Cinemark Joins AMC Theatres and Regal in Supporting Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Cinemark's endorsement of the $111 billion Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger has prompted an immediate response from Cinema United, the exhibition industry's main lobbying group, which called for state attorneys general and Paramount to meet and discuss a settlement despite the group's own reservations about consolidation. The development highlights a growing split between the industry's three biggest chains, which now all back the deal, and their trade body, which had previously warned through president Michael O'Leary that a Warner Bros. takeover could mean fewer films and theatre closures.
Cinemark said it had come round to the merger after Paramount Skydance chief executive David Ellison pledged to release at least 30 films a year and honour a 45-day theatrical window, commitments it said would be formalised as written agreements and consent decrees; the statement was issued via a spokesperson rather than chief executive Sean Gamble. Cinemark also welcomed what it called "constructive dialogue" between Paramount Skydance and Cinema United, while the lobbying group, in its own statement, said it remained concerned about consolidation but was "open to steps that will protect the exhibition industry" as part of efforts toward a resolution.
- Cinemark backs Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger, joining AMC and Regal
- Cinema United, exhibitors' lobby group, now urges AGs and Paramount to settle
- Trade body still voices concerns despite its top three members' support
New here? Start with this
Cinemark, AMC and Regal are America's three biggest cinema chains, and together they control most of the country's screens. Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery are two major Hollywood studios that make and distribute films; they have proposed merging in a deal worth around $111 billion. Whenever a big studio merger is proposed, cinema chains and regulators pay close attention, because studios decide how many films get made and how they are released to theatres versus streaming.
Cinema United is the trade body that represents cinema owners across the industry, including the big chains. It has previously voiced concern that combining two major studios could lead to fewer films being produced and, in turn, financial strain or closures for cinemas that rely on a steady supply of releases. State attorneys general, who enforce competition law in the US, are also involved because mergers of this size typically need regulatory approval before they can go ahead.
The story matters because it shows how the interests of individual cinema chains can diverge from those of their own trade association, and how commitments a studio makes about future film output and release timing can shape whether the industry supports or opposes a merger of this scale.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the merger, including Cinemark, argue that a negotiated settlement offering concrete, legally enforceable commitments is more valuable to exhibitors than continued opposition to a deal likely to proceed regardless. Binding pledges of at least 30 films a year and a guaranteed 45-day theatrical window, formalised through written agreements and consent decrees, give cinemas a measure of certainty about content supply that informal assurances or protracted litigation would not. From this perspective, engaging constructively with Paramount Skydance allows the industry to shape safeguards from a position of influence rather than risk being sidelined once the merger closes.
The case against
Sceptics, including voices within Cinema United, contend that consolidation of this scale poses structural risks that individual corporate pledges cannot fully address, since commitments made by today's leadership are not guaranteed to survive changes in ownership, strategy or economic pressure. They worry that a smaller number of dominant studios could still lead, over time, to fewer theatrical releases and increased vulnerability for exhibitors, particularly smaller ones without the negotiating leverage of the largest chains. For this reason, they favour continued scrutiny from state attorneys general and durable, industry-wide protections over reliance on deal-specific assurances from the merging companies themselves.
More coverage