With David Ellison This is close After closing his massive $111 billion deal to merge two historic Hollywood studios, the chatter turned to a bleaker question: How many jobs would be affected?
The big number is about $6 billion in synergies Ellison’s team sees in combining Paramount and Warner Bros., combining the corporate, management, technical and resource functions of the two companies.
But what happens when one major studio gobbles up another is even more important in the entertainment industry’s base, Los Angeles County, which is already grappling with significant declines in film and TV shooting in the area, as well as emptying soundstages and the collateral damage of ancillary industries (from catering to costumes to visual effects houses) of large-scale productions that are disappearing or relocating to more taxing areas.
Local officials hosted tense town halls to frame the deal in existential terms, activist groups crowded Paramount’s iconic Melrose Gate with mobile anti-merger billboards, and grassroots protest efforts led by Jane Fonda ignited a base of resistance. This doesn’t take into account what’s happening in Sacramento, where California Attorney General Rob Bonta is reportedly preparing a legal challenge to the merger in concert with multiple states even as Trump’s Justice Department gives Ellison the green light.
Closer to home in Hollywood, the Los Angeles Department of Economic Opportunity took out its calculator and started running the numbers. It shows a stark picture of how many jobs could be affected in the province alone. “The merger puts approximately 2,495 jobs in greater Los Angeles County and approximately 6,000 jobs globally at potential risk, particularly in corporate, technology, real estate and other shared functions due to dual roles across the two companies,” said a June 18 report led by Kelly LoBianco’s department and delivered to the county Board of Supervisors.
In response to the boycott’s report, a Paramount spokesperson told Hollywood Reporter That the local official’s assessment “highlights the multiple ways in which the status quo continues to fail Los Angeles’ entertainment economy: declining productions, declining linear TV revenues, and competitive incentives from other jurisdictions, leaving consumers and creators subject to the whims of the dominant technology and streaming platforms that rule Hollywood today.”
The report provides a detailed window into what Paramount and Warner Bros. were exposed to. Los Angeles’ workforce faces potential overlap and reductions in mergers. It found that 13 percent of the workforce at Warner Bros. Discovery is located in the greater Los Angeles area, while 17 percent of Paramount’s workforce is located in the area. Most of these workers work in the studios spread across Paramount’s 65-acre parcel as well as across about 140 acres owned by Warner Bros. divisions. All yellow in the chart below indicates workers in the Los Angeles area at each company:
The district report also looked at geographic areas with the greatest potential overlap between common job capabilities (i.e., the same job roles in two places). Once again, Los Angeles has the largest concentration of such job roles. “Los Angeles County is at risk because it has the largest single concentration of enterprise roles and business operations that are overlapping in the deal, with approximately 2,500 roles performing similar work in the same market. This estimate should not be read as a forecast of layoffs,” the report said.
By contrast, Paramount made it clear that the deal would be an economic driver for the entertainment industry. David Ellison sent a formal letter to California lawmakers, Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Laura Friedman, in March, pledging to create a “stronger Hollywood,” including by “preserving and potentially increasing jobs.”
“The Los Angeles area provides some of the most talented and well-trained film and television workers in the world, and I expect that the commitments I have made will preserve and expand well-paying film and television jobs in the region,” Ellison wrote in the February 28 letter.
In addition, the District’s report also appears to target one of Paramount’s central arguments to the industry. It will increase production to release 30 films annually and 170 TV shows.
On Paramount’s earnings call in early May, Ellison noted: “We’re very committed to releasing 30 theatrical films a year. If you look at the schedule, we have 15 films on the calendar to release this year, compared to 8 films last year.” Mogul noted the focus on franchising across film and television, adding: “Under these studios will be some of the most beloved franchises of all time, including Harry Potter, Top Gun, Star Trek, Looney Tunes, Game of Thrones, Yellowstone.“
The Economic Department points out that although there is a pledge to increase production production, this may not benefit Los Angeles or even California due to the nature of the global race for tax incentives. The report notes a dearth of features produced in the Golden State last year.
“Of nineteen Paramount and Warner Bros. theatrical releases in 2025, only one film has been reviewed (Battle after battle) was filmed primarily in California (in Eureka), while the remainder was produced across a range of domestic and international locations including Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, New York, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Bulgaria, New Zealand, France and South Africa.
It is worth noting that this assessment is not the final word from the district. The June 18 report was considered a 60-day inspection. And in 120 days, around mid-August, the economic department is expected to present an analysis looking at the long-term effects of how Paramount’s tie-up with Warner Bros. will impact the larger production landscape. However, it is unclear whether the mega deal will be closed by then.
A Paramount rep added in response to the boycott report, “A combined Paramount-WBD will have the scale and resources necessary to compete more effectively in a rapidly evolving global media marketplace and invest in content, technology and functionality.”
