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

[cax16]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

They'll care when they don't see much profit coming in after writing off multiple $100M+ movies possibly for nothing (HBO Max's stock has already barely moved much since the news broke last week) and creators probably being unwilling to make new content for them after this mess. Although with how they handled all of this they'll likely just go the "let's offload our assets" route again and try selling the studio.

That’s my point about them not caring lol, they don’t care what happens to the studio or what the reputation of the studio is. 

[cax16]

 

[filmlover]

Tenet flopping was likely the catalyst in all of this but in reality this was just complete mismanagement on their part. AT&T clearly loves nothing more than literally lighting money on fire. 

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, cax16 said:

 

The real life version of:

 

[lorddemaxus]

9 minutes ago, Nova said:

if you don’t think tenet bombing at the box office forced WB/AT&T to reconsider their release strategy for their films then i don’t know what else to tell you. 

 

eta: i’m not saying tenet is the only reason why but tenet not doing well definitely played a role in how WB went about their release strategy. 

Even if Tenet didn't cross $100 mil WW, WB wouldnt making a decision like this if HBO Max was a success. They're losing much more from HBO Max atm than they did from Tenet.

[TMP]

36 minutes ago, Nova said:

if you don’t think tenet bombing at the box office forced WB/AT&T to reconsider their release strategy for their films then i don’t know what else to tell you. 

 

eta: i’m not saying tenet is the only reason why but tenet not doing well definitely played a role in how WB went about their release strategy. and in the end WB isn’t exactly wrong about putting their films on HBO Max as most people would actually agree with the decision given the circumstance but it’s how they went about doing it that’s causing the backlash. 

This is happening because HBO Max is a dog-shit service no-one wants, not because one movie bombed

[sabrecmc]

Seems like perhaps Tenet not doing well gave them an excuse to do this, but the real issue has more to do with HBOMax swirling the drain.  Buy into it or not, it seems that a lot of studios (or the corporations behind them, anyway) think streaming is the way to go in the long-term.   This strategy still seems bonkers to me as an outsider, though.  I get HBOMax free b/c I'm an AT&T internet subscriber so it has been free, and I watched one thing on it.  I would definitely not pay actual money to have HBOMax, but I can see subscribing for long enough to watch a movie I wanted to see.  

[cax16]

 

[Macleod]

Sarnoff's responses make this even more clear: This was clearly a "step out first" move to beat whatever AT&T/Warners is hearing that Disney is bringing to the market when announced on Thursday: "We're working with the talent..."  😂  "To mitigate disaster" should follow those words.  All of this should have happened PRIOR to making an announcement of this scale!  *That's* the real beef that creative people involved here have.  

 

And yes, certain actors *do* have contracts that entitle them to back-end participation on box office profits, etc., so they are fair and entitled to have huge issues with the way WarnerMedia just shoved this out...

Edited December 8, 2020 by Macleod

[DlAMONDZ]

People bitch about AT&T being shit to their customers all the time yet here they are actually doing something good for once and still people find a way to shit on them. It boggles the mind

Edited December 8, 2020 by DlAMONDZ

[redfirebird2008]

I think the bottom line is that AT&T is a Cellular & Internet company. You have an old school movie studio getting merged under a company that actually wants people watching content via cellular connection on a 5 inch screen. It's a major clash of philosophy. The bigger company is gonna have control of the agenda. 

 

In the end, it will be interesting to see what consumers do. It's very possible that a majority will be very happy to get rid of theatrical window in general, and I don't just mean during the COVID pandemic times.

 

But I do think there are still plenty of folks out there that would like to see movies on bigger screens than what they have in the home, so maybe there will still be a place for theaters. Much smaller market than before, but still an existing product that people will hopefully be able to choose if they want. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by redfirebird2008

[Gavin Feng]

the one who can bring back peace to matrix.

 

[cax16]

5 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

I think the bottom line is that AT&T is a Cellular & Internet company. You have an old school movie studio getting merged under a company that actually wants people watching content via cellular connection on a 5 inch screen. It's a major clash of philosophy. The bigger company is gonna have control of the agenda. 

 

In the end, it will be interesting to see what consumers do. It's very possible that a majority will be very happy to get rid of theatrical window in general, and I don't just mean during the COVID pandemic times.

 

But I do think there are still plenty of folks out there that would like to see movies on bigger screens than what they have in the home, so maybe there will still be a place for theaters. Much smaller market than before, but still an existing product that people will hopefully be able to choose if they want. 

I think in the end this is really it, it’s what does the customer want?
 

I know for myself I’m gonna go back to theatres once it’s safe, but I’d definitely appreciate having the choice of where I wanted to watch a movie.

 

I don’t want to pay $15-30 a ticket for a b level horror movie that I could just watch at home on streaming. I’m more then fine paying for big blockbusters like end game or infinity war but if you gave me the choice to watch something like ant man or birds of prey I would of been fine watching those at home. 

[redfirebird2008]

1 minute ago, cax16 said:

I think in the end this is really it, it’s what does the customer want?
 

I know for myself I’m gonna go back to theatres once it’s safe, but I’d definitely appreciate having the choice of where I wanted to watch a movie.

 

I don’t want to pay $15-30 a ticket for a b level horror movie that I could just watch at home on streaming. I’m more then fine paying for big blockbusters like end game or infinity war but if you gave me the choice to watch something like ant man or birds of prey I would of been fine watching those at home. 

 

Agreed 100%. There are many folks out there who rarely went to theaters even before the pandemic. I'm one of them, despite my interest in tracking box office and such. There are certain movies you want to see on the big screen if you can, but there are many other movies that don't need to be seen in a theater. You and me have very similar view on that. 

 

Now another big question here is that beyond consumer choice, the COVID pandemic itself might just kill the movie theater companies. So even if we wanted to go back to theaters in safer/healthier times for the population, we might not be able to do it. Government is not bailing out theaters, so they are in deep trouble. 

[charlie Jatinder]

4 hours ago, Chicago said:

MATRIX 4 would outgross Wondy

 

IDK if Matrix may get proper release whenever it release but in world where there was no COVID Wondy weekend has more chance of being over Matrix 4 than what you just said.

[charlie Jatinder]

51 minutes ago, cax16 said:

 

Fair enough. Still should have waited till after WW84. Is it possible that this announcement was done to push more people to buy HBO Max for WW84 itself. Subscribing for one film may not be a big motivator, but subscribing for 17 looks big.

[cax16]

Just now, charlie Jatinder said:

Fair enough. Still should have waited till after WW84. Is it possible that this announcement was done to push more people to buy HBO Max for WW84 itself. Subscribing for one film may not be a big motivator, but subscribing for 17 looks big.

Ya, I believe they just offered a deal for people who prepaid for 6 months when they made the announcement last week. 

[Nova]

1 hour ago, Macleod said:

Sarnoff's responses make this even more clear: This was clearly a "step out first" move to beat whatever AT&T/Warners is hearing that Disney is bringing to the market when announced on Thursday: "We're working with the talent..."  😂  "To mitigate disaster" should follow those words.  All of this should have happened PRIOR to making an announcement of this scale!  *That's* the real beef that creative people involved here have.  

 

And yes, certain actors *do* have contracts that entitle them to back-end participation on box office profits, etc., so they are fair and entitled to have huge issues with the way WarnerMedia just shoved this out...

From what I have read, the actors with those types of contracts are upset, and rightfully so, that Gal Gadot got a check up front when WB decided to put Wonder Woman on HBO Max but they didn't even get told that their films were going to the platform. And I 100% agree with you that the biggest issue here is that literally none of the creative people involved were consulted. A lot of this could have been easily avoided had WB just waited to see how Wonder Woman did and then had conversations with the people who made their films slated to be released in 2021.  

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, DlAMONDZ said:

People bitch about AT&T being shit to their customers all the time yet here they are actually doing something good for once and still people find a way to shit on them. It boggles the mind

Screwing over hundreds of people is doing something good for once?

 

And before you say "these people are filthy rich and it's hard to feel bad for them," which may be true, keep in mind that, at the end of the day, show business is exactly that: a business just like any other that thrives on its relationships with both its employees and its customers. To keep consumers happy, they also need to keep their talent happy too. It's all a big cycle in which one depends on the other. This all could've been avoided had they consulted with the people responsible for these movies beforehand and made deals with them. They didn't, and now they are understandably facing backlash from within the industry for not holding up their end of the bargains.

 

One of the production studios behind some of the movies is looking to sue them. One of the top guilds in the industry is apparently calling for a boycott of their movies. And plenty of big names are ticked off (for good reason) right now. Doesn't mean much to common folks like us, but to the entertainment industry, it means a lot. Whatever short-term benefits HBO Max will see (which, after seeing how it's barely moved their stock upwards, might not end up being all that much anyway) is negated by the long-term damage that's been done to WB's image as one of the most trusted movie studios around.

Edited December 8, 2020 by filmlover

[Mango]

38 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

 

IDK if Matrix may get proper release whenever it release but in world where there was no COVID Wondy weekend has more chance of being over Matrix 4 than what you just said.

 

I'm not sure about domestically, but The Matrix was a HUGE international earner when the original trilogy was being released. And that was well before the markets for many international markets had the explosions they had. If all these wildness flip flops and Covid is somehow a distant dream  nightmare by the time it releases, I'd be willing to bet money on Matrix 4 being an absolute behemoth in international earnings.