Blog

Bigger-is-better studio merger logic goes back in Hollywood nearly as long as the industry has existed. So, too, do eyerolls about such consolidation. In 1933, for instance, comedy troupe the Marx Brothers unveiled the name of their production company, with a characteristic wink, as International Amalgamated Consolidated Affiliated World Wide Film Productions Company Incorporated, of North Dakota.

That name makes saying aloud “Paramount Skydance Warner Bros. Discovery” seem like almost like a breeze after the final ink is dry on David Ellison’s $111 billion merger. But, for this day and age, even five words — a mashup of two century-old studio names on each side of an upstart new media company, with a cable channel tacked on at the end — seem like too much.

That’s the dilemma facing Team Ellison: What does he name a company that just seemingly vacuumed up half of Hollywood? The title for what up until now has been deemed WarnerMount, which tellingly leads with the acquired studio, or ParaBros, which is more of a nod to the optics of the C-suite mix of the buyers, has yet to be unveiled and Paramount is staying mum, declining comment on the angle of this column.

But the name is no small thing. The decision will signal to both the industry and the Wall Street crowd what its new owner prioritizes. On a big picture scale, you could say it sets the strategic direction. Does Ellison want to look forward, rather than backward, given all of his talk about taking on tech giants in the attention economy? Or does his love of the entertainment industry, and big-budget moviemaking, nod to a nostalgic side?

And now, with a rules-of-the-road consent decree to abide by thanks to California attorney general Rob Bonta, he’s got to keep in mind the optics for that crew as well (You can’t look like a monopoly right after closing a deal where the primary complaint from critics is that the merger vaporizes another buyer from the landscape). And the titling will also tip to how Ellison’s own ego plays in to the process, too.

There’s tradition to think of. The Paramount Pictures name and script typeface conjures up Oscars’ best picture winners like The Godfather or Forrest Gump or Top Gun. That’s the reason why, after Shari Redstone re-merged her father Sumner’s Viacom and CBS empires, she rebranded the robotic and clunkily named ViacomCBS as Paramount Global, alongside christening its flagship streamer Paramount+ (and ditching that CBS All Access name). The Paramount name, Redstone believed, signaled quality and Classic Hollywood, and was a known commodity worldwide.

The same could be said about Warner Bros., home of Casablanca and Rebel Without a Cause and countless other classics (many of which we associate with Warners but are actually MGM features, like Wizard of Oz, thanks to Warners buying much of that library and playing those movies on rotation on the Turner Classic Movies channel). It’s the reason why the Warner name has stuck around despite countless mergers and acquisitions. It weathered a merger with then-publishing giant Time Inc and suffered the indignity having AOL take it over in what’s now regarded as the most disastrous media megadeal of all-time. In what probably should’ve been a tell, when AT&T acquired it in 2018, the telecom swallowed Time Warner whole and there was no trace of the Warner name.

Deemed immaterial to AT&T, a few years later it was spun out to David Zaslav’s cable giant, who — in arguably a nod to his ego — made sure that Discovery was represented in the Warner Bros. Discovery merger. That framing made it seem like Warner Bros. and Discovery were equals, when in reality the assets that were sought after (like the movie studio and HBO) were mostly all on the WB side. Zaslav’s team tried to nod to that Golden Age of Hollywood quality when nevertheless revealing a truly hideous logo in 2021 alongside a quote from The Maltese Falcon (“The stuff that dreams are made of”).

One clue as to how Ellison may look to go about the naming is what he did when his far-smaller Skydance Media (Est. 2006) merged with Paramount (Est. 1912). Remember, when Skydance first inked a deal nearly a year before closing on Paramount in August 2025 it initially redesigned the Paramount logo to look like the Skydance one.

That change ultimately didn’t take when the deal closed — why mess with a font synonymous with Hollywood? The Paramount script has been around nearly as long as the company existed. It’s been replicated on venues far from Los Angeles and has been the first thing that audiences have seen on countless titles in theaters (the Indiana Jones movies come to mind as far as how each first scene finds a way to play off the Paramount mountain). There’s an authenticity test here. That Skydance-ified Paramount logo looks just a bit off. Here’s the Paramount Pictures logo adorning the front gate of the Hollywood studio lot in 1920:

While formally the company is now titled Paramount Skydance (i.e. framed as a marriage of equals even though it’s really not), just take a look at the water tower on the lot to see how Ellison is really playing it. The tower has the iconic Paramount mountain, stars and script font with just a small disclaimer underneath that says “A Skydance Corporation.” Should we expect that for the Warner Bros. water tower in Burbank soon as well? It seems like a decent bet.

In that case, when the deal formally closes, presumably in early October, is Ellison ultimately going to unveil Skydance Corporation as the new name for his entire holding company that houses dozens of cable channels along with two movie studios and two major news brands? HBO, a Skydance Corporation. CNN, a Skydance Corporation. Paramount has been there before, too, when it was snapped up by manufacturing conglomerate Gulf and Western Industries in 1966 and got labeled “A Gulf + Western Company” underneath its logo. There’s some organizing logic there for synergy when labeling a far-flung empire of assets.

There’s a few problems with that. First, Skydance is the least iconic of all the names that Ellison has collected so far. Yes, it’s his own company that he boot-strapped and built himself (well, boot-strapped and built with financial help from his father, Oracle mogul Larry Ellison, who’s worth around $200 billion). But, optically, nothing says “I bought and ingested iconic studios and now they’re just tiles on a screen in my holding company” like wiping out the studio names from the parent company’s business card.

Second, this new company isn’t AT&T, which ultimately cared far more about the telecom side of things and was fine jettisoning Warner because it wasn’t a core part of its business. Movies and television shows are the name of the game for this merged company. So you’d guess, then, that you should put your best foot forward by leading with the most recognizable, blue-chip names.

Think back to all the handwringing and embarrassing reversals during the AT&T and Warner Bros. Discovery years as to whether the flagship streamer should be named Max or HBO Max. (It started off as HBO Max before turning in to Max and then going back to its original name HBO Max.) Ultimately, the C-suite led with the name that signaled quality to the widest set of possible consumers (even if execs privately fretted about diluting the good name of HBO with a streaming service featuring thousands of shows of varying quality).

In this instance, if Ellison does indeed name his holding company Skydance Corporation it may be the Max of all the options, even if it doesn’t tip his hat in favor of any particular studio aside from the one that he started himself. Right now, the company trades as PSKY on the Nasdaq, though it’s set to move to the New York Stock Exchange in early October. (The symbol, SKY, it should be noted, is already taken on the NYSE by a modular home manufacturing company.)

If including Skydance Corporation in the main part of the name is indeed the plan, maybe going the Marx Bros.’ “Amalgamated Consolidated Affiliated…” approach with the studio names would’ve been the better call, after all, to keep a piece of Hollywood history preserved.

Taylor Swift and Madonna dominated the 2026 MTV Video Music Awards, and they also offered some fun behind-the-scenes moments that TV viewers at home didn’t see during the live broadcast.

Below, see what they — and others — did when the cameras weren’t rolling on Sunday night.

Starstruck Over Madonna

Madonna not only ruled the night with her opening performance and several wins, but she also seemed to be the most popular photo opp. The star sat center front row during the show and was spotted in chats (and taking pics) with Taylor Swift, Julia Garner and Charli xcx after skipping the red carpet earlier in the night.

Where Were Bruno Mars and Kacey Musgraves?

Two of the night’s biggest performances — Bruno Mars and a Dolly Parton tribute from Kacey Musgraves — were pretaped and not performed live in the room, leading to some confusion. Many in the crowd rumbled and looked around for which stage the stars were singing on, only to eventually realize they were not in attendance. THR reached out to a rep find out where Mars taped his performance.

Taylor Swift’s Busy Night

Taylor Swift, the night’s big winner with video of the year along with her special artist directors honor, did not have a lot of time to sit and enjoy the show, as THR spotted her zipping around all night. Swift arrived on the red carpet about five minutes before the awards went live, closing things down as everyone else was already inside. She disappeared for the show’s first hour, then made her way to her seat just moments before Dakota Johnson presented her directors award (and the two stayed on stage, whispering and giggling as their “Patient Zero” video debuted on the big screen). She went away again, and then made a stealth return to her seat just before winning video of the year.

Taylor Swift enters the #VMAs during a commercial break, stopping to say hi to fans along the way pic.twitter.com/bRJMUZZBCW

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) September 28, 2026

Taylor Swift enters the #VMAs during a commercial break, stopping to say hi to fans along the way pic.twitter.com/bRJMUZZBCW

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) September 28, 2026

Off Campus Stars Enjoy a Fun Night

Off Campus fever took over the VMAs as stars Belmont Cameli and Ella Bright were on hand as presenters. Bright arrived earlier in the afternoon and then returned to the red carpet when Cameli arrived, as they posed for photos together — met with some screaming fans along the way. Inside the show, they were spotted on a side stage laughing and dancing around while Madonna gave an acceptance speech, just before they introduced Sienna Spiro’s performance.

Moonpeople Mascot Commit to the Role — Despite the Heat

Temps were high in downtown L.A. on Sunday afternoon, and even the Moonpeople were feeling it. Several of the VMAs Moonperson mascots were walking around the carpet in celebration, but it’s not exactly an airy costume, surrounded by puffy silver fabric. THR spotted one Moonperson — still masked and committed to the role — camped out behind the photo line along some AC vents, seeking a respite with some handlers before returning to the heat.

Gener8ion and Yung Leon Wow the Crowd

When Gener8ion and Yung Lean hit the stage to perform “Storm,” as the last performance of the night, they re-created the viral video featuring choreography by Damien Jalet. The audience loved it, giving it one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night, with many rising to their feet. Watch the performance below.

Lisa Gets a Hand

Lisa shook up the room with a rocking performance of her song “SaWaDiKa,” ending with her standing on top of a tuk-tuk with her dancers below. As the lights cut, the team helped Lisa down and they all celebrated the performance on stage as they made their way to the wings.

As a social tool, the Israeli documentary NAZA aims for change on two fronts: It hopes to energize a defund-the-IDF movement in the US. while swaying an electorate as it heads to the polls next month in Israel.

The success of the second goal — “to penetrate the walls of justification and silence in Israeli society,” as director Yuval Abraham put it — will play out in the coming weeks 6,000 miles from these shores as voters decide whether to return Benjamin Netanyahu to office. But it is the first aim that saw a key opening step this weekend as Abraham and his co-director Rachel Szor debuted their Guardian-produced movie in the U.S. with an enthusiastic (if hardly 25-minute-Venetian-ovation) screening at the New York Film Festival.

Abraham made clear that his purpose in bringing the film to New York as well as to release it theatrically across America beginning Oct. 9 was to change the political calculus.

“For us, [it’s] the main motivation,” he said from the Alice Tully Hall stage after the premiere Saturday night. “It’s not a coincidence the last line of text in the film is that these crimes are ongoing not just because our country is doing it but because your country is supporting and funding it,” he told the Manhattan audience as Szor and moderator-NYFF programming chief Dennis Lim approvingly looked on.

That the movie lands in a midterm season when U.S. aid to Israel has animated Congressional races from Michigan to Minnesota helps make NAZA the rarest of independent-film objects: a foreign-language documentary that injects itself right into the bloodstream of American electoral politics.

Of course, whether pieces like this will persuade undecideds (do they exist?) on the question of U.S. support for Israel or simply prompt a gotcha fingerpoint from two fiercely divided camps is a similarly open question. (A small but intense pro-Israel protest outside the theater and the rapt adoration inside it literalized the divide and suggested its intractability.)

At least for its run time at the festival, the film asked to be taken on its own journalistic terms. Centering on anonymized Hebrew-language interviews with two dozen IDF veterans of the Gaza war, NAZA lays out in uncommonly specific detail the various ways the Israeli army has prosecuted that war. The movie is both less than the controversy that surrounds it (AI surveillance and selection of targets will not shock anyone who follows the latest in technological warfare) while also lobbing a more explosive and enraging grenade than even some of the coverage around it suggests (descriptions of unquestioned human collateral damage, the “NAZA” Hebrew acronym of the title, and an admission from a soldier that he feels like a Nazi, to name two examples), though of course the inclusion of such moments will enrage opposing camps for very different reasons.

Surprisingly, one of the most charged choices Abraham and Szor make is to intersperse, between the rooftop confessions, drone shots of Israelis watching TV in their well-appointed high-rise apartments below — a juxtaposition that will further galvanize critics of Israel who see rampant privilege undergirding its actions while angering supporters of Israel who will see in this a cheap trick sensationalizing the routine goings-on of country at war. This is a film that, like so much else in culture these days, Rorschach-ifies our politics, only more so.

Abraham, who along with Szor directed the 2025 West Bank-themed Oscar winner No Other Land, built the film on his text-based reporting for The Guardian, Local Call and +972. He can be seen on the rooftops of Tel Aviv engaging his interview subjects, often coaxing out info and sometimes challenging them. (“And you didn’t feel any remorse about this?” is the kind of thing he might say.) Like many advocacy journalists, his goal is clearly to elicit grassroots American action, a theme he returned to several times as he spoke to the liberal NYFF audience.

Szor also was eager to say the film was aimed at the left in Israel.

“When you walk in Tel Aviv you feel all these crimes are happening and no one is speaking about it,” she said. “And Tel Aviv is a liberal place; a lot of people consider themselves leftist. But they don’t talk about it or they try to justify it.”

The center-left media in Israel has been receptive to the film’s message if at times also skeptical, as this Ha’aretz review suggests, objecting to a lack of precipitating context as well as realities about the fog of a guerilla war. The right has as a rule been far less interested; culture minister Miki Zohar, who has a history of threatening critical voices with the tools of the state, says he wants to revoke the citizenship of Abraham and Szor.

Such comments should be taken with a grain of salt given both a) the bombastic nature of Israeli politics and b) that he lacks the authority to do so, though the filmmakers are not taking other potential threats lightly.

“Netanyahu compared this film to a barrage of ballistic missiles. And you know what happens to people who shoot missiles — they kill them,” Abraham said at the screening.

For all their sharpness against the right, the filmmakers did not entirely negate the claims of those standing outside the theater. “You’ve probably seen the protesters out there with the video of Oct. 7 on the trucks,” Abraham brought up from the stage. “It’s important for me to say that [Oct. 7] is completely unjustified. But that doesn’t justify what you see in the film, the slaughter of so many civilians, the massacres at food sites.”

He added, “I don’t want to live in a world where rightful empathy of Israeli victims is weaponized to mean a lack of empathy to Palestinians and used by Bibi to justify the occupation and crimes in Gaza. … I don’t think we want to live in such a world. I think we should all refuse to play this zero-sum game,” he said.

Such comments have also earned Abraham over his short but impactful career criticism from the left for centering Israelis in his work — a sign to some that even liberal Israelis can’t win and, for those further on the right, proof that they shouldn’t even try.

The audience and Lim, at least, welcomed what Abraham and Szor had to say.

“I think we all knew this would be an important screening,” Lim said as he wound down the event, citing U.S. aid to Israel and its military actions in Iran.

“Thank you, Dennis. for inviting us,” Abraham replied. “The [U.S. military support] is one of the reasons we thought it was so important to see.”