When it comes to Paramount’s legal wrestle with the AG’s antitrust case over the Melrose lot’s possible merger with Warner Bros, the key is to divide and conquer with exhibition.

Deadline knows that Paramount has made a written commitments with at least one of the top two circuits, specifically, Regal for for 30 films annually over three years with an exclusive 45-day theatrical window and a 90 day window to streaming.

There’s buzz that AMC has also has a written commitment from Paramount, but the circuit’s boss Adam Aron emphasized to Deadline this afternoon, “AMC has no comment on this story, period. Nor have we ever had any comment on this story.”

Aron has waved the flag publicly in support of a Paramount-Warner Bros merger, while Deadline told you first that Regal Boss Eduardo Acuna was also a champion for the union.

When it comes to the big chains, it matters for them to be on the right side of history with Paramount, especially when it comes to future terms on a 30 film slate.

However, the rest of Cinema United (formerly National Association of Theatre Owners) remains firmly against the Paramount-Warner Bros merger and its potential negative financial outcomes in regards to long-term box office, feature film output and loss of jobs. Cinema United has been trying to meet again with Paramount CEO David, Ellison, but there’s nothing on the books yet, we understand.

Acuna told Deadline that in regards to Paramount’s future promise to exhibition, “(Paramount CEO) David (Ellison) is sincere in making these commitments, and he has offered to execute a consent decree to the State AGs to that effect. These are tangible and important commitments that will benefit the industry and which can be measured.” 

Paramount insiders tell us that no written commitments have been given to exhibitors yet, but Ellison is willing to make non-bespoke one to any theater chain wanting them. And such deals will come with financial penalties to Paramount should they break such agreements with theaters. Again, this is all about Ellison standing behind his promises made at CinemaCon to maintain a hefty theatrical output and excellent windows to theaters.

The trial with the AGs isn’t until March 2027. Currently, Paramount has 16 films scheduled for 2027 and seven for 2028. Warner Bros has 19 for 2027 and 15 for 2028 in Rentrak. Had the merger gone through this fall, the marriage would have wound have had 35 organically for 2027. Right now for 2028, a combined studio would have 22.

Here’s the reality — promise or no promise, written commitment or none: marketplace will determine whether there’s an output and a need for one studio to push out 30 films annually. If most of the films fall short of profit, what’s to stop a studio from cutting back on supply and cost? The intention is well and good, but there are core issues and history which cannot go ignored.

The stigmata that has burned upon the industry is, hello, the fallout of the Disney-Fox merger, which major studio executives tried to yell at the Justice Dept at that time as a monopoly, but the government regulators wouldn’t listen.

In 2016, Disney and 20th Century Fox separately released 26 new titles opening in more than 2,000 locations. In the wake of that merger, in 2025, their combined output fell to 14 wide releases, a -46% decline. The box office went for them combined went form $4.29B in 2016 to $2.4B in 2025, -44%. Cinema United as asserted that they don’t believe how a union between two landmark studios, Paramount and Warner Bros, would be any different. Cinema United has argued that there will be fewer films made ultimately, leading to theaters closing their doors, which would have a ripple effect on local Main St. and mall economies.

Supposedly, with written commitments to theaters chains, the hope for Paramount is that their PR war against the AGs strengthens, unraveling the antitrust lawsuit filed by 12 state AGs over the merger.

And we’re not even getting into jobs lost yet if there’s a Paramount-Warner Bros merger.

All of this melodrama occurs when the domestic box office is bound to surge to double digits, the best post Covid with an estimated $10 billion domestic, in addition to summer crossing the $4 billion mark this weekend.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asserted that her appearances on left-wing commentator Hasan Piker’s livestreams are part of an effort to engage with young voters and “build a winning coalition.”

In an appearance on Sunday’s episode of ABC’s “This Week,” Ocasio-Cortez was asked by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl about her appearances on Piker’s livestreams, citing the popular socialist internet personality as a “person who’s been made an issue” among moderate Democrats, particularly for comments that the U.S. “deserved 9/11” (a statement that Piker has since retracted and apologized for). Karl asked Ocasio-Cortez if Piker is “someone that should have a role in the progressive movement going forward.”

“Much hay was made about the fact that we lost young men in the last election, and many of the same consultants that are wringing their hands today were the same ones talking about how we need to go on Joe Rogan and we need to be not so willing to engage in cancel culture,” “When we look at our elections that have happened, we have lost young people,” Ocasio-Cortez answered. “The fact of the matter is that Democrats can go on Joe Rogan. Democrats can go on Fox News. Democrats have a responsibility to build a winning coalition.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s comments come as the Democratic Party has seen a number of candidates challenging incumbents in primary elections, such as the Piker-endorsed Abdul El-Sayed, who won the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s Senate election on Wednesday.

“Young people are engaging in mediums and conversations that we have a responsibility to attend to and be responsive to,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “Oftentimes when people are doing that Monday morning quarterbacking (of) what demographics voted where, the big one that’s being ignored is the generational tidal wave. Millennials are not punk kids anymore. We’re grown adults with mortgages and kids. That generation is starting to be decisive at the polls. And there is anger at being ignored, sidelined (and) having our economic futures mortgaged by the generations that came before us on everything, from the economy to climate.”