Hollywood Inc.: When IP Becomes the Asset Class

Welcome back to Hollywood Signal—the anti-gossip intel brief designed for creators and execs who prefer actionable insights over noise. This week marks a sea change in how Hollywood runs: finance is muscling into the driver’s seat, and studios are being re-engineered from the inside out.

Netflix’s pivot to profit-first streaming is just the tip of the spear. With Paramount-Skydance clearing final regulatory hurdles and Lionsgate potentially in Legendary’s crosshairs, it’s clear: Wall Street isn’t just financing the industry—it’s rewriting its playbook. Our full breakdown below unpacks how this capital shift is reshaping everything from studio org charts to IP strategy.

Meanwhile, the culture is shifting too. Whether it’s analog nostalgia, avatar aesthetics, or the viral rise of phonk, Gen Z continues to seek identity-first experiences that blend offline vibes with online amplification. Creators who can deliver those dual-track stories—visceral and shareable—are about to become the hottest commodity in town.

— The Signal Team

Talent & Power Moves

• A Star Is Born producer Lynette Howell Taylor was elected president of the Motion Picture Academy, becoming its youngest leader in decades and inheriting the Oscars’ reinvention drive just as the board tightens AI rules and eyes new revenue streams. Los Angeles Times
• Amazon MGM tapped Steven Knight (Peaky Blinders) to script the next 007 film, pairing him with director Denis Villeneuve; the move signals Amazon’s push to reboot century-old IP with auteur talent rather than committee writing. About Amazon
• Ahead of the 2026 break-up, CEO David Zaslav will run the new “Warner Bros.” streaming-and-studios entity while CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels takes the helm of “Discovery Global,” locking in creative chiefs (Bloys, Gunn, Abdy/De Luca) and clarifying power centres before bankers descend. Warner Bros. Discovery
• Tanya Simon—a 25-year veteran of 60 Minutes—was promoted to executive producer, the first woman to hold the job, after Bill Owens quit over editorial-independence clashes during the Trump defamation lawsuit; expect a harder line on political interference. Reuters
• LA28 hired former Disney and Fox chairman Peter Rice to oversee creative content and ceremonies for the 2028 Games, giving Hollywood’s consummate deal-maker a global stage—and putting fresh studio polish on the IOC’s marquee event. Sports Business Journal

Vibes 💅

Social Trend — “Martha-Stewart Summer”

More on a theme for the last few weeks: Gen Z is ditching doom-scrolling for farmhouse gardens, book-club retreats and literal “touch-grass” weekends. Pinterest searches for “digital detox ideas” are up 72 % and “digital detox vision boards” up 273 % YoY, while queries for “Martha Stewart aesthetic” have exploded 2,889 %.

• Why it matters: Projects that foreground slow-living rituals—garden-to-table cooking shows, rustic-retreat rom-coms—now map to a quantifiable demand curve. Brands from food to décor are hunting content partnerships that bottle this back-to-basics vibe.

Lifestyle Shift — Avatar Aesthetics

Customising your digital twin is the new streetwear flex. On Pinterest, searches for “avatar codes” are up 45 % and “skirt codes” +100 %, as users hunt outfit templates for Roblox, Fortnite and Snapchat Bitmoji.

• Why it matters: Metaverse fatigue? Not for culture’s dress-up layer. Publishers and IP owners can license skins, emotes and virtual merch long before a full game or film drops—turning costume design into a recurring revenue line.

Audio Cue — Phonk Goes Mainstream

The TikTok hashtag #phonk has topped 116 billion cumulative views and keeps adding ~4 million posts a week, driven by drift-car edits and gym montages.

• Why it matters: Labels and trailer houses are exploiting phonk’s sinister 808s for instant “adrenaline” cues, while regional creators (Brazil, Eastern Europe) monetise via TikTok’s SoundOn. Expect more micro-licensing deals and crossover placements in action titles.

🎯 The Signal

Slow-living nostalgia, hyper-personal digital style, and dark-bass phonk may look unrelated, but they share a through-line: audiences want identity-driven experiences they can curate and broadcast—offline, online, and on the soundtrack. Green-light teams that bake “share-and-self-style” hooks into their IP will ride the next wave, not chase it.

Legendary Entertainment’s potential bid for Lionsgate has industry watchers buzzing. The “Dune” and “Godzilla” producer – backed by Apollo Global Management – is reportedly eyeing the “John Wick” and “Hunger Games” studio after Lionsgate’s recent spinoff of Starz. Lionsgate’s stock price jumped 20% on mere rumors of a deal, underscoring investor enthusiasm for consolidation. If completed, the merger would unite Legendary’s blockbuster franchises (from the MonsterVerse to Dune) with Lionsgate’s 20,000-title library (spanning John Wick, Twilight, and more).

This prospective deal is a bellwether for the broader forces reshaping mid-tier studios. Why are private equity firms and financiers aggressively targeting film production companies? How are studio business models evolving under streaming and IP-centric strategies? And what risks and rewards emerge when Wall Street’s money displaces more traditional studio ownership?

Private Equity’s Hollywood Hunt

Once dominated by moguls and media conglomerates, Hollywood is now squarely in the sights of private equity giants and other financial backers. Billions of dollars in private capital are poised to be deployed in content studios, lured by valuable IP and rebounding post-pandemic demand. “There’s a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines, and I think there’s a lot of desire by different strategic and financial players to make deals,” observes Tom Ara, a media M&A attorney in the LA Times. From Apollo to RedBird and Blackstone, financiers see an opportunity to snap up studios at a time when asset values have been depressed by streaming upheaval and industry volatility. Lionsgate, for example, was valued at just ~$2 billion after its Starz split – even after a SPAC deal had pegged its worth around $4.6 billion. Such disparity hints at undervalued libraries and IP that savvy investors hope to unlock.

Private equity’s interest also stems from the relatively steady cash flows of film/TV libraries. Content catalogs can throw off consistent licensing and streaming revenue – a tempting yield in uncertain markets. Even as theatrical box office remains ~24% below 2019 levels post-COVID, studios’ output is not going anywhere. Film and TV are “still the least expensive form of entertainment for the vast majority of the general public,” Ara notes, so demand endures. Crucially, intellectual property has become king. “Audiences now gravitate mostly toward what they already know,” analyst Brandon Katz, meaning franchises and known titles carry outsized value told the LA Times. A vast studio library isn’t just a collection of movies – it’s a trove of potential reboots, spinoff series, merchandise lines, and theme park rides. As Katz puts it, buying a studio is “less about short-term earnings and more about using that [studio] as a key to unlock strategic value down the road…They’re not necessarily standalone cash cows. The interest in one is more about the broader ecosystem.” In other words, private equity and other buyers are playing a long game of IP monetization across platforms – from streaming and VOD to live experiences – rather than expecting immediate profit from film ticket sales alone.

Not all private equity approaches are created equal. The most successful PE-backed studios operate with surgical precision – RedBird's swift restructuring of its entertainment assets saw them replace 40% of middle management within six months, while doubling down on external content partnerships (in a buyer's market, best-in-class talent is more gettable than ever). In contrast, several PE firms have stumbled in Hollywood by treating their acquisitions like passive bond holdings, keeping bloated management structures intact while starving the creative pipeline. As one Hollywood insider noted, 'They're managing it like a utility company, not a hit-driven creative business."

Several recent deals illustrate this financial feeding frenzy. Amazon’s $8.45 billion acquisition of MGM in 2022 was a watershed, with the tech giant paying a hefty ~37× EBITDA for MGM’s library of ~4,000 films and iconic IP like James Bond. That price (almost triple the multiple paid in other media mergers) signaled how highly strategics now value content arsenals for streaming wars. In 2023, Apollo invested $760 million into Legendary, helping the studio buy out its former Chinese owner (Dalian Wanda) and fueling ambitions to expand via acquisitions. Around the same time, RedBird Capital partnered with Ellison family-backed Skydance Media, first by investing in Skydance (valuing it at $4+ billion) and later by backing Skydance’s audacious bid for a major studio – Paramount. Indeed, the biggest Hollywood takeover in years is unfolding: Skydance’s $8.4 billion merger with Paramount Global.

With U.S. regulatory approval now in hand, David Ellison’s once-scrappy production company (founded in 2010) will assume control of the 100-year-old Paramount studio, plus the CBS TV network and Nickelodeon channels. This unprecedented reverse acquisition – a mid-tier upstart swallowing a Hollywood major – was enabled by deep-pocketed financial backers (including Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison and RedBird) and highlights how Wall Street capital is reordering the studio hierarchy.

In parallel, Blumhouse – the boutique horror hit factory – has been exploring outside capital and partnerships. Blumhouse previously sold a stake in its TV division to ITV and later bought it back, and industry chatter has long pegged Jason Blum’s outfit as a potential target for investors or a studio looking to bolster its genre slate. While Blumhouse hasn’t sold equity recently, it has struck strategic alliances (more on that below) that mirror private equity’s playbook: leveraging IP value and global distribution without ceding creative control.

Notably, the frenzied buying of 2018–2021 (when tech and telecom giants gobbled up studios) gave way to a brief chill – “private equity firms…retrench[ed] a bit from their previous interest in Hollywood,” as the Los Angeles Times describes. Economic uncertainty and the streaming bubble’s deflation tempered some enthusiasm. But now, with deal-making conditions improving and a business-friendly U.S. administration, a new M&A wave is cresting. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see a double-digit percentage increase in the number of deals in 2025 relative to ’24,” predicts KPMG’s media chief Scott Purdy. Observers expect buyers ranging from private equity to foreign sovereign funds (especially Middle Eastern investors) to pounce on available studios and catalogs in the next few years.

Lionsgate is among the few independent “mini-majors” left standing and has long been seen as a ripe target. After Lionsgate shed the albatross of Starz (whose stagnant cable business had been a poison pill for some bidders), it instantly became more attractive to suitors. As Lloyd Greif, an investment banker, bluntly puts it, “a lot of M&A is going to occur” in the coming years – likely front-loaded as buyers move early to capture assets under favorable regulators. In this unfolding drama, private equity and financial engineers are the new power players, vying with traditional studios and tech giants for the prize of content ownership.

Evolving Studio Models in the Streaming Era

Flush with fresh capital (or hunting for it), mid-tier production companies are radically evolving their business models to survive and thrive in the streaming-dominated landscape. A decade ago, an “independent” studio might simply produce films and rely on a major studio for distribution, taking a back-end cut. Today, however, the imperatives of streaming platforms, direct-to-consumer distribution, and IP branding are forcing these studios to become more agile, diversified, and IP-driven than ever.

Owning and controlling valuable IP has become priority number one. Studios are no longer content to merely option a franchise – they want equity in the underlying properties to feed a multi-platform ecosystem. For instance, Blumhouse (synonymous with low-budget, high-return horror hits) recently acquired a 50% stake in the “Saw” franchise, a series that has grossed over $1 billion globally. Lionsgate retained the other half, but Blumhouse now co-owns one of horror’s most recognizable brands – and notably, Blumhouse will lead international distribution on future Saw films under the new arrangement. “It’s a strategic investment in one of the most recognizable and successful genre properties of the last two decades,” said CEO Jason Blum of the deal. By securing Saw, Blumhouse gains a proven IP it can exploit not just in cinemas, but potentially via streaming spin-offs, Halloween theme park tie-ins, video games (Blumhouse launched a gaming division in 2023), and more.

This move also signals how production companies are integrating forward into distribution: historically Blumhouse relied on partner studios (Universal, etc.) to release its films, but now it is taking on a distributor role overseas to capture more value. Similar trends are visible elsewhere. Lionsgate, though smaller than Disney or Warner Bros., operates its own distribution apparatus and has been beefing up its library – e.g. paying $500 million in 2023 to acquire eOne’s film/TV library from Hasbro, adding Peppa Pig and other assets to its vault. That purchase aligned with Lionsgate’s strategy of being a content arms dealer in the streaming age, amassing IP that can be licensed to various platforms. (Indeed, Lionsgate has often licensed out international or streaming rights to mitigate risk – meaning its franchises like John Wick and Hunger Games are already used to split-rights deals. While that fragmented rights model has kept Lionsgate financially nimble, it also highlights why owning full global rights is the gold standard.)

Another hallmark of the new studio model is strategic partnerships and alliances – sometimes stopping short of full mergers – to pool resources and content for the streaming marketplace. A prime example is Blumhouse again: in late 2022, Jason Blum’s company announced a merger/partnership with James Wan’s Atomic Monster, uniting two powerhouse horror factories under one roof. This alliance marries Wan’s creative track record (The Conjuring, Insidious) with Blumhouse’s production expertise and Universal output deal. The goal is to create a one-stop shop for horror IP that can supply theatrical releases and streaming projects (Blumhouse has had deals with streamers like Amazon’s Welcome to the Blumhouse anthology).

The smartest PE-backed studios recognize that IP creation partnerships are their lifeblood. When Apollo invested in Legendary, their first move wasn't hiring more executives – it was locking down exclusive first-look deals with proven content creators and funding their projects. Similarly, successful funds identify and invest aggressively in external production companies that can deliver consistent IP. The message is clear: in modern Hollywood, your creative partnerships can be worth more than your entire middle management layer.

By banding together, mid-sized players gain scale and negotiating clout – crucial when bargaining with streaming giants for distribution or licensing. There similar logic in the rumored Legendary–Lionsgate tie-up: neither studio alone has the output to challenge Netflix or Disney, but together they’d form a content library and new-release slate formidable enough to command better deals and possibly even launch a dedicated platform. And even short of M&A, co-production pacts are on the rise. Legendary and Lionsgate have reportedly discussed a trial partnership to co-finance a few films as a “stress test” before any full merger.

Crucially, streaming has upended traditional distribution power dynamics, and mid-tier studios are adapting in response. The old Hollywood food chain – where independents sold to majors, who then sold to theaters and TV – has broken down. Now, streamers both produce in-house and buy external content, while major studios both sell to streamers and run their own (often struggling) streaming apps. In this chaos, independent studios have newfound leverage and new challenges.

On one hand, they have more potential buyers for their content (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, plus legacy networks and international platforms). This competitive bidding can drive up prices for quality content – good news for an outfit like Skydance or A24, which can sell a hit series or film to the highest bidder globally. On the other hand, many streaming services prefer to own content outright, squeezing out independent suppliers or demanding exclusivity. Moreover, if a streamer is tied to a rival studio, it may shun content from an independent that is aligned with another platform.

Mid-tier studios are countering these trends by staying platform-agnostic and emphasizing their value as independent suppliers. Skydance is a case in point: it deliberately diversified beyond its Paramount distribution deal to produce hit content for others – from the Jack Ryan series for Amazon, to animated films (Luck) for Apple TV+. By doing so, Skydance proved its ability to deliver for any buyer. This broad-based success arguably set the stage for Skydance’s biggest move: acquiring Paramount itself. (In fact, David Ellison saw Paramount’s decline under years of corporate meddling and underinvestment as an opening – “an opportunity to turn around an asset that has long suffered from poor corporate decision making and chronic underinvestment,” as one analysis noted. With Skydance’s leaner operation and tech-world mindset, Ellison believes he can reinvigorate Paramount’s studio output and better monetize its brands.)

Data and dollars also tell the story of evolution. Many mid-tier studios are becoming multi-faceted media companies. Skydance Media, for example, expanded into television, animation, video games, and even sports content in the last few years – spreading its bets across formats. Its revenue approached $1 billion in 2023, although it ran a slight operating loss that year (–$54 million) as it invested heavily in new projects. That willingness to run at a loss for growth is a very Silicon Valley approach (unsurprising given Ellison’s tech DNA and investors like Tencent and RedBird) and shows how independent studios are embracing a “growth now, profits later” tech startup mentality, quite different from the old Hollywood insistence on project-by-project profitability.

Likewise, A24, the edgy indie studio behind Everything Everywhere All at Once, raised $225 million in 2022 at a stunning $2.5 billion valuation, explicitly to fund a push into larger-scale productions and global expansion. A24’s valuation – despite modest revenue – reflects the outsized value placed on premium IP and brand identity in the streaming era. Investors bet that A24’s brand of auteur-driven content can cut through the content clutter, and that its library (which A24 retains ownership of more than typical studios) will appreciate as streamers vie for distinctive films. In sum, mid-tier studios are retooling themselves as IP custodians and agile content factories, willing to partner, sell, or even build their own distribution paths as needed. They are chasing not just box office receipts, but streaming deals, spin-off series, merchandise licensing, and beyond – the myriad revenue streams that a popular story or character can generate in today’s fragmented media universe.

Risks and Trade-Offs: Financial vs. Creative Control

As private equity and other financial owners stake larger claims in Hollywood, a pressing question emerges: what happens when financial priorities collide with creative ones? The influx of Wall Street capital brings both empowering opportunities and potential pitfalls for studios’ creative viability.

On the plus side, financial investors can supercharge a studio’s growth. They inject cash for big projects, acquisitions, or technological upgrades that a smaller studio could never self-finance. Apollo’s cash has already enabled Legendary to pursue acquisitions like Lionsgate that were once unthinkable, aiming to “accelerate [Legendary’s] bid to compete with streamers and studio giants alike” by sheer scale. Financial backing can also impose discipline: many credit Blumhouse’s consistent profitability to its rigid cost controls – a mindset very much in line with private equity’s focus on lean operations and ROI. It’s no surprise that Blumhouse’s model has drawn admiration from investors (Blumhouse famously turns micro-budget films into huge hits, a formula any MBA can love). When Blumhouse expanded via the Saw franchise deal, it even partnered with a Los Angeles investment firm (Content Partners) to split the cost of acquiring the library rights – illustrating how creative producers are actively teaming up with financial players to achieve mutual goals.

Another potential benefit of financial ownership is a longer strategic horizon. A tech giant like Amazon or a well-capitalized private firm might be willing to tolerate years of losses in a studio division as long as it bolsters a larger strategic aim (e.g. driving Prime subscriptions, or in RedBird’s case, building an entertainment portfolio). This could free studios from the quarter-to-quarter profit pressures that publicly traded media companies face. In theory, a private equity owner might be more patient in nurturing a franchise or investing in risky new IP compared to a short-term focused public company.

However, the downsides and trade-offs are significant. Private equity firms ultimately seek a financial return – typically within a 5-7 year window – and that can mean cost-cutting, debt burdens, and an eventual exit that disrupts the studio’s stability. A common PE playbook is to leverage the acquisition with debt (using the studio’s assets as collateral). This adds financial risk to an already hit-driven business. A few box-office flops or an unexpected strike, and a debt-laden studio could face real distress.

There were hints of this with MGM’s history: earlier private investors loaded MGM with debt, leading to bankruptcy in 2010. More recently, Annapurna Pictures (Megan Ellison’s indie studio) nearly collapsed under debt after a string of commercial misfires, despite deep family funding. High leverage can thus constrain creative risk-taking – a heavily indebted studio might shy away from bold, original films and stick to surefire sequels and formulas to service its loans.

There’s also the issue of short-term vs. long-term incentives. Private owners often look to “flip” the asset via resale or IPO at a higher valuation. This can incentivize moves that boost near-term EBITDA (earnings) at the expense of creative groundwork. For example, a PE-owned studio might slash overhead, lay off development staff, or scale back the number of films to only the most bankable IP. That can improve immediate profitability but may leave the development pipeline dry – undermining long-term creative output. The FilmTake industry newsletter openly questioned whether Legendary’s pursuit of Lionsgate is “a genuine strategic move or simply another Wall Street exit strategy for Apollo and other insiders looking to extract value from the public markets.” In other words, is the goal to build a new major studio for the next decade, or just to merge, boost the stock, and cash out? If it’s the latter, creative considerations could take a backseat to financial engineering.

The divide between successful and failed PE ownership often comes down to decisiveness. Carlyle Group's ownership of Oriental DreamWorks floundered partly because they operated with an 'asset manager mentality' – avoiding tough personnel decisions and being penny-wise but pound-foolish on creative investments. Meanwhile, firms like KKR (in their MMC acquisition) immediately identified their most valuable partnerships and tripled investment in those relationships while cutting internal redundancy.

Cultural clashes and talent impact are another risk when financial owners replace traditional studio leadership. Mergers often bring upheaval: redundancies in marketing and distribution teams, new bosses with new philosophies, and the ousting of veteran executives. Lionsgate, for instance, has a large 1,400+ workforce and long-time leadership that some say is due for a shakeup. Legendary is leaner (under 200 employees) with a more decentralized, project-driven culture. If combined, bridging those cultures will be a challenge – one insider bluntly said “Lionsgate will have no value with [its longtime CEO] Feltheimer still in place,” implying new ownership would need to clean house to truly reboot the studio.

There are also philosophical trade-offs when strategic/creative owners vs. financial owners call the shots. A strategic studio owner (like Disney or Warner Bros.) may at times greenlight a passion project or culturally important film that isn’t obviously profitable, because it bolsters the studio’s brand or legacy. Financial owners might be less inclined to do so without clear ROI. Conversely, a strategic corporate parent can impose its own constraints – AT&T famously interfered with WarnerMedia’s decisions to chase synergies (leading to the ill-fated day-and-date streaming experiment), which angered creatives and was swiftly reversed once AT&T bailed out. So neither scenario is perfect.

But one clear pattern is that when non-creative priorities dominate, the scope of content tends to narrow. We’ve seen an industry-wide tilt toward established franchises, sequels, and IP – partly due to streaming economics and audience behavior, but also because new financiers see content as assets first. They value predictability and brand value, which often means less willingness to gamble on original stories. As an illustration, Lionsgate’s activist investors have been urging the company to squeeze more revenue from its existing IP via merchandise, spin-offs, even live Broadway shows. That’s great for monetizing John Wick’s next t-shirt line or a Twilight stage play, but it doesn’t necessarily encourage the next Knives Out-level original film (ironically, Knives Out was a Lionsgate release that became a big new IP – and was promptly sold off to Netflix for its sequels at great profit). The danger for creative viability is that a financially driven studio might err on the side of “playing defense” – milking known properties – rather than nurturing risky creative endeavors that could become the next surprise hit.

In summary, the marriage of Wall Street and Hollywood comes with significant growing pains. The next few years will test whether mid-tier studios can maintain their creative identities and risk appetite under new financial masters. It will likely be a case-by-case outcome: A studio like Legendary, long backed by investors, may navigate this smoothly (it has always balanced financial goals with genre fandom – its MonsterVerse films, Pacific Rim, etc., were commercially minded yet geek-friendly).

Successful outcomes will require financial owners to learn the nuances of the movie business – respecting that creative talent and fan goodwill are key assets that don’t show up on a balance sheet. The best owners will empower experienced studio executives with track records of big sales, invest in development and original IP creation, and have the patience to let creative strategies play out (e.g. building a franchise over several modest films before it explodes in popularity). The worst will sit on the sidelines or be afraid of more dramatic change needed to reinvent for 2025/2026.

Outlook: The Next 3–5 Years

Looking ahead, the strategic and structural landscape of production companies is poised for dramatic consolidation – but also inventive evolution. Over the next 3–5 years, we can expect further M&A among mid-tier and independent studios, likely producing a handful of larger entities that can stand toe-to-toe with the mega-studios and streaming giants.

There will also likely be more tech and digital-native players entering the fray – not just the existing Big Tech (Amazon, Apple, Netflix), but perhaps companies like Roku or YouTube financing original films, or a deep-pocketed outsider like a Middle East sovereign fund starting its own studio. The Los Angeles Times notes foreign investors, especially from the Middle East, are keen on studio assets. For example, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund has already invested in gaming and live entertainment companies and could target a Hollywood library next to bolster its planned media city. This influx of new capital means studio valuations may remain elevated, especially for those with prized IP. As one dealmaker quipped, “content is a global arms race” – any catalog or franchise with fan recognition will draw multiple bidders. Expect high multiples akin to Amazon-MGM’s premium if a truly one-of-a-kind asset (like, say, A24 or even Universal’s film library if that ever hit the market) becomes available.

Perhaps most critically, the next wave of successful PE-owned studios will be those that recognize where true value creation lies in modern Hollywood. It's not in preserving existing structures or managing costs like a manufacturing business. The winners will be those who act like venture capitalists within Hollywood – identifying and aggressively backing the rare partners who can consistently generate IP, then clearing every obstacle to let them create.

In terms of studio economics, the next few years will be a balancing act. Studios must navigate a landscape where streaming growth has leveled off and profitability is now the mandate. This could actually benefit independents: the likes of Netflix and Disney+, under pressure to cut costs, might prefer licensing third-party films rather than producing everything in-house, to reduce risk.

Recently, we’ve seen Warner Bros. license HBO shows to Netflix, and Sony (which lacks its own major streamer) make lucrative output deals with Netflix and Disney for its films. Mid-tier studios could seize this moment to fill content gaps on various platforms without the burden of owning a loss-making streamer themselves. In fact, a combined Legendary-Lionsgate entity explicitly boasts being “unburdened by the costs of a full-stack streaming service” – free to sell to all buyers.

Being an independent content supplier may become even more profitable if the major streamers scale back their exclusive spending and re-embrace licensed content to shore up their libraries. On the flip side, theatrical distribution is still in recovery mode and may never return to pre-pandemic norms for mid-budget films. So studios that traditionally relied on box office (e.g. Lionsgate’s drama and comedy releases) will need to lean into multi-platform release strategies – shorter theatrical windows, followed by premium VOD, then streaming, maybe even FAST (free ad-supported streaming television) channels for library titles. Mastering this windowing will be key to economic success. Those who crack the code – finding the optimal path to squeeze value from each film across theaters and digital – will thrive. Those who misjudge (for instance, overspend on a theatrical release that would’ve been better as a streaming premiere) will suffer write-downs.

What is clear is that mid-tier studios will play an increasingly pivotal role as the bridge between indie creativity and blockbuster scale. These companies are becoming the dynamic center of gravity in Hollywood – small enough to take risks, yet (with new capital) big enough to execute globally. The next 3–5 years will likely see a few mid-tier players vault into true major-studio status (much as Skydance is doing now). Others may disappear into mergers or shutdowns if they can’t adapt. The shake-up will be profound. But for audiences and creatives, this could yield upsides: a financially stronger “mini-major” can keep beloved franchises alive and even resurrect dormant ones (think Legendary using Lionsgate’s muscle to finally make that long-rumored Twilight series or more Mad Men episodes via Lionsgate’s TV unit).

The ultimate irony may be that the most successful financial owners in Hollywood won't be those with the deepest pockets or legions of mildly performing executives on staff. They'll be those wise enough to recognize that in entertainment, your creative partnerships – especially those rare ones that can build franchises from nothing – are your true assets. Everything else is overhead.

In all likelihood, by 2030 we’ll be looking at a landscape of fewer, larger studios, many run with Wall Street’s efficiency – but hopefully still powered by Hollywood’s creative heart. As one trade publication noted, the driver behind these alliances is clear: “both companies are seeking relevance in a market increasingly dominated by tech giants and vertically integrated studios."

What do you think? Reply and we’ll be happy to include your thoughts in next week’s edition (anonymized or not!).

We're just getting started and we need your help! Let us know what you think.