James Cameron Is A Weird Hypocrite When It Comes To Giant Hollywood Mergers
from the rose-colored-glasses dept
Back when Netflix was proposing a takeover of Warner Brothers, you might recall that director James Cameron had no shortage of critical things to say.
Cameron went so far as to write a heavily publicized letter to Senator Mike Lee, lamenting the Netflix Warner Brothers merger (and only the Netflix merger) as “disastrous to the motion picture business.” In the letter, Cameron calls himself a “humble movie farmer,” and repeatedly insisted Netflix would shorten the 45-day theater-to-streaming window (Netflix repeatedly stated the opposite).
Here’s the weird thing: Cameron had absolutely no criticism to offer of the alternative (and now reality) $108 billion Ellison family merger of Paramount and Warner Brothers, despite the deal being exponentially worse across every possible metric.
As we’ve noted previously, the massive debt load, and the numerous structural parallels between the studios, means the Paramount/Warner Brothers merger will result in significantly more layoffs than the Netflix deal would have seen. And that’s before you get to the dodgy Saudi and Chinese money backing the bid, or the Ellson family’s ties gushing enthusiasm for corrupt authoritarianism.
Cameron at first was dead quiet as the Netflix deal faded and the Paramount merger came into view. But now he’s increasingly becoming gushingly supportive of the transaction (quite the contrast to the 3,700+ Hollywood insiders coming out against the deal):
“I know David quite well. And I know that he really cares about movies. And he’s a natural born storyteller and thinks like almost an old school entrepreneurial producer that was a storyteller that loves storytelling and loved putting on spectacular shows,” Cameron said. “He’s the right man for the job to run a major studio, and now it looks like he’s going to have two of them, you know, swept under his leadership, which doesn’t bother me at all.”
So basically Cameron likes the deal, and is willing to overlook the massive layoffs looming just over the horizon due to unprecedented consolidation, because he personally likes the Ellison family. And the Ellison family promised him that they won’t touch the 45 day delay between theatrical runs and home release.
The problem (for James and everyone else) is that pre-merger promises are utterly meaningless. Every single time Warner Brothers has merged (now four times over 20 years) it’s been an abject disaster, preceded by all sorts of empty promises about amazing new synergies. The AT&T merger alone resulted in 50,000 layoffs, and there are indications that AT&T executives could be viewed as immeasurably competent compared to what we’re seeing out of Ellison-owned Paramount and CBS News.
It’s “funny” because in Cameron’s letter to Lee, he offers this observation about Netflix:
“What administrative body will hold them to task if they slowly sunset their so-called commitment to theatrical releases?”
But the exact same applies to the Ellison family promises. It’s potentially worse given the Ellisons’ close ties to the administration, which will not only mean rubber-stamped federal merger approval, but less accountability later down the line (in a country where Trump has already guaranteed that corporate regulators lack the ability to do this or any other job).
It seems likely that the Ellisons promised other things to Cameron. Time will tell.
But Paramount’s debt from the CBS, MMA, and now Warner Brothers deals is so historically massive, it’s simply inevitable that this results in all manner of layoffs and corner cutting to service it. Denying that this is coming is like trying to debate physics, or have a fist fight with a river. This sort of consolidation is uniformly harmful to labor, consumers, and creatives. We literally just went through all of this.
David Ellison is telling anybody who’ll listen that this merger will be different and will magically result in a bigger, bolder Hollywood, but there’s simply no historical evidence to believe a single word he’s saying. Every Warner Brothers merger to date has been pointless and awful, but this one has the potential to be historically so.
Filed Under: antitrust, consolidation, david ellison, debt, hollywood, james cameron
Companies: netflix, paramount, warner bros. discovery


Comments on “James Cameron Is A Weird Hypocrite When It Comes To Giant Hollywood Mergers”
When you think he couldn’t sink any lower…
Money is what Cameron and Ellison have in common.
And expensive entertainment with weak storytelling is their mean.
…if not enforced. Which, under this administration, will be the case, unless the new owners happen to piss off The Party somehow.
But regulators do have the power to impose and enforce meaningful conditions, and I’d prefer we avoid nihilistic language such as the above. The promises are only as meaningless as we allow them to be.
Re:
They’ve been largely that way for a while. And the mergers had gone through in the first place.
What, do the words make it happen? Have you been here before? Because these people aren’t nihilistic about it, a major point of this blog is that things can change for the better.
But who else would let James Cameron direct a new Piranha III: The Stinkening.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/piranha_2_the_spawning
James Cameron is not a hypocrite, he just have different priorities.
Netflix cares significantly less about movie theaters and cinema as an art form.
I agree that in every other metric, it would have been better, but in this specific metric, the Netflix offer is worse.
Not that the state of theaters and cinema is great, but Netflix would have worsened it more quickly.
The netflix merger would have had the much bigger (dominant) market share.
This has NOTHING to with anti-trust or anything else. You’re just upset that a media company is being taken over by not-far-left crazies. (they’re not even conservative, just not crazy leftists)
Your tears ARE delicious, tho.
Cameron’s last good work was 30 years ago. He’s Michael Bay with fewer explosions at this point. No one should care what he thinks or says.
Re:
What was it?
Re: Re:
My best guess was that the commenter was referring to Titanic, from about 29.4 years ago (but Cameron had probably finished work some months before).
Re: Re: Re:
Titanic was decent, though overrated. I was referring to Strange Days, with Terminator, T2, and Aliens all better movies from even earlier in his career.
Maybe James Cameron is just another wealthy fascist.
Re:
Occam’s razor vs Hanlon’s razor.
I’m pretty sure the distinguishing factor is simple: Cameron hates streaming services and Netflix is the ur-example of one.