Joaquin Phoenix, Don Cheadle, J.J. Abrams & Others Share Open Letter Opposing WBD/Paramount Merger - Update

Joaquin Phoenix, Don Cheadle, J.J. Abrams & Others Share Open Letter Opposing WBD/Paramount Merger - Update

More than 1,000-plus Hollywood names, including Joaquin Phoenix, Ben Stiller, Kristen Stewart, Denis Villeneuve, and David Fincher, have signed an open letter opposing the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger...

By MarkCassidy - Apr 13, 2026 12:04 PM EST
Filed Under: DC Studios
Source: Via THR

Though U.S. and EU regulators still need to put the final stamp on the deal, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance officially announced that their $111 billion megamerger was full steam ahead back in February.

The joint announcement followed the bombshell news that Netflix had decided to pull out of the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery just a couple of hours after the David Zaslav-led media company’s board declared Paramount's new bid a “superior proposal.”

As part of the deal, Paramount and Warner Bros. will operate as independent studios, with a commitment to 15 films from each every year, with full 45-day windows before going to premium video on-demand, with longer windows for hit films.

There were various other concerns, of course, and many within the industry worry that Ellison’s close ties to the Trump administration could stifle free expression. 

Several high-profile names have already spoken out against the merger, but the trades have now published an open letter with over 1,000 Hollywood actors, directors, writers and producers, including Joaquin Phoenix, Bryan Cranston, Glenn Close, Ben Stiller, Don Cheadle, Jason Bateman, JJ Abrams and Yorgos Lanthimos expressing “unequivocal opposition” to the deal.

You can read the letter in full below.

"As filmmakers, documentarians, and professionals across the movie and television industry, we write to express our unequivocal opposition to the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries—and the audiences we serve—can least afford it. The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world. Alarmingly, this merger would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.

Our industry is already under severe strain, in large part due to prior waves of consolidation. We have witnessed a steep decline in the number of films produced and released, alongside a narrowing of the kinds of stories that are financed and distributed. Increasingly, a small number of powerful entities determine what gets made—and on what terms—leaving creators and independent businesses with fewer viable paths to sustain their work. Media consolidation has accelerated the disappearance of the mid-budget film, the erosion of independent distribution, the collapse of the international sales market, the elimination of meaningful profit participation, and the weakening of screen credit integrity.

Together, these factors threaten the sustainability of the entire creative community. That includes endangering the professional lives of the tens of thousands of workers who help make up that community in predominantly small businesses and independent companies embedded in local economies and communities nationwide. We are deeply concerned by indications of support for this merger that prioritize the interests of a small group of powerful stakeholders over the broader public good. The integrity, independence, and diversity of our industry would be grievously compromised. Competition is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy. So is thoughtful regulation and enforcement. Media consolidation has already weakened one of America’s most vital global industries—one that has long shaped culture and connected people around the world.

Fortunately, someone is doing something about all this. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and his colleagues in other states are reportedly scrutinizing the merger and considering legal action to block it. We are grateful for their leadership, and stand ready to support all efforts to preserve competition, protect jobs, and ensure a vibrant future for our industry, for American culture, and for our single most significant export."

Representatives for Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery did not immediately respond to request for comment, but it's difficult to imagine anything getting in the way of this merger now that the wheels are in motion.

Update: Paramount has now shared a lengthy response.

"We hear and understand the concerns that some in our creative community have raised and respect the commitment to protecting and expanding creativity. Importantly, as creators we know firsthand that this is also a moment when the industry has been facing significant disruption—and the need for strong, creative-first and well-capitalized companies that can continue to invest in storytelling has never been greater.

This transaction uniquely brings together complementary strengths to create a company that can greenlight more projects, back bold ideas, support talent across multiple stages of their careers, and bring stories to audiences at a truly global scale—while strengthening competition by ensuring multiple scaled players are investing in creative talent. We have been clear in our commitments to do just that: increasing output to a minimum of 30 high-quality feature films annually with full theatrical releases, continuing to license content, and preserving iconic brands with independent creative leadership —ensuring creators have more avenues for their work, not fewer.

We understand the concerns raised as a result of the disruptions caused to our industry by COVID, entry of big-tech, and changes in consumer behavior, but we promise this: Paramount remains deeply committed to talent, and this merger strengthens both consumer choice and competition, creating greater opportunities for creators, audiences and the communities they live and work in."

About The Author:
MarkCassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Mark Cassidy is a writer, photographer, amateur filmmaker, and Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic from Dublin, Ireland.
Sydney Chandler Is Joining Her Father In The DCU - But Not As The Character She Tested For!
Related:

Sydney Chandler Is Joining Her Father In The DCU - But Not As The Character She Tested For!

Lee Cronin's The Mummy's Rotten Tomatoes Score Revealed As First Reviews Prove Decidedly Mixed
Recommended For You:

Lee Cronin's The Mummy's Rotten Tomatoes Score Revealed As First Reviews Prove Decidedly Mixed

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, Comic Book Movie is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. Comic Book Movie will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that Comic Book Movie, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2 3
AscendedExtra
AscendedExtra - 4/13/2026, 9:49 AM
Rich people problems.
JackDeth
JackDeth - 4/13/2026, 9:54 AM
@AscendedExtra - Not even close.
Nonameforme
Nonameforme - 4/13/2026, 10:13 AM
@AscendedExtra - ita an everybody problem
AscendedExtra
AscendedExtra - 4/13/2026, 10:17 AM
@JackDeth - F*ck all you, me, or anyone else who's not a multi-kajillionaire can do about where WB ends up. We'll either pay the jacked-up price for the streaming services or we won't.
Baf
Baf - 4/13/2026, 10:23 AM
@AscendedExtra - The joke is, either way, streaming prices will go up. Billionaires don't lose wealth, they just adjust the way they run their empires.
cubrn
cubrn - 4/13/2026, 10:33 AM
@AscendedExtra - monopolies are an everybody problem
DarkeyeZ
DarkeyeZ - 4/13/2026, 10:33 AM
@AscendedExtra - it's a problem for anyone that likes good movies and original ideas. Not just a rich people problem, as they will get rich either way. It's gonna be a problem for non-rich filmmakers.
JackDeth
JackDeth - 4/13/2026, 11:00 AM
@AscendedExtra - The right wing owning all the media is a problem for all of us.
jst5
jst5 - 4/13/2026, 1:55 PM
@AscendedExtra - As soon as someone cuts a good enough check these whores will come a running...that's what they do.Having said that...who the hell is going to pay much to see a Glenn Close ,Don Cheadle, Jason Bateman, JJ Abrams made or leading movie??No one....
dragon316
dragon316 - 4/13/2026, 2:54 PM
@Baf - I don’t stream thought streaming prices have had gone up
philinterrupted
philinterrupted - 4/13/2026, 3:05 PM
@AscendedExtra - there are more people that work in that industry that probably earn less than you.

Just because the celebrity speaks out doesn’t make it a rich person problem.
Bucky74
Bucky74 - 4/13/2026, 3:12 PM
@AscendedExtra - Spot on. And how do they think Netflix would be better? That probably would have almost destroyed the theatre industry.
AscendedExtra
AscendedExtra - 4/13/2026, 3:16 PM
@cubrn - I don't disagree, it's just this sort of thing is hardly new. Hell, I bet most of us still remember a time when Pixar, Marvel, & Lucasfilm were all their own entities, before Disney gobbled them all up.

The rich tw@ts buy & sell these media companies like kids trade pokemon cards, and we the people still show up to give them money when they dangle something shiny in front of us.
TheOtherOn
TheOtherOn - 4/13/2026, 10:19 PM
@AscendedExtra - Dumb morons and consumers problem, who put these so called "entertainers" on the pedestal and worship them to no end. They keep spending their hard earned money on some crap "entertainment" and then cry about inflation and important life necessities being too expensive.

User Comment Image

User Comment Image
elcapitan
elcapitan - 4/15/2026, 1:46 PM
@AscendedExtra - clearly you don't work in the entertainment industry. There are a lot of people that work below the line that are anything but rich. In fact, in NYC many of them have had to dip into retirement accounts and pay steep penalties just to pay their rent because of the disruptions to the entertainment industry over the last 6 years. And it's not getting any better with more consolidation and AI.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 4/13/2026, 9:50 AM
I think Paramount is going to end up with a company that talent behind and in front of the camera refuses to work with. Good luck making up that money if you can't find people willing to work with you to produce content.
UltimaRex
UltimaRex - 4/13/2026, 11:10 AM
@TheJok3r - all the more reason for them to keep Gunn and the DCU.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 4/13/2026, 11:13 AM
@UltimaRex - There's been a lot of talk about Gunn leaving once this deal goes through; talent simply doesn't want to be associated with the people in-charge.
UltimaRex
UltimaRex - 4/13/2026, 11:24 AM
@TheJok3r - that may very well be his decision, but paramount isn't firing him.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 4/13/2026, 11:29 AM
@UltimaRex - I agree. I think talent with actual credibility who are in-demand view working with the Ellisons as something that will hurt their careers in the long run. Thanks to their association with Trump, these fools are paying over $100 billion for a company that (at best) will only be able to attract B-level talent.
Patient2670
Patient2670 - 4/13/2026, 1:43 PM
@TheJok3r - Unfortunately, if that were the case, it would simply put both studios out of business. WB and Paramount not making these movies, doesn't give the other studios the capital too make them or increase their output. Even worse, most people employed by the industry (especially here in the US) are already desperate for work and can't afford to turn down any gig. The vast majority on any production are not rich, do not get residuals. They just hope to maintain their union work hours to keep their insurance and make it until they're fully vested in their pension. The only thing worse than this potential monopoly, would be the loss of two more of the big studios taken off the board and even less work to go around.
jst5
jst5 - 4/13/2026, 1:49 PM
@TheJok3r - You say that like Gunn leaving is a bad thing....
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 4/13/2026, 2:01 PM
@Patient2670 - I'm not talking about your average directors and actors, but rather the big name talent that can bring in hundreds of millions of $$$ for the studio. These people have the choice to just go elsewhere with their projects, which will leave Paramount and WB with B and C list names that can't sell tickets. Purchasing WB for over $100 billion means that Paramount needs these big blockbusters that can generate $$$ quickly; the problem is that the people who are involved with these money making projects don't want to have anything to do with the Ellisons.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 4/13/2026, 2:03 PM
@jst5 - I've made it no secret that I don't think he was the right choice to lead DC, but I do hope we get to see his Superman trilogy reach its conclusion. We've yet to see a director complete his vision of Superman, so it would be nice to see Gunn break the curse.
Patient2670
Patient2670 - 4/13/2026, 2:26 PM
@TheJok3r - You're not wrong about Paramount needing money quick, but, boycotting or refusing to work for those entities only means less movies being made. Less jobs to be had. Even for the big name talent. Sure, Christopher Nolan did it with Warners, after Tenet, but not even most of them have the juice to do it. Even if the rival studios would want to, they (i'm looking at Universal, Sony, Amazon/MGM) don't have the capital to take them on. Those same a-listers are still not wanting to work for Apple or Netflix who can afford them. And eventually if they don't produce profitable films, they no longer have the leverage to simply refuse to work for a particular studio. The studios cancel their first look or overall deals. Look at what's just happened with JJ Abrams and Bad Robot.
But beyond that, the people I'm concerned with, are the ones considered "Below the Line". Construction, electricians, props, production assistants, etc. None of them are able to turn down the paycheck simply because they don't like the owners of a company.
Hell, I don't like this merger either, I just don't have the answer to an issue that isn't as black & white as people think. And I certainly can't afford to turn down work.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 4/13/2026, 2:50 PM
@Patient2670 - "the people I'm concerned with, are the ones considered "Below the Line". Construction, electricians, props, production assistants, etc."

I 100% agree with you here; these people who basically work from 8-5 will be the first casualties of this potential talent Vs. Studio war. If the Ellisons don't get ahead of this, all it'll take is a handful of A-list talent to get the ball rolling on a boycott. Another problem facing them is that after this deal is completed, they won't be bale to throw their financial weight around to get people in line, so they need to get on the same page as the talent before it's too late.
Patient2670
Patient2670 - 4/13/2026, 3:09 PM
@TheJok3r - Man, I wish it were 8-5. Most of these crew members pull 14-16 hour days, often starting around 4am. The ones working 8-5 (it's actually more like 10-6) are the studio staffers who are fine unless the studio itself shuts down alltogether.
Again, you're not wrong about the casualties, or the morality of a boycott. But that doesn't change the physics or practicality of the situation. Again, I don't have the solution, but maybe it's just that. If this merger can't sustain itself financially, maybe they find themselves forced to once again sell off assets. And since none of the others can afford to buy the company in its entirety, maybe they have to parcel it out, therby spreading the properties or divisions amongst several companies and reduciong these type monopolies. Maybe we have to reach rock bottom before rebuilding. I hope that's not the case, but who knows.
Sorry, I don't mean to talk your ear off about this, I could go on for days. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation.
MrDandy
MrDandy - 4/13/2026, 9:56 AM
They are right. I maintain Paramount is a significantly lesser evil than if Netflix had bought out the company. That would have been an outright disaster for the industry. Paramount buying it is still very bad. It further consolidates the film industry.
DarkeyeZ
DarkeyeZ - 4/13/2026, 10:31 AM
@MrDandy - I thought the same, but when you look more into it, Netflix would have been better for the Industry. When I say better, I don't mean generally better, I mean better than Paramount. From a Producers point of view, Netflix is more open to take on original ideas, indie projects and new IPs than Paramount is. Netflix also gives Producers and Directors more creative control than Paramount does.
The weird part about all this is that I am scheduled to pitch a documentary to Paramount, and I can't help but wonder if it's just a waste of time at the moment with all of this uncertainty.
MrDandy
MrDandy - 4/13/2026, 12:34 PM
@DarkeyeZ - Netflix buying WB would have been a literal monopoly due to them taking over their biggest streaming competitor in HBOmax. They would have a near 50% market share (legal monopoly), allowing them to jack up prices, absorb or phase out HBOmax, and set competitive pricing across the market.

Netflix is also extremely hostile to theaters as it benefits their business model for theaters to do poorly as they see them as competition to their say-at-home-and-binge strategy. Netflix was discussing a 10 day theatrical window for WB films, which would have crushed theaters. Unfortunately, all other studios still rely on the theatrical model and can't survive without it. They do not have the same critical mass in streaming as Netflix.

It is to Netflix's benefit, and strategy, to cause as much damage to theaters as possible while strengthening their a stranglehold on the streaming market. Neflix buying WB potentially could have been catastrophic for Hollywood as we know it today.
TheCoonII
TheCoonII - 4/13/2026, 12:48 PM
@DarkeyeZ - but Netflix would have killed movie theaters
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/14/2026, 8:14 AM
@MrDandy - HBOmax wasn't close to the biggest streaming competitor, that would be Amazon prime (which specific to US was slightly ahead of Netflix last year in terms of subs even if trailing them internationally) followed by Disney+ (although when adding on the like of Discovery plus they were CLOSE to Disney but still behind them). The Netflix deal may well, however, have been an issue in the streaming side increasing their dominance taking over the 4th or 5th biggest (according to which list you look at) but I doubt it would have had the negative impact on BO releases many thought it would as Netflix had already been trying to break into big screen releases more but lacked the clout etc of a legacy studio to get much traction. Having WB under Netflix may not have reduced WB output at all and may have increased how many Netflix films got a big screen release, the only question is BO exclusive windows not number of releases I tended to feel.

I mean neither were ideal options, the ideal option was WB getting their finances in order and keeping going as was sans a sellouts every couple of years but...

...as to Netflix wanting to kill theatre, doubt it, them hosting big BO films was oft a bigger draw for subs than their in house streaming only stuff but more and more studios having their own platforms was reducing how many of those they got first which is likely MORE the reason. As in ensuring the continued to be getting big BO release first by owning one of the biggest film producers but could be somewhere in between.

Potentially, by the numbers, HBO merged with Paramount on streaming Subs takes it past Amazon into second place internationally BTW (maybe not when taking into account how many currently have both but then HBO has steadily been expanding to more international markets too finally available in the UK for the first time this month).
elcapitan
elcapitan - 4/15/2026, 1:49 PM
@MrDandy - not to mention the hard right shift in their news division.
soberchimera
soberchimera - 4/13/2026, 10:01 AM
And yet, I doubt a single one of them will boycott starring in a WBD/Paramount film after the merger is done and they’re offered a huge wad of cash. If the Harry Potter show taught us anything, it’s that people’s principles stretch only so far until it gets in the way of them getting a paycheck.
IAmAHoot
IAmAHoot - 4/13/2026, 10:13 AM
@soberchimera - What and who about the Harry Potter show. I'm assuming it has to do with J.K. Rowling's involvement; but who has the issue?
TheFinestSmack
TheFinestSmack - 4/13/2026, 11:58 AM
@IAmAHoot - John Lithgow and Nick Frost have both openly condemned JK Rowling and, to a lesser extent, Paapa Essiedu signed a celebrity letter of solidarity with trans people after that U.K. supreme court ruling that JK was all about. But it seems they all had a price...
thedrudo
thedrudo - 4/13/2026, 10:03 AM
They should boycott working for these studios if they want to take a real stand.
SteviesRightFoo
SteviesRightFoo - 4/13/2026, 10:07 AM
There are few things more cringe inducing than actor/director-speak
Beer85
Beer85 - 4/13/2026, 10:08 AM
I am all for this merger. It's hard to take these actors seriously.
DarkeyeZ
DarkeyeZ - 4/13/2026, 10:25 AM
@Beer85 - and yet you will later complain about everything this merger causes.
When "Transformers vs G.I. Joe 18: We at it again" releases, it's people like you who are to blame.
1 2 3

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder