Support NeoGAF

[bitbydeath]

Sony Pictures Entertainment and investment firm Apollo Global Management have reportedly been in discussions about teaming on a joint bid to acquire Paramount according to The New York Times.

According to the outlet, the two companies have not submitted an official bid with Paramount currently still in exclusive conversations with Skydance with whom they’ve had a working relationship over the years.

Sony Pictures Entertainment chief Tony Vinciquerra reportedly held conversations in the last week with Apollo about teaming up for an all-cash offer for the outstanding stock in Paramount – essentially taking the company private.

The terms of said bid are still being worked out with various options on the table.

Sony In Talks For A Bid On Paramount - Dark Horizons

Sony Pictures Entertainment and investment firm Apollo Global Management have reportedly been in discussions about teaming on a joint bid to acquire Paramount according to The New York Times. According to the outlet, the two companies have not submitted an official bid with Paramount currently...

www.darkhorizons.com

 

[Represent.]

Make a Top Gun game on the decima engine

 

[Power Pro]

More consolidation...just what we need

 

[Sleepwalker]

Sony to finally answer MS buying spree and take sweet sweet revenge by

*checks notes*


Ordering 5 seasons of the Halo tv show.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The logo is already blue so they'll save on cost there.

 

[TransTrender]

Obligatory

 

[SplunkyMunkey]

This gives sony a quite an advantage on movies and programs. MTV , nickelodeon and many more. And expecially movies, top gun and soon to release sonic 3

It's a shame they can afford this but can't afford to buy a gaming publisher which is doing better then all of sonys sectors

 

[Melchiah]

Hopefully it won't come to pass, since I've enjoyed SkyShowtime streaming service (particularly its selection of 90's series and movies, along with new Star Trek series and horror movies), and I highly doubt I'd get the same content for 4,49€/month from them.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

This gives sony a quite an advantage on movies and programs. MTV , nickelodeon and many more. And expecially movies, top gun and soon to release sonic 3

It's a shame they can afford this but can't afford to buy a gaming publisher which is doing better then all of sonys sectors

Sony Pictures is the small boy of the movie industry now due to consolidation from other companies. They've known for a while that they're in a pretty bad situation, but have made the most of it by selling their content to the big streaming services. Presumably if they owned Paramount+ that would make it more difficult to justify selling their content rather than putting it on Paramount+.

It also could create a difficult path forward PlayStation Studios which has also had success putting content on several popular streaming services which is more beneficial than this content ending up on Paramount+.

P+ only has 67 million subscribers. HBO has 100 million. Netflix has 270 million.

Paramount's value was estimated at 10 billion dollars. That Sony would do a joint venture on this would mean they'd probably be putting in between 4-8 billion dollars here, that's not that significant in the large scheme of things compared to buying a gaming publisher at least not a large one. Nor do I think this would prevent them from buying a game publisher if they felt like it would help them out. If anything buying Paramount might lead them to buy Sega so that they could own the rights to Sonic.

Buying Paramount would also give you licensing rights to some potentially very valuable game IP.

• Star Trek
• Mission Impossible
• Top Gun
• TMNT

Overall, I don't think Paramount is worth much, but again, that's probably why Sony isn't considering this by themselves, but it does have potential ramifications for Sony Interactive. I think a Star Trek game made by Insomniac or Naughty Dog would probably sell gangbusters. Sony Bend doing Mission Impossible could be really big. Sucker Punch could probably make a great TMNT game and if I was Sony I would partner with Namco Bandai on Top Gun.

 

[RoboFu]

The great streaming wars is still going on huh? Lots of casualties in this war.

I wonder what's going to happen in the future when ai and robots take all the jobs and force a socialistic society?

 

[YCoCg]

I wonder what's going to happen in the future when ai and robots take all the jobs and force a socialistic society?

Costs will continue to go up because CEOs and Shareholders won't be robots.

 

[Punished Miku]

If they're looking to sell I guess it's fair game. I just shudder to think about Sony Pictures expanding in any way. Tom Holland can't have access to more first look contracts.

 

[Goalus]

MS should bid for them as well in order to drive up the price.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

If they're looking to sell I guess it's fair game. I just shudder to think about Sony Pictures expanding in any way. Tom Holland can't have access to more first look contracts.

Tom Holland would be a pretty good choice to take over Mission Impossible though it might be too much.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

I think a Star Trek game made by Insomniac or Naughty Dog...

 

[Trogdor1123]

Tom Holland would be a pretty good choice to take over Mission Impossible though it might be too much.

I like Tom holland but he isn’t that kind of guy…

 

[Werewolf Jones]

Yellowstone game incoming.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I like Tom holland but he isn’t that kind of guy…

I think he is literally that kind of guy.

He's basically a perfect fit for it.

Other options I would consider:
Ryan Gosling
Bradley Cooper

Tom Holland buys you a lot more time than the other two, but he's already carrying Spider-Man and potentially Uncharted.

Harrison Ford was able to carry Star Wars (3x, not including Force Awakening), Indiana Jones (3x prime), and Jack Ryan (2x)

Tom Holland could probably do at least 3 more Spider-Man movies, 2 more Uncharted Movies, and 3+ Mission Impossible Movies.

Stallone did 5 prime Rocky movies, as well as 3 prime Rambo movies.

No one has really been able to mainstay 3 major franchises at once, so maybe Tom would be the first to do it. Chris Pratt could have if they gave him Indiana Jones, which would have been more successful than what they just did.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Chris Pratt could have if they gave him Indiana Jones, which would have been more successful than what they just did.

I completely agree with you there, Chris Pratt would have been a successful billion-dollar hand-off, but they didn't give it to him out of spite or ignorance, one.

Holland might be able to play a young Ethan Hunt, but he wouldn't be able to replace Tom Cruise as the current "adult" Hunt. I guess he could also be a new character as well.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I completely agree with you there, Chris Pratt would have been a successful billion-dollar hand-off, but they didn't give it to him out of spite or ignorance, one.

Holland might be able to play a young Ethan Hunt, but he wouldn't be able to replace Tom Cruise as the current "adult" Hunt. I guess he could also be a new character as well.

I don't think it was out of spite or ignorance. Harrison Ford wanted to do it and he doesn't want anyone else playing the role. If anything it was ego.

When it comes to legacy, people have different views on it. Some people are excited to see people take up the mantle to replace them and others see is as being forgotten.

The problem is people will wholly forget the Indiana Jones franchise in the future. They'll never be revisited. There are people today that will die on a hill that Sean Connery is the best bond. People still watch those movies, because Bond is still relevant today.

Tom Holland is 27 years old. Tom Cruise was 34 when he did his first Mission Impossible movie. A bit baby faced and his American accent work needs work to mature a bit, which I think he's done, but I don't think there are any restrictions on him.

 

[jason10mm]

I don't think it was out of spite or ignorance. Harrison Ford wanted to do it and he doesn't want anyone else playing the role. If anything it was ego.

When it comes to legacy, people have different views on it. Some people are excited to see people take up the mantle to replace them and others see is as being forgotten.

The problem is people will wholly forget the Indiana Jones franchise in the future. They'll never be revisited. There are people today that will die on a hill that Sean Connery is the best bond. People still watch those movies, because Bond is still relevant today.

Tom Holland is 27 years old. Tom Cruise was 34 when he did his first Mission Impossible movie. A bit baby faced and his American accent work needs work to mature a bit, which I think he's done, but I don't think there are any restrictions on him.

The thing with Bond is there are the books to fall back on as source for the character, and the books do go on long past Fleming, I wish the Brocollis would adapt Gardners work as he had a good understanding of the character.

Indy though, really only exists as Ford depicts him, the books and comics either parodied Ford or never really gave a compelling character to Indy at all. River Phoenix and Sean Patrick Flanery gave ok performances, SPF in particular was kinda hamstrung by the nature of the show and the strong move away from any grit and steel in the character of Indy as a mercenary.

Tom Holland as Ethan Hunt? No, just......no.

I'm kinda shocked Paramount could go for just 10 bill when Fox was 60, 70+ billion. Their catalogue is as strong and has lots of viable IPs as well. Hell, if P+ comes with Taylor Sheridan that guy can write and direct an entire network of shows by himself!

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The thing with Bond is there are the books to fall back on as source for the character, and the books do go on long past Fleming, I wish the Brocollis would adapt Gardners work as he had a good understanding of the character.

Indy though, really only exists as Ford depicts him, the books and comics either parodied Ford or never really gave a compelling character to Indy at all. River Phoenix and Sean Patrick Flanery gave ok performances, SPF in particular was kinda hamstrung by the nature of the show and the strong move away from any grit and steel in the character of Indy as a mercenary.

Tom Holland as Ethan Hunt? No, just......no.

I'm kinda shocked Paramount could go for just 10 bill when Fox was 60, 70+ billion. Their catalogue is as strong and has lots of viable IPs as well. Hell, if P+ comes with Taylor Sheridan that guy can write and direct an entire network of shows by himself!

You don't need pre-existing content to make a movie that's good and depictions can change all the time. Chris Pratt would have made an excellent Indiana Jones in his own right.

Adam West was Batman until Michael Keaton was batman and now most people associated Christian Bale as batman.

Tom Holland is probably going to be the biggest movie star of the next 15-20 years. The guy puts butts in seats. There is a segment on the internet that doesn't like him, but his box office results can't be disputed.

Paramount doesn't have anywhere close to the consistent revenue Fox has had over the last 30+ years... crazy comment to compare them.

 

[Dr. Samuel Hayden]

Paramount is absolutely terrible, almost as bad as Disney. I'd hope Sony could straighten them out but Sony's movies aren't exactly great either.

Hollywood as a whole is just a giant dumpster fire.

 

[jason10mm]

You don't need pre-existing content to make a movie that's good and depictions can change all the time. Chris Pratt would have made an excellent Indiana Jones in his own right.

Adam West was Batman until Michael Keaton was batman and now most people associated Christian Bale as batman.

Tom Holland is probably going to be the biggest movie star of the next 15-20 years. The guy puts butts in seats. There is a segment on the internet that doesn't like him, but his box office results can't be disputed.

Paramount doesn't have anywhere close to the consistent revenue Fox has had over the last 30+ years... crazy comment to compare them.

Man, you crazy. Paramount has a MASSIVE library and arguably more box office hits than Fox (probably much more so of classic films)

All Time Worldwide Box Office for Paramount Pictures Movies

This chart contains the top 100 Paramount Pictures movies based on the cumulative worldwide box office.

www.the-numbers.com

All Time Worldwide Box Office for 20th Century Fox Movies

This chart contains the top 100 20th Century Fox movies based on the cumulative worldwide box office.

www.the-numbers.com

Neither of them stand a chance against Disney (good god they were a BEAST till 2020!!) but to say Paramount is worth 10B versus Fox at 66B or whatever, thats just crazy. Disney WAAAAAY overpaid to get x-men IMHO.

Tom Holland can't open shit unless he is Spiderman.

And Batman also has a deep comic background. Indy has ONLY been Ford in any real meaningful context, which is why he is so hard to recast (though I am with you, Pratt about 7-8 years ago would have been PERFECT, maybe Nathan Fillion 20 years ago).

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Man, you crazy. Paramount has a MASSIVE library and arguably more box office hits than Fox (probably much more so of classic films)

All Time Worldwide Box Office for Paramount Pictures Movies

This chart contains the top 100 Paramount Pictures movies based on the cumulative worldwide box office.

www.the-numbers.com

All Time Worldwide Box Office for 20th Century Fox Movies

This chart contains the top 100 20th Century Fox movies based on the cumulative worldwide box office.

www.the-numbers.com

Neither of them stand a chance against Disney (good god they were a BEAST till 2020!!) but to say Paramount is worth 10B versus Fox at 66B or whatever, thats just crazy. Disney WAAAAAY overpaid to get x-men IMHO.

Tom Holland can't open shit unless he is Spiderman.

And Batman also has a deep comic background. Indy has ONLY been Ford in any real meaningful context, which is why he is so hard to recast (though I am with you, Pratt about 7-8 years ago would have been PERFECT, maybe Nathan Fillion 20 years ago).

Fox had way more modern and relevant IP and a lot of the value is dependent on debt.

Disney getting X-Men allowed them to largely complete the Marvel universe. You say they overpaid for X-Men, but you've yet to see what they've done with X-Men to make that determination. Historically X-Men was right behind Spider-Man in terms of popularity for Marvel. It's a very valuable franchise, but it's not all that came with Fox. It allowed Disney to also complete their ownership of Star Wars. It gave them FX and further ownership of Hulu, which allowed it to complete its ownership of Hulu. Fox was especially valuable, especially to Disney.

Tom Holland's Uncharted performed pretty well, especially given when it released. If Tom Holland can't open, and you're taking out superhero movies, who under 40 can?

If Sony wants to stay relevant in movies, they know buying Paramount is probably the first step to doing so. Then you have to look at Universal, but there are a lot of issues there, similar with trying to buy Paramount, Sony can't own CBS or NBC. And then the only other player is Warner.

Not sure what Batman's comic book background means to being able to cast multiple actors. Ford has been the only meaningful indy, but he hasn't had a meaningful entry since 1981.

Similar to how Pratt would have been perfect and maybe still could be, I think Holland could successfully reboot Mission Impossible into his own franchise, where Jeremy Renner failed to do so with Bourne, and Chris Pine failed to do so with Jack Ryan.

Sean Connery was Bond for 21 years. Tom Cruise has been Ethan Hunt for 28 years. Though Connery made 7 bond movies in those 21 years vs Tom Cruise only has done 7 in 28 years.

There are no actors in their 30s that are worth risking a mission Impossible reboot with and starting with an actor in their 40s doesn't make a lot of sense. There will be a Mission Impossible movie the last with Tom Cruise in 2025. You wait at least 2-3 years to reboot, that brings you to 2027-2028. Holland will be 31 by then, which is really close to when Tom Cruise initially was cast in the role.

 

[jason10mm]

Fox had way more modern and relevant IP and a lot of the value is dependent on debt.

Disney getting X-Men allowed them to largely complete the Marvel universe. You say they overpaid for X-Men, but you've yet to see what they've done with X-Men to make that determination. Historically X-Men was right behind Spider-Man in terms of popularity for Marvel. It's a very valuable franchise, but it's not all that came with Fox. It allowed Disney to also complete their ownership of Star Wars. It gave them FX and further ownership of Hulu, which allowed it to complete its ownership of Hulu. Fox was especially valuable, especially to Disney.

Tom Holland's Uncharted performed pretty well, especially given when it released. If Tom Holland can't open, and you're taking out superhero movies, who under 40 can?

If Sony wants to stay relevant in movies, they know buying Paramount is probably the first step to doing so. Then you have to look at Universal, but there are a lot of issues there, similar with trying to buy Paramount, Sony can't own CBS or NBC. And then the only other player is Warner.

Not sure what Batman's comic book background means to being able to cast multiple actors. Ford has been the only meaningful indy, but he hasn't had a meaningful entry since 1981.

Similar to how Pratt would have been perfect and maybe still could be, I think Holland could successfully reboot Mission Impossible into his own franchise, where Jeremy Renner failed to do so with Bourne, and Chris Pine failed to do so with Jack Ryan.

Sean Connery was Bond for 21 years. Tom Cruise has been Ethan Hunt for 28 years. Though Connery made 7 bond movies in those 21 years vs Tom Cruise only has done 7 in 28 years.

There are no actors in their 30s that are worth risking a mission Impossible reboot with and starting with an actor in their 40s doesn't make a lot of sense. There will be a Mission Impossible movie the last with Tom Cruise in 2025. You wait at least 2-3 years to reboot, that brings you to 2027-2028. Holland will be 31 by then, which is really close to when Tom Cruise initially was cast in the role.

Eh, we'll see. I think Disney bought Fox at the high point and it's gonna crush them. Xmen aren't likely to save them, stuff like Die Hard, Aliens, and Predator certainly aren't.

As for Holland, we'll see there as well. I find it VERY unlikely that guy will see much success outside of Spiderman.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Eh, we'll see. I think Disney bought Fox at the high point and it's gonna crush them. Xmen aren't likely to save them, stuff like Die Hard, Aliens, and Predator certainly aren't.

As for Holland, we'll see there as well. I find it VERY unlikely that guy will see much success outside of Spiderman.

X-Men is massive. Deadpool and Wolverine itself will do big numbers. X-Men 97 is doing well I think. When they finally go to reboot the X-Men, it could be as big as anything else they've done, which hopefully will get them back on the right footing.

Avatar 2 did VERY well and Avatar 3 probably will too.

They're making a ton because they own all of the star wars movies now too.

Alien and Predator were never that big. Neither was Die Hard.

For Tom Holland, I'll ask the same question. Which male actor is as bankable as him under the age of 40.

 

[jason10mm]

For Tom Holland, I'll ask the same question. Which male actor is as bankable as him under the age of 40.

Other than Chalamey (who is the most popular im sure but not my fav for an action role) even beyond these guys there are FAR better candidates than Holland. Go a bit over 40 and it opens up a lot. Which for Ethan Hunt is ok unless you are doing an origin film or something.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Other than Chalamey (who is the most popular im sure but not my fav for an action role) even beyond these guys there are FAR better candidates than Holland. Go a bit over 40 and it opens up a lot. Which for Ethan Hunt is ok unless you are doing an origin film or something.

Tom Cruise was 34 when he first did Mission Impossible. 40+ is definitely too old to be starting out in the franchise.

Your list is laughable. Taron Edgerton (Kingsman Golden Circle, Robin Hood) has largely flamed out as has Richard Madden (Eternals, Bodyguard).

Timothy Chalamet is definitely up there with Tom Holland, but certainly isn't the preferred choice for an action film between the two of them.

That you think Aaron Taylor Johnson (hasn't been a leading man since 2013) is even remotely in the same league as Tom Holland is ridiculous.

Seems like you have a vendetta here.

 

[jason10mm]

Tom Cruise was 34 when he first did Mission Impossible. 40+ is definitely too old to be starting out in the franchise.

Your list is laughable. Taron Edgerton (Kingsman Golden Circle, Robin Hood) has largely flamed out as has Richard Madden (Eternals, Bodyguard).

Timothy Chalamet is definitely up there with Tom Holland, but certainly isn't the preferred choice for an action film between the two of them.

That you think Aaron Taylor Johnson (hasn't been a leading man since 2013) is even remotely in the same league as Tom Holland is ridiculous.

Seems like you have a vendetta here.

Sure, I don't think tiny Tom Holland has action star chops. It's not a hard thing to grok. As Spiderman he does ok, though the best parts are when he is a cgi thing. But I would take ANYONE on my list (other than maybe chalomet) as the lead in an action film. They have all done it.

Let's put a pin in this and revisit in 5 years and see what's what. Otherwise it's just speculation and both of us are pretty clear on our opinion.