The Warner Bros. Thread | Will NOT merge with Paramount...capitalism is still terrible

[dudalb]

On 2/17/2021 at 3:38 AM, RRA said:

A reminder that Fisher's still on-going beef with Johns and Hamada hasn't been resolved, even if certain segments of the DC Comics faithful seem satisfied that Whedon is being run through the ringer, even though he wasn't the dude in charge of the JL retooling. 

 

I think dude was done after JL. Dude had a long time rep for being obnoxious, and Hollywood will tolerate that to a point unfortunately if you are a license to print money. When the ATM quits shooting out the bills, they have no trouble kicking you to the curb. 

'Money Talks, No One Walks" is the eternal law in Hollywood.

[dudalb]

On 1/24/2021 at 1:39 PM, Napoleon said:

She's beloved in the role and WB made a lot of money out of her casting. It was objectively not a dumb decision.

I get tired of people here blaming the Actors when other people are to blame..in the case of WW84 the script writers. This shallowness never ceases to amaze me.

[dudalb]

On 1/25/2021 at 2:27 AM, Chicago said:

If they do they need a better director. 

More important, better writers.

[tonytr87]

"Dude had a long rep of being obnoxious." What BS. Everyone backed him up on his claims. 

[lorddemaxus]

What the fuck. This sucks ass.

 

 

[Legion Again]

46 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

What the fuck. This sucks ass.

 

 

Other studios presumably to follow -  especially those with their own DTC. I don’t really see the big deal. Technology is evolving, older formats/distributions methods/mediums get phased out. Same thing happened with VHS.

[lorddemaxus]

1 minute ago, WandaLegion said:

Other studios presumably to follow -  especially those with their own DTC. I don’t really see the big deal. Technology is evolving, older formats/distributions methods/mediums get phased out. Same thing happened with VHS.

Unlike the jump from VHS to DVD offering a much larger advantage in every regard, streaming does not match Blu-ray in terms of quality and you don't actually own any of it. I mean, if a studio makes a significant change or removes a film or show from their streaming library, what legal options would you have to get the movie in high quality? And it seems like WB is moving away from restoring films in their archive too. They supposedly laid off a large portion of the staff and absorbed the rest of WAC into their larger pipeline.

 

I know it's a niche service, but they don't really operate on a loss here and it helps preserve film history in a way streaming really, really wouldn't.

[CrashBandicoot81]

I guess it is just the world we live in. Digital and streaming is the future whether we like it or not.

[CrashBandicoot81]

There is always the High Seas if i can't get them.

Edited April 23, 2021 by CrashBandicoot81

[Eric Duncan]

2 hours ago, WandaLegion said:

Other studios presumably to follow -  especially those with their own DTC. I don’t really see the big deal. Technology is evolving, older formats/distributions methods/mediums get phased out. Same thing happened with VHS.

Outside of the stuff Maxus mentioned, the biggest problem is preservation for older, more obscure titles.

 

Over the past year, I've been working on a Top 100 Warner Bros. Movies countdown for 2023, in honor of their 100th anniversary (Disney's getting the same treatment too in 2023! But they've largely done a better job at making their movies readily available, even with the whole Disney Vault nonsense). And I've been going through the list of Warner Bros. releases, so many of their older titles from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, etc. go through so many hurdles to get to and aren't available on any digital stores or streaming sites. In those cases, at best, you can find a Warner Archive DVD-R on Amazon. But in other cases, you have to find an old, pricey DVD or VHS tape, have to import something from another region, need to watch it on Dailymotion, Internet Archive, or other torrent sites, or you just can't watch the movie at all.

 

Now granted, the movies that are given the cold shoulder in this way are largely forgotten because they are considered low quality or left little to no impact on its initial release. And in my case, even if all these movies that are hard to find were streaming on HBO Max or were available to rent on iTunes for $2, they probably wouldn't be on a lot of lists anyway. But that's still not a valid excuse. People deserve to have access to this kind of stuff legally, but Warner just doesn't care enough to restore their older movies or put them out on HBO Max or iTunes. So Warner Archive is the only thing that can drive that niche. And with them gone simply because of phasing to a new format, despite the fact that Blu/DVD collectors are still a solid demographic of people, that means a lot of history is lost, at least in legally viable terms.

 

Honestly the past couple years I've really found myself more favorable towards piracy and torrents. I'd still personally wouldn't do it if I had a legal option, but piracy is really the only area where art and media history and preservation is valued and taken care of.

[filmlover]

Another argument in that favors physical over streaming is that if you buy a physical copy, it really is yours forever. With streaming, there's a solid chance it'll disappear after a while. This is already happening with Disney+ (who have had to remove a ton of movies, sometimes after just adding them, due to licensing contracts that they made years before they even planned a streaming service and have no choice but to ride out) and the same will happen to a lot of WB's movies on HBO Max.

 

I imagine it's gonna be on a title-by-title basis as to what gets a regular home release and what goes streaming only going forward. Stuff like The Batman and Matrix 4 would obviously be strong Blu-ray sellers but something like Those Who Wish Me Dead? Nah.

[WittyUsername]

If this is true, then I’m pissed. 

[cdsacken]

2 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

Unlike the jump from VHS to DVD offering a much larger advantage in every regard, streaming does not match Blu-ray in terms of quality and you don't actually own any of it. I mean, if a studio makes a significant change or removes a film or show from their streaming library, what legal options would you have to get the movie in high quality? And it seems like WB is moving away from restoring films in their archive too. They supposedly laid off a large portion of the staff and absorbed the rest of WAC into their larger pipeline.

 

I know it's a niche service, but they don't really operate on a loss here and it helps preserve film history in a way streaming really, really wouldn't.

I agree. Buying for $20 streaming rights is like lighting money on fire. There is no comparison when it comes to VHS to DVD versus Blu-ray to streaming

[cdsacken]

Software constantly updates, streaming platforms or often not compatible with each other, digital rights you have right now could be completely useless in the future. 

 

Streaming works as a rental premise but many loathe it for purchasing. I've been using Netflix for over 20 years. I've bought zero films digitally. It will likely.be replaced again.

[Thomas Beck]

10 hours ago, cdsacken said:

I agree. Buying for $20 streaming rights is like lighting money on fire. There is no comparison when it comes to VHS to DVD versus Blu-ray to streaming

Yeah, with streaming you can watch much, much more for $20 compared to DVD/BD.

[cdsacken]

5 minutes ago, Thomas Beck said:

Yeah, with streaming you can watch much, much more for $20 compared to DVD/BD.

Huh? New movies on streaming are expensive.

[marveldcfox]

Thank you WB for phasing out blu-rays. I hate assholes who brag about have so and so blu ray with extra features and bs. 

[Macleod]

2 hours ago, marveldcfox said:

Thank you WB for phasing out blu-rays. I hate assholes who brag about have so and so blu ray with extra features and bs. 

[Macleod]

I think some of this "buzz" with the Warner-related tweet may be being blown out of proportion, but yes, we are in no doubt that the major studios would love to control the distribution and releases of their titles even more, which is what streaming channels guarantee them...but yes, licensing deals still make these things as unreliable as ever.  Discs have become a relatively 'niche' market (and this is coming from a guy who owns a couple thousand).  Warner Bros. will continue to restore its film legacy, of course...but whether "classic titles" end up on physical media is of course more and more unlikely.  The nebulous end of "WarnerArchive" is sad.  I made a big purchase in March on the final sale of their independent "WBShop" store to show some love.  And I spent last year picking up any 20th Century FOX titles I wanted, as I know many will eventually disappear off the physical market, as well...and even if certain high profile titles are re-released through "20th Century Pictures' from Disney, they are no longer the original studio, to me.  So I'm archiving my own personal version of Film History that I will pass on to someone, someday, as well...  

 

I don't "buy" or event "rent" digital copies, either.  I'm actually making a pilgrimage to my own collection starting this summer for a while and canceling all my streaming services for an undetermined amount of time.  (Except for perhaps HBOMax...which I'm finding the most fulfilling for my interests, so far.)  I'm fed up with Amazon's shoddy Prime "benefits" and 'Nomadland' made me reconsider, as well.  Netflix bores me.  Tried HULU free for a month, but nothing that I really "need."   

Edited April 23, 2021 by Macleod

[grey ghost]

Honestly if you have a big enough dvd library you don't really need most streaming services which is why it makes sense from a business stand point to phase out dvd's.

 

But I hate the idea of wanting to show my son or grandson Fight Club or Se7en and realizing no streaming service offers it and I never bought the DVD's. It's a terrible prospect for movie lovers. There's nothing better than having a dvd library at your disposal.