prediction Markets (29:42–33:18)

• Belloni’s award betting experiment:
  • Admits to betting on favorites, feeling "inside access" offers sure bets.
  • “If you’re not going to lose, why not make a little money on it?” (32:12)
  • Guest producer Craig urges caution; the risk of a single "sure thing" loss is outsize.
  • "You're winning tiny amounts every time...all it takes is one big loss...you're in the hole." (31:36)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Globes’ corporate absurdity:
  "The fact that the Golden Globes were showing gambling odds during the show thanks to a paid partnership with polymarket... pretty new low for an award show." (13:39, Belloni)

• On executive table seating:
  "Every seat in that pit area is heavily negotiated. Each star gets one guest, and...the fact that [Vivi Nero] got down there is pretty amazing." (12:18, Belloni)

• On industry consolidation:
  "They leverage the Globes and the stars to support their other businesses." (00:34, Belloni)

• On shareholder priorities:
  "The shareholders just want the money." (22:58, Shaw)

• On regulators and politics:
  "Trump likes to negotiate...he doesn't have friends. You know, he's a transactional creature." (25:57, Shaw)

• On gambling at awards:
  “If you’re not going to lose, why not make a little money on it?” (32:12, Belloni)
  "All it takes is one big loss... you're in the hole." (31:36, Craig Horlbeck)

---

Timestamps by Segment

• Intro & Golden Globes Biz Context: 00:00–03:06
• Insider Party & Bar Talk: 03:06–04:38
• Top Golden Globes Corporate Moments: 04:38–15:06
• Mogul Ownership & Industry Grifts: 08:24–11:12
• Executive Seating Politics: 11:12–13:01
• Polymarket Sponsorship & Gambling: 13:39–15:06
• Award Show & Corporate Ownership Analysis: 15:06–17:27
• Paramount v. WB Lawsuit Breakdown: 17:27–24:22
• Trump Administration/Regulator Uncertainty: 24:22–27:13
• Podcasts at the Globes: 27:33–28:32
• Gambling & Insider Predictions: 29:42–33:18

---

Final Tone

The hosts deliver an irreverent, skeptical, and often darkly comic take on Hollywood’s business machinations—equal parts amusement, exasperation, and insider snark. Belloni and Shaw pull back the curtain on an award show driven less by art than by money, influence, and never-ending M&A gamesmanship. For listeners, this is a wry, illuminating look at what Hollywood really celebrates.

Transcript

[A]

This episode of the Town is brought to you by Netflix. Presenting Frankenstein. Nominated for five Golden Globe awards, including best Motion Picture Drama, best director and best Adapted Screenplay by Guillermo del Toro, the New York Times hails Frankenstein is stunning. The movie Guillermo del Toro was born to make. Starring Golden Globe nominees Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi, Esq. Raves Frankenstein will be considered a classic for lifetimes to come for your awards consideration. This episode is brought to you by Warner Bros. Pictures. Presenting Sinners, written and directed by Ryan Coogler and starring Michael B. Jordan. Hailed as the best picture of the year, the New York Times calls Sinners a big screen exultation, a passionate, effusive praise song about life and love, including the love of movies. And timeout says Ryan Coogler's bold vision makes Sinners a true event. An exuberant widescreen experience that stirs the soul, Sinners is awards eligible in all categories, including best Picture, best director and best Actor. It is Monday, January 12th. Oh, the Golden Globes, the head shaker of Hollywood award shows. We don't have the ratings yet, but it was definitely fun to watch the Globes when you know a lot about the industry dramas playing out behind the scenes. Our guy David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Discovery, sitting with Mike DeLuca, head of his film studio, who he wanted to fire right before the movies came out that got them all those Globes nominations. Amazing stuff. There's also the Globes themselves. It wasn't mentioned last night on the show, of course, but the Globes are unusual in that they're owned not by a nonprofit arts organization or the Hollywood Foreign Press Media Group. Remember, they used to get thanked all the time. Not anymore. Now they're owned by two billionaires, Jay Penske and Todd Boley. They leverage the Globes and the stars to support their other businesses. Penske also owns all the Hollywood trade media outlets. Variety, Holly Reporter, Deadline, Indiewire. Hence the Variety announcer during the show didn't get the best reviews for that. And Todd owns the land next to the Beverly Hilton where he's building a huge resort. It made Variety host a Globes party there to support that development, meaning stars like Sydney Sweeney showed up and they thought they were going to a Variety party. But they became unpaid endorsers of photos for a condo building in Beverly Hills. Fantastic grift there. And of course, cbs, which aired the show, is owned by David Ellison, who was there last night, showed him on the broadcast. He's of course trying to buy Warner Brothers Discovery. Sitting a few tables over From Netflix, who he very much wants to overturn their deal. And from Zaslav, whose company Ellison sued this morning. Yes, friends at an award show on Sunday night. Litigation adversaries on Monday morning. We'll get into that today. Lucas Shaw is here from Bloomberg. And we're going to go into the Golden Globes absurdities and the latest legal salvo in the war for Warner Brothers. From the ringer and Puck. I'm Matt Bellamy and this is the town. Okay. We are here with Lucas Shaw once again. Welcome, Lucas. How are the Globes? Last night you were there. I was not. I am on the band list from the Globes. I wear.

[B]

But you were party hopping.

[A]

I was. Oh, of course I go to the parties, but I do not go inside the room anymore since the Penske Corporation owns it and seeks to shut out competitive outlets. He does not apparently think you are competitive. So how was inside the room?

[B]

It is the most fun and least consequential of the major award shows.

[A]

Yeah, you just hang out at the bar.

[B]

You just hang out at the bar. You talk to everyone. Everyone's there. They're milling about. The only people who can't really get up and chat are those who are right up front on camera. And even some of those people you catch when they're walking in.

[A]

So how many cigarettes did Sean Penn smoke in the bar?

[B]

I don't think he was getting up for the bar. He was.

[A]

Oh, he did, because he was. He was caught on. He was caught on.

[B]

I saw you caught on camera smoking.

[A]

Definitely illegal in the city of Beverly Hills.

[B]

The one nominee who spent a lot of the night in the bar, and I'm not saying this to get her in trouble, she wasn't drinking per se, was Emma Stone.

[A]

Oh, I saw her with a glass of wine. That's okay. She's having a good time, man.

[B]

She was having a good time.

[A]

I wish there were more of this. Like, Craig and I went to the W party on Saturday night at the Chateau and there were actual stars, like, having an actual good time. And it's so rare to see that at parties anymore because everyone's terrified of phones and it's all corporate. It's like finally you can actually have a good time. That's. That's nice. All right, speaking of the Globes, before we get into the Paramount latest shenanigans in that, I'm going to give you my top five moments of corporate corruption at the Golden Globes.

[B]

This is your request to get an invite next year?

[A]

Yes. I'm lobbying to be Invited next year. No top 5 cringiest industry slash corruption moments at the Globes. All right, and you can offer your thoughts as well. Craig can weigh in here because he also watched the show, starting with number five, the UFC security guards appearing to promote UFC on CBS and Paramount. Plus this, I am told, was an idea directly from David Ellison, the newest owner of Paramount. I have not confirmed that, but, yeah, that was pretty bad.

[B]

But you're going to put it out on the podcast anyways. There was a oddly robust police presence at the show last night.

[A]

Hmm. Is that because they had the protests about Iran in Westwood down the street?

[B]

I don't know why, but I can't remember seeing. There were, like, half a dozen police officers in the room.

[A]

People were texting me, bitching about the security line, and, like, it took, like, two hours to get your car into the, you know, main valet area. Not great. But the Globes clusterfuck is always terrible.

[B]

Drop off nearby, walk in, make.

[A]

Yes, I know you can't do that if you're a star. You think Paul Mesco, like, cruising down Wilshire is not going to get paparazzi?

[B]

Probably not.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so you missed that probably. But the UFC security guards doing the little dance, it was very confusing. You can only do that when introducing nobodies, like the heated rivalry guys who don't have any leverage to protest that kind of thing. They probably were told, okay, so you guys are going to be introduced by the UFC people. Okay, whatever. Sure. Whereas, like, Julia Roberts, you try that shit. Her publicist is shutting that down.

[B]

Yes. She got probably the most attention of any of the stars in the room. At least when she went on stage.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I'm sure if Leo had gone on.

[A]

No, she got a standing ovation.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Man, if people only knew. People only knew. All right, let's go to number four. Cringiest moment of the Golden Globes, corporate corruption. And this is not a knock on him. I actually, I like Mark Malkin. He is a very nice guy. Good red carpet reporter, been doing it for years. But the fact that Jay Penske, the owner of the Golden Globes with Todd Boley, also owns Variety and all the trade publications. They put Mark Malkin into this very prominent role with Kevin Frazier doing play by play announcement. When people went to the stage, I mean, the guy's getting destroyed online. It did not work. And people think that was a creative choice. But it's Jay Penske promoting his own publication, Variety, by having their person in that booth doing it. And it's just like, you're not doing anyone a favor. Man, this guy, like, he shouldn't have been there.

[B]

Why not? What was the issue?

[A]

I don't want to like criticize him because he's a very nice guy, but it wasn't good. He fumbled a lot of the names and he was trying to offer like fun facts and quips off the record, but he's not a comedian. That's not what he does. And he was trying to offer little tidbits of information and it came off odd. And his accent's weird. And do not type Mark Malkin into Twitter X today. It will be a waterfall of just like vitriol and what do you do? And he had some controversies earlier, but like just that is an example. That's not his fault. It's not Mark's fault. It is Jay Penske's fault.

[C]

I didn't hate the idea of having like a broadcast booth.

[A]

No, of course not.

[C]

They should have gone for Romo and Nance at CBS or something.

[A]

Or, or at least like, listen, they're big push for podcasters. Get two comedy podcasters to do it. People, you know, people who could do it respectfully but also have some fun with it. Like, that's not an easy thing to do to be funny off the cuff and be informative and be a play by play person.

[C]

That's right. That's why you get Golden Globes for being a good podcaster now. Because it's hard.

[A]

Exactly. So, yeah, very bad. And like it's, you know, almost, almost as bad as last year. Remember when they did the studio scorecard last year to try to pressure the outlets into buying more FYC advertising in the Penske outlets so they would be shamed if they did not win Golden Globes. That went away this year. I don't think next year we're going to see those two in the booth again. All right, next moment, number three of corporate corruption at the Golden Globes. The camera shots. I'm going to count the number of executives that are involved in the show who got their moment on camera last night. David Ellison, obviously. He and his wife were pictured. He owns the company cbs. It airs the show. Todd Boley, who co owns the Globes with Jay Penske, another billionaire. Jay not shown on camera. Jay does not like attention. He owns tons of media, but doesn't like attention himself. And Todd is there every year. Love it. He also owns the property next door to the Beverly Hilton, the one Beverly Hills development that's being made into an Amman resort. And condos where Jay got Variety to hold an event there and promote their condo project. I'm sure the stars whose publicist sent them into that did not love that they ended up being promotional vehicles for a condo sales operation. I worked with Todd when he owned Holly to Porter. I always got along great with him. But of course they showed him on camera. He also owns a big piece of a 24, which was up for many awards and won some. George Cheeks, head of cbs, also got shown. Helen Hone, the head of the Golden Globes operation, the kind of Benedict Arnold of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. She turned against all of her former HFBA members when they were taken over by these billionaire and is now the figurehead of the Golden Globes group, all shown on camera.

[B]

Isn't that pretty par for the course, though? This is not like unique to the Globe. David Ellison would be shown regardless. Right. They also cut to David Zaslav and to Ted Sarandos and to all of the kind of the big CEOs.

[A]

That is true, but in this case, I mean, Todd getting shown is very bizarre. I mean, you don't see that at other shows.

[B]

No, but at the Oscars you get the accountants.

[A]

No, no, the accountants. Obviously you have. But that's to add legitimacy to the show. And the Globes did that too. They want people to know that this is not just, you know, Jay Penske behind the curtain picking his favorites.

[B]

Right. You don't think the Oscars are cutting to ever to Dana Walden during the show?

[A]

They have cut to Iger in the past, I think maybe. Maybe Walden. But there were a lot of them on this one. And that's. I thought it was funny because, you know, there are lots of stars in the room and all of these cutaways are very deliberate.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Did you notice who was sitting next to David Zaslav, the head of Warner discovery?

[B]

There were two people.

[A]

Well, one was Mike DeLuca, which. The head of Warner Brothers, which was hilarious because he got that whole shout out from Paul Thomas Anderson, one of.

[B]

The winners of the night, because months after David Zasov was looking for his replacement, he's now David Zaslav's favorite because he has delivered two major awards contenders and the seemingly certain Best Picture winner.

[A]

Yes. And the fact that you're sitting in front of the boss that thought about and was actively moving to fire you for the movie that is getting the award on stage and you're being praised for it is one of the funnier things that's happened at an award show in a while.

[B]

The other person was Vivi Nero.

[A]

Vivi Nero. Yeah. That's what.

[B]

So he. Can we talk about this?

[A]

Yeah. Two scenarios. Why is he sitting with him?

[B]

I have an idea that doesn't surprise.

[A]

Me because he is.

[B]

No. He's ubiquitous at these events. He's always vacationing. My understanding is like, he was on like a boat in St. Barts with Leo DiCaprio over the holidays and he just travels in those circles.

[A]

That is my theory. He's sitting next to David Zaslav. This guy's a big media investor. He's been around forever. He's been written about Vivi Nero. He's also a big stakeholder in Warner Brothers Discovery. So people were like, oh, that's why Zaslav brought him. But these. Every seat in that pit area is heavily negotiated, is heavily discussed. Each star gets one guest and that's it. And like, the fact that he got down there is pretty amazing. And what I think happened, I think he came with Leo, Leo brought his mom and probably said, I'm bringing this other guy. And in order to make it okay and not a precedent for everybody else to bring two guests, they sat him next to Zaslav.

[B]

And he was Zaslav's plus one.

[A]

Yes, that is my guess.

[B]

That makes sense. Do we know the full scope of where Vivi Narrow got all his money?

[A]

We don't. We probably don't want to know. Just.

[B]

I'm just asking because he does.

[A]

He does show up everywhere you're talking. You're giving me shit for speculating on this show. You're just throwing it out there.

[B]

I'm not saying. No, no. I'm not implying. I'm not saying anything because I don't know anything. I'm asking the question where did. Because he is one of those ever present figures.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so that was sort of my number two is like where people were seated and like the fact that Vivi Nero sat next to David Zaslav and got down to. That was my number two. The number one.

[B]

What's the number one?

[A]

Poly market. The fact that the Golden Globes were showing gambling odds during the show thanks to a paid partnership with polymarket, encouraging people to bet on the categories, also kind of spoiling who's going to win because all of the favorites almost ended up winning. Pretty new low for an award show. My first question to you is, how much do you think our friends at Dick Clark Productions receive from polymarket to become the official gambling product partner of the Golden Globes?

[B]

$5 million.

[A]

Oh, way more.

[B]

Way more.

[A]

Way more. I'm thinking 20, 30, at least.

[B]

You're probably right.

[A]

I mean, it was probably a competitive situation.

[B]

How many shout outs did they get during the show?

[A]

They were on screen with the graphics and a credit to Polymarket. Many, many, many times.

[B]

Okay. Yeah. Then maybe more like 15 to 20.

[A]

Yeah. And showed up at the end. And the promotional consideration was provided by line. Yeah, I think. I mean, they're doing. Polymarket has nothing but money. They're doing a big deal. I think I can say this. They're doing a big deal with Sydney Sweeney for her to become a spokesperson for them. So those are my top five. Now, I guess the other thing we should have mentioned, given the state of the Warner Discovery auction. I'm going to give you a question here, Lucas. If Netflix owned Warner Brothers, how many of the 28 Globes last night would Netflix have won?

[B]

16.

[A]

Exactly. Right.

[B]

Did you know that I remembered getting a press release or someone messaging me that the Warner Brothers family had won nine. And I knew Netflix was second.

[A]

Yeah. Sixteen of the 28 Globes would have gone to Netflix had they owned HBO and Warner Brothers last night. So not a good fact for their likely upcoming antitrust trial.

[B]

Although I don't know that Golden Globe awards are gonna be a factor in any antitrust case.

[A]

That's true. I agree with you.

[B]

There was a moment right before where I don't know if they came in together, but Ted Sarandos and David Zaslav were together walking into the show and then stopped and took a photo and muttered things to one another.

[A]

I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in. Did David Ellison interact with either of them? Because that, you know. FYI, guys, we're suing you tomorrow.

[B]

David Ellison was. They had a corner table, and he seated himself in the corner of the corner. So he was not in a situation where it was very easy for anyone to come up and talk to him.

[A]

And Ellison knew in advance they were doing the CBS News joke. Like it sort of. It wasn't even that funny. The cbs, like BS News, but they knew in advance. It's like, what are you gonna do? You know, not gonna stop. And then it becomes a story. This episode is brought to you by hbo. Max. For the doctors and nurses on the pit, the work never stops. The Emmy award winner for outstanding drama series is back for a new real time shift. With 15 high staked hours told across 15 must see episodes. Starring Emmy award winner Noah Wiley, Season two of the critically acclaimed Max original series is now streaming on HBO Max, with new episodes on Thursdays Check out the official companion podcast on HBO Max and all major podcast platforms.

[B]

Are you ready? Movies are a place of dreams. And this year, Song Song Blue captures that spirit like no other. Based on a true story, the New York Times raves.

[A]

It is exactly the movie we need right now.

[C]

If you're there with me, I am not afraid anymore.

[B]

And now Kate Hudson is an Actor Award nominee for Best Actress in the Best Picture of the year. Song Sung Blue from focus features. Rated PT3 may be inappropriate for children under 13 now playing only in theaters.

[A]

Let's get to the lawsuit, because this is pretty predictable, right? Like, we knew that they were not going to let this go. The Ellisons, and they are desperately now trying to appeal to shareholders of the company. They know they are not going to get anywhere with the board. They've tried eight times now to buy this company via the board. They continue to be rebuffed. They refuse so far to raise their offer, which all sides seem to believe is the way to get the board to reconsider the Netflix deal. So they're just going to sue, Try to get more information, they say, and they're going to provide their own directors. This is the quote from the filing. Paramount will nominate a slate of directors who, in accordance with their fiduciary duties, Will. Will exercise WBD's right under the Netflix agreement to engage on Paramount's offer and enter into a transaction with Paramount. So what do you think? Is this going to matter?

[B]

I think if you've progressed to the phase of suing someone to let you buy them, it's usually not a good sign.

[A]

No, of course not. You said that when they sent that nasty lawyer letter before the deal was announced.

[B]

I guess what's a little strange to me is that the $30 a share offer that they have that Paramount has insisted is the superior offer they delivered at the very last minute, they have repeatedly said. Or the very last minute of sort of the initial phase. And they have repeatedly said it's not last and final. And they've had a month to sort of make an offer that would blow the board away and put a lot of pressure on Netflix. And they haven't done that.

[A]

Well, they say they don't want to negotiate with themselves because they believe their offer is better.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know, it gets to the value of the stub. And, you know, whether the TV networks are worth $5 a share or $0 a share, like, there's just a fundamental disagreement here on how much this is. This is worth.

[B]

You're not negotiating with yourself. If the board has said your offer is not as good.

[A]

Well, but they say that they're going to go around them.

[B]

No, I know they disagree.

[A]

I. Yeah, but you don't. You don't. But you don't like that strategy. You wouldn't be doing that.

[B]

I mean, I'm not a. I'm not a banker or a lawyer who knows how to do these things, but I don't. You don't usually see the hostile strategy win out in the end. It could here. One of the reasons that a lot of people, including the folks at Paramount, thought that they were going to win in the first place was that they were offering to buy the whole company. And that is a simpler path than doing the Netflix deal and then finding someone else to buy the cable networks for spinning them off. And so they may prevail in convincing enough of these shareholders that their offer is better.

[A]

And there are shareholders out there who have said, like, you know, we should be talking to them.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Or, you know, most of them have said, show us the money.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Give us more.

[B]

The shareholders just want the best offer. And I think that Paramount has done an effective job of sort of muddying the waters and creating a lot of uncertainty. It's because the two deals are not the same.

[A]

Right. That's the problem here.

[B]

There is a lot of, like, even some of the shareholders are sort of like, which one is better? I'm not sure. And that's what I think Paramount's going after here is they want Warner Brothers to sort of lay out the math for how they're valuing. But it would not be hard for them to put out math because a lot of analysts have already done it.

[A]

That's the thing is, I think Paramount thinks that they're like, this is their gotcha moment. Like, tell us the rationale behind your valuation of these global networks businesses. They'll have that.

[B]

Yeah, A lot of analysts value those Networks at like 3 to $4 a share, which is pretty much. Or let's call it $3 a share, which is pretty much what Warner Brothers is doing. That's. I know.

[A]

Well, but then they have the Versant comp. And Versant is now not great. And they in the toilet.

[B]

Yep. Not good for the.

[A]

They say it's temporary and that once the people who own Versant are people who actually want to own Versant and cable networks, that it will return. But who knows? I mean, the Paramount's certainly taking advantage of that. But the problem. You nailed it on the head. The problem is that these are two very different deals. And it's not just the assets that are different. It's the way they are going about buying them. So even if it's supposedly a better deal and more money to go with Paramount, you could say, well, what about all the debt that you guys are bringing to this and the fact that Paramount is going to take over Warner Brothers with tens of billions of dollars of debt that Netflix will not have, or at least not have as much? And what about the Middle east money that's involved here? And what about the commitment that David Ellison has or doesn't have to this company? And Netflix represents at least an easier explanation for what the next steps are going to be. And that, I think, is where Warner's is going to keep leaning on the extracurricular, as I say, regardless, not just the money. They're going to say, well, okay, even if the money's slightly better, we still like this deal.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And they're just not going to. They're. They're not going to budge. So litigation makes sense. Yeah.

[B]

If you can sell to a $400 billion company that's a market leader versus selling to a 20, $30 billion company that's in distress. I get that.

[A]

The question is, where does the fiduciary obligation.

[B]

Well, the share, but the shareholders just want the money.

[A]

Right, I understand. But given if the money is not markedly better, the question is, where does the fiduciary duty come in to require you to take a slightly better offer that you believe is riskier for the company overall?

[B]

Yeah, I don't know that it does.

[A]

I don't know that it does either. Hence, possible litigation.

[B]

So you were not surprised at all that they sued the Paramount suit?

[A]

You know, these guys, they're not letting us go.

[B]

But of the various options in front of them, you thought that that was the most likely or best option.

[A]

I figured some kind of litigation because they're not getting anywhere with the means they have. They have this upcoming shareholder meeting. It's unclear whether the board or the shareholders will vote at a special meeting or whether they will be presented with this at the annual shareholder meeting. They want to get the attention of Joe Blow shareholder and force them to look at all the facts.

[B]

Right. Well, that presumably they have looked at over the last month.

[A]

Presumably. But no, the sherrid. I mean, I don't. I don't know, man. Like that's what the board is for.

[B]

Yes, but the major shareholders have looked. Okay.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

The top 10, 20, 30 shareholders of this company are not idiots. They are doing Their math. They've done it. Everyone is people. Both sides have likely spoken to all of them. They have a sense of where they stand.

[A]

Yeah. David Geffen. No, dummy. Yes.

[B]

And just your average big financial firms.

[A]

There's also the Trump factor here. People around town seem to think that Netflix has this sewn up with the Justice Department and that they would not be doing this unless either Trump or others within the Trump administration have essentially said that they're going to be able to execute this deal and won't be taken down. Trump this weekend retweeted an OAN commentary, one America News commentary called Stop the Netflix Cultural Takeover. And basically the article says that the DOJ and FTC should treat this as a top tier antitrust priority. Not great for Netflix.

[B]

No, I will. Even if Netflix wins the sweepstakes, or I guess continues to win, Warner Brothers goes ahead with this. We know that the Trump administration is going to make their life a living hell.

[A]

Yeah. But are they actually interested in blocking this, or are they just interested in some concession, pound of flesh, some payoff, whatever you want to call it? And this is all positioning for that.

[B]

I would assume the latter because Trump likes to negotiate, and he did obviously try to block the AT and T Time Warner deal. I think that was just sort of politics. And cnn. There isn't the same obvious political angle with Netflix. They don't own a news network.

[A]

Yeah. It's less Netflix and it's more doing a favor for the Ellisons. Right? Sure, he likes the Ellisons. He's having the UFC match on his. On his front lawn. Yeah.

[B]

But if he really wanted to do them a favor in that way, he would come out and come out against it. He doesn't have friends. You know, he's a transactional creature.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. And the question is, what can Netflix give him?

[B]

Well, I'm sure that, that Ted Sarandos and their policy folks have spent a lot of time studying that.

[A]

And what do you think? What. What does Netflix have that Donald Trump wants?

[C]

A podcast.

[A]

A podcast. New Netflix podcaster Craig Horlbeck comes in with the. With the. Donald, you're going to be a fellow podcaster with Donald Trump on the Netflix platform. Okay, so you don't know. We don't know. But when you talk to the Netflix people, they say that this is not going to be a problem, that, that the regulatory review, they've got their experts, they've got the, you know, the Yale professor that they're going to hire to claim that YouTube is as much a competitor as anybody else. And that ultimately this will be theirs. That's. I think that is probably why the Ellisons are so gung ho about this, because, you know, there's an argument to be made that they should just sit back and wait for the government to block the Netflix deal and then come in and say, okay, yeah, now it's ours. What else you guys got?

[B]

Too passive.

[A]

Yeah. And takes too long.

[B]

Well, that's what I mean. Then they're just sitting there for, at a minimum, 12 to 18 months. Now, that would be time that they could get the Paramount house in order. But you have to be putting a lot of confidence in the administration to block it and not to just kind of extract a pound of flesh.

[A]

Yeah. So where were the podcast nominees seated? Obviously, this hierarchy is usually the film people are in the pit and then the top TV people are on the sides. Like Seth Rogen was on the side up close. Where do the podcasters sit?

[B]

Podcasters were further back.

[A]

Oh, they were that.

[B]

I saw Alex Hooper and her husband spent a lot of time in the bar, and so I saw them milling about talking to people there. I didn't see them sitting in the pit very much, but I'm sure they were.

[C]

Another tough, kind of shameless globes ploy to their new category is them showing clips of podcasts in the nominations piece of the segment and not clips of actual movies during those nominations.

[A]

Yeah, that made no sense, but whatever. They wanted to plug it. They also did that dumb AMC parody of podcasts with Nikki Glazing.

[C]

I thought that was kind of funny.

[A]

You did? Yeah. I don't know.

[C]

That was like the only part of the night that people laughed at that I was with.

[B]

Huh.

[A]

Obvious jokes like, oh, there's ads on podcasts. I don't know, it just all seemed pretty obvious. Maybe. I'm sending call. All right, Lucas, thank you.

[B]

Thanks, Matt.

[A]

Today's call sheet is brought to you by Searchlight Pictures presenting the Testament of Ann Lee starring Amanda Seyfried. From award winning writer director Mona Fasfold comes the extraordinary true legend of Ann Lee, founder of the devotional section known as the Shakers. All right, Craig, I know I just spent 10 minutes shitting all over Poly Market and the gambling odds at the Golden Globes, but I have been dabbling this season. It works. Not with Polymarket. No, I know. I've been doing Kalshee just because I can't believe that we all have casinos in our pockets now. Like I live in California. FanDuel is not a thing. DraftKings not a thing. But now you can like bet on things where you have a, at least a perception of inside access. Like I feel like I kind of know what the sure things are of award season. And I know sure thing, like famous last words, but it's like easy money here.

[C]

But you're also semi outing yourself, claiming that you might have insider info on a prediction market.

[A]

Oh, is that not allowed? No. I'm a member of the media. If I know it, it is by definition public. Okay. I do not have any insider access to any of these award shows. I just follow the season and I know the voters. I mean any of these awards people that cover the season could be making money on these sites. Here's my strategy and you, as experienced sports gambler that you are, you can tell me whether I'm right. I'm just going to bet the favorites.

[C]

Well, no, you don't want to just bet the favorites. You want to bet the heavy favorites.

[A]

The heavy favorites. Like for instance, I put, just to try it out, I put 100 bucks on golden, the K pop demon hunter song to win best song at the Globes. Obviously it's going to win. It checks every box that these voters vote for. It's a sensation. Most popular song, all the others. Like there was a Miley Cyrus song, there's Train dreams. People aren't voting for that. Maybe the sinner song if that movie gets traction. But no, every voting body is going to vote for the K pop song and the odds were 83, 84%. So if you bet a hundred bucks, you only win 17. But if you bet $100,000, you win $17,000 and so on and so forth. By the end of award season, you could make some serious money if you're willing to just put it on the favorites. Because as anyone who watches the seasons know, these heavy favorites do not lose. They just don't.

[C]

They're going to show this on the gambling hotline ads. Generally, I, I would tend to agree with you that the, usually the heavy, heavy favorites in award season do win. However, this is the classic case with gambling. You think it's a sure thing. All it takes is one. You're, you're winning tiny amounts of money every time you bet on these sure things. All it takes is one big loss. The $10,000 you spent on K pop demon hunters. If it loses one time, you are deeply in the hole.

[A]

I get that. But I'm not going to lose. So this is my experiment. Instead of a prediction today I'm going to start betting on the two sure things of award season.

[C]

So this is officially gambling advice.

[A]

Yes, do exactly what I do.

[C]

Prediction market advice. I guess this is not technically gambling so that you're going to do what you're going to do. K Pop demon Hunters. And I'm assuming Jesse Buckley.

[A]

Jesse Buckley. Right. So like as long as you put a decent amount of money on it, you'll win. You'll win amount. A decent amount of money.

[C]

So you're saying that the two short. Your prediction essentially to kind of remove this from gambling directly is just that the, the, the two sure things that you feel the most confident in this award season is golden. And Jesse Buckley to win best actress.

[A]

Yes, those are the two. And I am going to bet incrementally more each time on those two and hopefully by the end of award season. We got to get Michael Lasker in here, our, our gambling friend on awards season to give me more advice because I'm probably making a big mistake here. There's going to be a Jeff Hiller in there somewhere. Remember that guy from somebody somewhere who shocked at the Emmys last year and won supporting actor in a comedy?

[C]

Yes. But I don't know if that category had a heavy favorite, which is your point exactly.

[A]

I mean, maybe the best would be La La Land, moonlight, but even moonlight, like I was around covering that, there was momentum for moonlight and it was not a runaway for La La Land. Like unless some other actress sneaks up on Jesse Buckley, unless some song wins at one of these award shows, I just don't see the K pop demon hunter song getting beaten. So if you're not going to lose, why not make a little money on it? That's all I'm saying.

[C]

I'm going to support you from a.

[A]

Distance on this endeavor and then you're gonna dance on my grave when I lose my kids college fund on this. Today's call sheet was brought to you by Searchlight Pictures presenting the testament of Ann Lee from award winning writer director Mona Fasfold. Amanda Seyfried stars as the shaker's irrepressible leader who preached gender and social equality and was revered by her followers. Now playing in select theaters for your consideration in all categories. All right, that's the show for today. I want to thank my guest Lukas Shaw, producer Craig Horbeck, artist Justin Lopez and I want to thank you. We'll see you a couple more times this week.