David Ellison Has a Rocky History at the Box Office. Buying Warner Bros. Could Fix That

 

# David Ellison Has a Rocky History at the Box Office. Buying Warner Bros. Could Fix That

**Published: February 25, 2026**

You know that feeling when you're really good at something, but you just can't seem to get over the hump?

That's David Ellison in a nutshell.

The man behind Paramount Skydance has produced some of the biggest movies of the past two decades. "Top Gun: Maverick." Five "Mission: Impossible" films. "World War Z." "Star Trek Into Darkness." His films have grossed billions at the global box office .

But here's the thing: his track record is all over the place. For every "Top Gun," there's a "Terminator Genisys" or a "Geostorm" that barely broke even. For every Tom Cruise blockbuster, there's a franchise that fizzled out or a budget that ballooned out of control .

Now Ellison is trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery—one of the crown jewels of Hollywood, home to Batman, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones. And if he succeeds, it could be the move that finally gives him the consistency he's been chasing for 20 years .

Let me walk you through Ellison's rocky history at the box office, why Warner Bros. is such a prize, and what this bidding war means for the future of entertainment.

---

## The Short Version

**Who is David Ellison?** The son of Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison. He dropped out of USC Film School, co-starred in a flop called "Flyboys" in 2006, and then used his family money to start Skydance Media .

**What's his track record?** Inconsistent. Massive hits like "Top Gun: Maverick" ($1.4 billion) alongside expensive disappointments like "Terminator: Dark Fate" ($250 million on a huge budget) .

**What's he trying to do now?** Buy Warner Bros. Discovery. He's been chasing this deal for almost six months, and just upped his offer to $31 per share—topping Netflix's $27.75 bid .

**Why would Warner Bros. fix his problems?** Warner has something Ellison lacks: consistent, bankable IP. Harry Potter, DC superheroes, Lord of the Rings. These are franchises that print money .

**The stakes:** If Ellison wins, he controls one of the most powerful studios in Hollywood. If Netflix wins, the streaming giant adds Warner's library to its empire. Either way, the industry changes forever.

---

## Who Is David Ellison?

Let's start at the beginning.

David Ellison is the son of Larry Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle and one of the wealthiest people on the planet. But being a billionaire's kid doesn't automatically make you a Hollywood player .

In 2006, Ellison dropped out of USC Film School to produce and co-star in "Flyboys," a World War I drama about American fighter pilots. The movie cost about $60 million to make. It grossed less than $18 million worldwide .

Not exactly a promising start.

But Ellison had something most aspiring producers don't: access to serious money. During the financial crisis of the late 2000s, when traditional investment banks were pulling out of Hollywood, Ellison stepped up. In 2009, he struck a four-year, $350 million co-financing deal with Paramount Pictures .

That deal gave him a stake in some of Paramount's biggest franchises: "Mission: Impossible," "Star Trek," and prestige projects like the Coen Brothers' "True Grit." It was a smart move—get involved with proven properties rather than trying to build from scratch.

Over the next decade, Ellison's Skydance would produce an impressive list of films :

**Table 1: Selected Skydance Productions**

| **Year** | **Title** | **Role** |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| 2010 | True Grit | Executive Producer |

| 2011 | Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol | Executive Producer |

| 2012 | Jack Reacher | Executive Producer |

| 2013 | Star Trek Into Darkness | Executive Producer |

| 2013 | World War Z | Executive Producer |

| 2014 | Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit | Executive Producer |

| 2015 | Terminator: Genisys | Producer |

| 2015 | Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation | Producer |

| 2017 | Life | Producer |

| 2018 | Mission: Impossible—Fallout | Producer |

| 2019 | Terminator: Dark Fate | Producer |

| 2022 | Top Gun: Maverick | Producer |

| 2023 | Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One | Executive Producer |

| 2025 | Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning | Producer |

That's an impressive resume. But as we're about to see, the numbers tell a more complicated story.

---

## The Box Office Roller Coaster

Let's look at the actual numbers, because this is where Ellison's story gets interesting.

**Table 2: Skydance's Highest-Grossing Films Globally **

| **Title** | **Year** | **Worldwide Box Office** |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Top Gun: Maverick | 2022 | $1.4 billion |

| Mission: Impossible—Fallout | 2018 | $791 million |

| Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol | 2011 | $694 million |

| Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation | 2015 | $682 million |

| Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning | 2025 | $599 million |

| Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One | 2023 | $571 million |

| World War Z | 2013 | $540 million |

| Star Trek Into Darkness | 2013 | $467 million |

| Transformers: Rise of the Beasts | 2023 | $441 million |

| Terminator Genisys | 2015 | $440 million |

Look at that list carefully. Six of the top seven are Tom Cruise movies. The man is basically Ellison's lucky charm.

But here's the problem: grosses don't tell the whole story. Profit matters more, and that's where Ellison has struggled.

Take "Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning." It grossed $599 million globally—the fourth-best showing in the franchise. Sounds great, right? Except the film had a reported budget of **$400 million**. Add marketing costs of roughly $200 million, and the total investment was around $600 million .

Studios share box office proceeds with theater operators, typically ending up with about 50% of the gross. So on $599 million, Paramount and Skydance would have taken home roughly $300 million—half of what they spent .

That's not a profit. That's a loss.

**Paul Dergarabedian**, head of marketplace trends at Comscore, explains the challenge: "The challenge for Ellison and Skydance, as it is for every studio, production company, and distributor, is to keep budgets in line particularly for latter installments of major franchises as these tend to have diminishing returns as compared the earlier releases to justify the continued investment in these movie franchises" .

And unlike Marvel or Star Wars, the "Mission: Impossible" franchise doesn't have a massive merchandising business to fall back on. No toys. No action figures. No theme park rides. Just ticket sales .

**Shawn Robbins**, director of analytics at Fandango, puts it bluntly: "Paramount is looking to mine every opportunity it can following the recent conclusion of Tom Cruise's Mission: Impossible series, the regression of Transformers from its biggest blockbuster dollar days, and the cinematic dormancy of Star Trek as that brand has been re-focused toward multiple streaming series" .

In other words: Ellison's biggest hits are behind him, and the franchises he's relied on are running out of steam.

---

## The Warner Bros. Prize

So why is Ellison so desperate to buy Warner Bros. Discovery?

Because Warner has what he doesn't: **a mountain of consistent, bankable intellectual property**.

**Table 3: Warner Bros. Discovery's Major Franchises **

| **Franchise** | **What It Includes** |

| :--- | :--- |

| DC Universe | Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman |

| Harry Potter/Wizarding World | 8 films, Fantastic Beasts, theme parks |

| Lord of the Rings | The Hobbit, upcoming films |

| Game of Thrones | Multiple series, potential films |

| Looney Tunes | Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc. |

| Scooby-Doo | Decades of content |

| Legendary partnerships | Dune, Godzilla, King Kong |

**Warner Bros. was the second-highest grossing studio at the domestic box office last year**. Paramount was fourth .

"Dergarabedian puts it this way: "Warner Bros. is one of the crown jewels of the theatrical distribution. Their slate of films, filmmaker relationships, brand recognition, and reputation as one of the premier and iconic movie studios makes them a coveted asset by any player in the entertainment space" .

For Ellison, buying Warner Bros. would mean:

1. **Diversification away from Tom Cruise.** No more relying on one star to carry his business.

2. **Consistent revenue streams.** Harry Potter and DC movies print money when done right.

3. **Scale.** Combining Paramount and Warner would create a studio bigger than market leader Disney in some respects .

4. **Streaming power.** HBO Max plus Paramount+ would create a serious competitor to Netflix and Disney+ .

5. **Prestige.** Warner Bros. has been making movies for over 100 years. That brand recognition is invaluable.

---

## The Bidding War: Where Things Stand

This deal has been in the works for months. Here's where we are right now.

**Table 4: The Competing Bids **

| **Bidder** | **Offer** | **What They Want** |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Netflix | $27.75/share (~$82.7 billion) | Studio and streaming assets only; cable networks spun off |

| Paramount Skydance | $31/share (~$108.4 billion+) | Entire company, including CNN and cable networks |

**Key dates:**

- Warner's board is reviewing the new Paramount offer

- If they deem it superior, Netflix gets four days to match 

- Shareholders were scheduled to vote on the Netflix deal March 20, but that could change 

**The politics:** This has gotten messy. Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings supports Democrats. Larry Ellison (David's dad) is aligned with President Trump. If Paramount wins, CNN—which Trump has spent years attacking—would end up under Ellison family control .

**The theater owner angle:** Cinema owners are terrified of a Netflix deal because the streamer has a rocky history with theatrical releases. They're more comfortable with Ellison, who has promised to release more than 30 movies a year .

**The regulatory angle:** Both deals face intense scrutiny. The Justice Department is already investigating. A bipartisan group of senators has raised concerns about consolidation .

---

## What This Means for You

### If You're a Movie Fan

This deal matters a lot. Warner Bros. has been making movies for over a century. Casablanca. The Exorcist. Batman. Harry Potter. The future of that studio—and the people who work there—is in play.

If Ellison wins, expect a continued commitment to theatrical releases. He's said all the right things about the big-screen experience.

If Netflix wins? That's less certain. Ted Sarandos has promised to keep releasing Warner movies in theaters, but his track record is spotty. Theater owners are skeptical .

### If You're a Streamer

Your options might change. A combined Warner-Paramount would put HBO Max and Paramount+ under one roof. That's a lot of content in one place.

A Netflix-Warner combo would make Netflix even more dominant, adding the Warner library to an already massive catalog.

### If You're an Investor

This is a classic "merger arbitrage" situation. The outcome is binary: either Netflix wins or Paramount wins. The stock prices of all three companies will move based on news and rumors.

Warner's stock has already jumped on the bidding war. Paramount's stock moved too. If you're brave (and have a high risk tolerance), you could play the spread. But this is not for beginners.

---

## The Bigger Question: Can Ellison Pull It Off?

Here's what I keep coming back to.

David Ellison has spent 20 years in Hollywood, and his track record is... fine. Not great. Not terrible. Fine. He's had massive hits and expensive flops. He's proven he can produce movies, but he hasn't proven he can run a studio .

Warner Bros. is a different beast entirely. It's not just about making movies—it's about managing thousands of employees, navigating complex distribution deals, dealing with talent, and keeping a massive library of intellectual property humming.

**Shawn Robbins** puts it in perspective: "Paramount's box office market share has often been challenged to keep pace with competitors and its own peak performance in the years leading up to 2015. While occasional hits such as the Sonic, A Quiet Place, and Scream franchises have provided bright spots, plus 'Top Gun: Maverick' catching lightning in a bottle four years ago, some of the studio's most bankable IP has seen diminishing returns among modern moviegoers" .

Translation: Even with Skydance's success, Paramount has been struggling. Adding Warner Bros. doesn't automatically fix that.

But here's the counterargument: Warner Bros. has the IP that Paramount lacks. Harry Potter fans will show up regardless of who's running the studio. DC movies, when done right, are guaranteed money. Game of Thrones spin-offs have built-in audiences.

For Ellison, buying Warner Bros. isn't just about adding assets. It's about buying consistency. It's about diversifying away from Tom Cruise. It's about finally having the kind of stable, predictable revenue that has eluded him for two decades .

**Paul Dergarabedian** sums it up: "If a merger were to be approved, the entity that then grabs up Warner Bros. would add tremendous horsepower both in terms of brand identity and revenue generating potential to their portfolio. So, it is understandable why the competition is fierce among the potential suitors vying for their chance to acquire the studio" .

---

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Q: Who is David Ellison?**

A: He's the CEO of Paramount Skydance, son of Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, and a longtime Hollywood producer. His credits include "Top Gun: Maverick" and five "Mission: Impossible" films .

**Q: What's his box office track record?**

A: Inconsistent. Massive hits like "Top Gun: Maverick" ($1.4 billion) alongside expensive disappointments like "Terminator: Dark Fate" and "Geostorm." Many of his franchise films have struggled with ballooning budgets and diminishing returns .

**Q: Why is he trying to buy Warner Bros.?**

A: Warner Bros. has something he lacks: consistent, bankable IP. Harry Potter, DC superheroes, Lord of the Rings—these are franchises that print money and don't rely on any single star .

**Q: What's the latest on the bidding war?**

A: Paramount just raised its offer to $31 per share, topping Netflix's $27.75 bid. Warner's board is reviewing it now. If they deem it superior, Netflix gets four days to match .

**Q: What's the difference between the two bids?**

A: Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including cable networks like CNN. Netflix only wants the studio and streaming assets, with the cable networks getting spun off .

**Q: How much money are we talking about?**

A: Paramount's bid values Warner at over $108 billion including debt. Netflix's bid is about $82.7 billion .

**Q: What does this mean for movie theaters?**

A: Theater owners are terrified of a Netflix deal because of the streamer's rocky history with theatrical releases. They're more comfortable with Ellison, who has promised to release over 30 movies a year .

**Q: What does this mean for CNN?**

A: If Paramount wins, CNN would end up under the Ellison family's control. Given Larry Ellison's alignment with President Trump, that's raised eyebrows in Washington .

**Q: When will we know who wins?**

A: Warner's board is reviewing the Paramount offer now. If they deem it superior, Netflix gets four days to respond. A shareholder vote was scheduled for March 20, but that could change .

**Q: Will regulators approve this?**

A: That's a huge question mark. Both deals face intense scrutiny from the Justice Department, the EU, and UK regulators. A bipartisan group of senators has raised concerns about consolidation .

---

## The Bottom Line

Here's what I keep coming back to.

David Ellison has spent two decades in Hollywood, and his track record is a mixed bag. For every "Top Gun: Maverick," there's a "Terminator: Dark Fate." For every Tom Cruise blockbuster, there's a franchise that fizzled out or a budget that spiraled out of control.

But Warner Bros. could change all that.

With Harry Potter, DC, and Lord of the Rings in his stable, Ellison wouldn't have to rely on any single star or franchise. He'd have a library of IP that's been printing money for decades—and will keep printing money for decades to come.

**Shawn Robbins** puts it in perspective: "Paramount is looking to mine every opportunity it can following the recent conclusion of Tom Cruise's Mission: Impossible series, the regression of Transformers from its biggest blockbuster dollar days, and the cinematic dormancy of Star Trek" .

In other words: Ellison's current well is running dry. He needs new sources of water. Warner Bros. is an ocean.

Whether he can actually pull off this deal—and whether he can run the combined company successfully—remains to be seen. The bidding war isn't over. Netflix could still match or beat his offer. Regulators could block the whole thing. Integration could be a nightmare.

But for the first time in his career, Ellison is within striking distance of the kind of consistent, stable success that has eluded him for 20 years.

The next few weeks will tell us whether he gets there.

---

*Got thoughts on the bidding war? Think Ellison can pull it off? Drop a comment and let me know.*