The Last Adventure of Warner Bros., or the Biggest Sale of the Century. What Will Happen to Hogwarts, Gotham, Middle-earth, and the Targaryens Under New Owners?

The entertainment world stands on the verge of another seismic shift. Three years after the WarnerMedia–Discovery merger, the leadership of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) announced a strategic pivot — and this is not just an abstract statement. The company is officially considering options for selling either the entire corporation or parts of its assets. At stake are some of the most powerful cultural and commercial franchises: from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter and Middle-earth to the revamped DC Universe under James Gunn and House of the Dragon. And let us not forget the giant’s vault of video games — series that have either already achieved modern-classic status or are poised to do so. As a journalist and critic, I see in this not merely a financial transaction but a potential transformation of the creative landscape. Who will become the new owner of this intellectual property, and how will our beloved industry change? Let us take a closer look.

To many, this looks like a capitulation: a company born from the merger of two giants may now be sold off itself. But there is a far more pragmatic logic behind this.

In October 2025, WBD announced that it had initiated a comprehensive review of strategic alternatives, including a potential sale of the entire business or individual components (Warner Bros. or Discovery Global). The reason is simple: after the merger with Discovery, the company accumulated significant debt, and investors are increasingly interested in its portfolio of brands.

According to insider information, the company’s breakup had been planned for a long time — WBD intended to split into two companies by mid-2026, and this is practically a foregone conclusion: one business — Streaming & Studios (including Warner Bros. Pictures, DC Studios, Max), the other — Global Networks (cable networks and Discovery assets).

It is important to understand that such a large-scale separation serves not merely as restructuring, but primarily as a way to simplify the process of selling the business or part of it — for example, the studio division — without requiring a buyer to take on the entire debt load.

Obviously, such processes do not start without cause. One of the company’s key problems remains the scale of its liabilities. According to WBD’s data, debt is one of the reasons the board of directors is considering all options. And there is no shortage of potential buyers. Several major players in the interactive entertainment and content market have expressed interest. Among the potential buyers, for instance, are Paramount Skydance, Comcast, and even Netflix and Apple.

When we look at the possible direction of events, four likely outcomes come to mind.

The first — of course — is a full acquisition. A major business player (or consortium) purchases all of WBD: studios, streaming, and gaming. This is the most complex deal but potentially the most powerful. Such a step brings numerous complications, and regulatory approval would take a long time. The closest analogue is Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Even though the deal ultimately went through, antitrust regulators responded rather negatively.

The second and most logical option — one I already mentioned — is a sale by parts. The Streaming & Studios division is sold, while Global Networks either remains or is spun off separately. This may be the most strategically likely scenario. However, this process could be fragmented in any number of ways. For example, many companies want specific IP without dealing with broader infrastructure — a perfectly viable scenario.

The third scenario: a merger with a major media giant — one of the more conservative outcomes, in which Amazon or Paramount could acquire part of the portfolio but preserve the studio structure as an autonomous entity. In this case, the impact would be less disruptive, and many key employees would likely keep their positions to maintain internal regulatory processes.

Finally, the most democratic end to the story — a strategic shift without a sale. It is possible that current leadership will still develop an updated plan by reallocating financial investments. Personally, I find this scenario unlikely. David Zaslav was initially brought into the top executive role specifically to overhaul the entire system. Certain positive results have been achieved, but they are clearly not enough.

The risks are easy to predict. The first and most obvious is increased "monetization", when new owners will seek to recoup their investments as quickly as possible. From a business standpoint, this is a logical goal; however, we are talking about creative production, which follows its own developmental rhythm. Good content is never produced quickly — this applies equally to films, games, and series. Especially when adjustments are introduced mid-production.

As a result, the role of experimental projects at all levels is likely to be sharply reduced, with resources concentrated on guaranteed hits. With aggressive monetization and a strong orientation toward mass appeal, there is a risk that content will become universal — fewer niche projects, more franchised blockbuster-attractions.

If general trends are easy to predict, the consequences for specific series are a much more complicated question.

The Harry Potter series is currently in development. It’s one of the flagship pillars of WBD’s content strategy, a project that simply must succeed. I imagine the company’s executives have nightmares about the series turning into something akin to The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power or The Witcher in terms of overall review sentiment. At the same time, the studio has already made several questionable decisions capable of killing a would-be hit before release. Yes, you’ve surely heard about the Black Severus Snape. And remaking cult films instead of expanding the rich universe with something new is a lazy decision that parasitizes on love for the original and toys with fans’ emotions. If the first season isn’t perfect, viewers will bury the new Harry Potter under such a thick layer of dislikes it’s hard to even imagine. And they don’t even need to search for alternatives — they already exist.

A new owner is unlikely to abandon the series entirely, but might be overly interested in short-term monetization rather than long-term. Active expansion, launching related projects (merch, games, themed events) — all of that is great, but it only works after Season 1 succeeds.

There’s a risk that after the acquisition of the studio division, cost optimization will be required: if the series ends up being too expensive and not profitable enough right now — and also receives mixed feedback — the new owner may reconsider the format, release schedule, or even the overall budget. Everything may be on the table, including recasting controversial actors between seasons.

There is one upside — contractual obligations may limit interference. Not everything can be abruptly shut down, especially if filming is already underway. There’s also a high chance of seeing a Marauders show or a series about the young Dark Lord to soften the negative background. But there are more trivial concerns too. You can imagine for yourself what Hogwarts might turn into if, for example, Netflix takes over the continuation. A fashionable and progressive magic school will quickly gain even more racial, color, and identity diversity — and a female Voldemort would be the least surprising thing.

DC is a separate pearl among WBD assets. James Gunn and Peter Safran have only just launched their official reboot of Marvel’s main competitor, and the results can already be evaluated. Besides some mediocre shows, we’ve received a new Superman that, despite a modest budget, was both well-received by audiences and critics (such alignment is rare for DC projects) and earned money. There’s still a long road ahead, and a change of ownership will undoubtedly have a major impact. An optimistic scenario is that a new strategic investor interested in the IP might provide more resources for proper long-term development without interfering too much or imposing their own vision on Gunn.

However, there are less positive forecasts too. A new management team may accelerate content production and reduce the number of risky creative ideas — including Gunn’s own. As a result, Gunn may want to leave (if not be pushed out), and the universe will once again be on the brink of disaster. Acquiring the DC division means the new owner can merge it with other assets — leading to more frequent crossovers and collaborations. For example, Netflix could make a power move and bring back the "Snyderverse" as part of a multiverse. The company has been collaborating with Zack Snyder for a long time and might well consider such an experiment.

And then there’s Middle-earth. If you forgot, Amazon owns only a fraction of the professor’s world. It seems there’s no better moment to change that. Naturally, the creators of the disaster called The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power would love to get their hands not only on the ancient eras but also on the current story of the Fellowship. For example, in the form of yet another ten-season series. A full-fledged film by Peter Jackson about Aragorn and Gandalf’s hunt for Gollum is currently in the works, but it’s still in early stages. A new owner could cancel the project without hesitation in favor of their own ambitions. It’s frightening to think what Middle-earth would become in the hands of Amazon’s efficient managers. So yes, the situation is tense.

Under the WBD umbrella, there are also the many high-quality Max (formerly HBO) shows. The first that come to mind are Dune: Prophecy, The White Lotus, of course House

of the Dragon, The Last of Us, and other hits. The best-case scenario is that the new owner uses the streaming platform as the flagship of the studio ecosystem. It may become the core for selling content, subscriptions, and cross-media products without affecting production itself.

But if the buyer is focused on fast, dense profit, there’s a risk that more niche or auteur series will be cut. Projects that don’t generate a large subscriber base or merchandising revenue might lose funding altogether. One should also keep in mind the possibility of merging with another platform — in that case Max would become part of an existing ecosystem, and the release strategy could change dramatically in unexpected ways.

Warner owns significant gaming franchises and studios. This is a separate but strategically important asset. Games are a key part of transmedia: they can promote films, series, and merchandise — and vice versa. Strengthening this channel may be beneficial to a new owner. But there is a risk: creative processes may face harsh pressure in terms of deadlines and monetization (DLC, live services). Not all projects will remain passion-driven — most will turn into assembly-line products. A potential buyer may seek synergy: merging Warner’s studios with their existing gaming assets or platforms — making the games part of a larger ecosystem, which would be ideal.

The closest points of interest are Hogwarts Legacy, Mortal Kombat, and Injustice. The latter two are straightforward enough. These are already well-established franchises that consistently generate profit. Sure, not everything is perfect — recall the questionable release of Mortal Kombat 1 — but the overall picture is positive. Hogwarts Legacy, however, is an extraordinary success for a first entry. Whoever takes the helm will almost certainly "milk" the gaming Hogwarts for as long as possible. Of course, there are obvious challenges — the main location, the castle, won’t impress the second time. But I’m sure an entire specialized department has been wrestling with this problem for a long time, and a solution has been found — the sequel is in development, after all.

Summing everything up, there is really only one tangible threat for viewers and gamers: losing great, unconventional projects in favor of quick and easily calculable profits. This applies equally to all types of content. Much depends on the buyer, and early conclusions can only be made after official announcements. For example, Amazon hates losing money, whereas Netflix has repeatedly invested in failures just for the sake of experimentation — but has other problems with excessive agenda-driven decisions. There is no clear best option, and I don’t really believe a full sale will happen. More likely, everyone will get a piece.

The situation around Warner Bros. Discovery is not just a potential deal — it’s a turning point in the history of the media industry. If the asset is split or sold, it will shift the balance of power in Hollywood and the streaming business. We may soon find ourselves entering an era where the magic of Hogwarts or Middle-earth becomes part of a global content ecosystem managed by a holding focused on efficiency and growth. Or — we may see a renewed, revitalized studio that once again invests in long-term, creative projects. Everything depends on who steps into the auction and which strategy they choose.

What do you think: which is more likely — a full sale or a partial one? And which option would benefit viewers more, not just investors?