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

[WittyUsername]

22 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

No, in fact - many experts openly said that was a stupid decision, which we now to know to have been the case.

 

 

Zaslav runs the company that owns WB properties. Obviously he cares about realizing their full potential value. The hiring Alan Horn is a high-end decision.

Plenty of experts have also said that Zaslav’s strategy is pretty stupid. Not sure what your point is. 

[excel1]

1 hour ago, WittyUsername said:

Plenty of experts have also said that Zaslav’s strategy is pretty stupid. Not sure what your point is. 

 

What experts are saying its stupid for financial reasons? Do not cite a butthurt "idk about money, we need more minatory female hero on film!!!" people, either. I agree with them, mind you, but the economics simply have to make sense first and foremost. 

[YM!]

 

[The GOAT]

The Warner Bros must be broke to take all these shows off their streaming platform. 

[WittyUsername]

3 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

What experts are saying its stupid for financial reasons? Do not cite a butthurt "idk about money, we need more minatory female hero on film!!!" people, either. I agree with them, mind you, but the economics simply have to make sense first and foremost. 

Who said anything about female heroes? There have been whispers going around in the industry about how stupid Zaslav’s approach is, and how it’s only going to sever WB’s relationship with its talent. Pissing people off is not a sound business move. 

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by WittyUsername

[BadOlCatSylvester]

Unless you're a visionless yesman who will do what the producers tell you, I really don't see how working for Zaslav's Warner is anything other than a waste of time.

[excel1]

8 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Who said anything about female heroes? There have been whispers going around in the industry about how stupid Zaslav’s approach is, and how it’s only going to sever WB’s relationship with its talent. Pissing people off is not a sound business move. 

 

 

Is the bolded a serious question? That subject has been featured on Yahoo's main page multiple times over the last regarding She-hulk premiering around the same time as the "controversial" Batgirl cancelation.

 

There will be no shortage of talent looking to work with WB, especially on the DC properties. Artists freaked out when Sarnoff ditched theatrical; now Zaslav commits to it heavily and people are upset? They need to get their story straight. DC, in particular, needs that guiding hand for obvious reasons - one of which is to give talent the right guidance.

 

Look at Marvel. Where the careers of RDJ, Hemsworth, Evans, Ruffalo, any of the major directors, etc prior to the MCU? In 2000, ScarJo was less famous for a handful of critically acclaimed role, and more for being hot and dating Josh Hartnett and then Ryan Reynolds in the tabloid era, she was not proven bankable. 

 

DC no doubt thinking they will develop their own talent similar as Marvel.

Edited August 21, 2022 by excel1

[YM!]

14 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Artists freaked out when Sarnoff ditched theatrical; now Zaslav commits to it heavily and people are upset? They need to get their story straight.

You’re not getting the big point here. In both situations, artists have been getting shafted. In this case, arguably worse than the temporary response due to a pandemic and at least tried to reach out to those who were fucked over. Being upset against how Zaslav is treating artists doesn’t mean your anti-theatrical, those things aren’t an all or none rule or mutually exclusive. Further move, this move is not to justify or “save” theatrical but to avoid paying artists. And to think that this type of micromanaging won’t be seen theatrically regardless of being “good” for DC or not, or have ramifications on what gets greenlit is laughable.

[excel1]

5 hours ago, YM! said:

You’re not getting the big point here. In both situations, artists have been getting shafted. In this case, arguably worse than the temporary response due to a pandemic and at least tried to reach out to those who were fucked over. Being upset against how Zaslav is treating artists doesn’t mean your anti-theatrical, those things aren’t an all or none rule or mutually exclusive. Further move, this move is not to justify or “save” theatrical but to avoid paying artists. And to think that this type of micromanaging won’t be seen theatrically regardless of being “good” for DC or not, or have ramifications on what gets greenlit is laughable.

 

There are thousands of up-and-coming artists that would kill to work for WB. Again, where were the careers of most major Marvel actors/actresses/directors prior to Marvel?

 

Things should frankly be pretty straight-forward for WB:

 

-Batman: develop the Matt Reeves verse; keep making quality film around BATMAN, develop his side characters too- Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, Freeze, Dent/Two-Face, Robin>Nightwing are all popular enough on their own to carry the occasional solo films that will make team-up films bigger deals.

 

-Joker: ride the Phoenix joker as long as possible; in a golden world, it eventually merges with Reeves universe somehow. 

 

-Superman: If Cavill isn't locked up by the end of 2022, the need to announce publicly that his time is done and a new project is underway. A few months later, Jacob Elordi should be cast.

 

-Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Flash should be developed along the same time-line, simply continue. Gadot likely had 5-6 years left of being a capable Wonder Woman, Momoa a similar time frame for Aquaman. Who knows about Miller as Flash.

 

TBD

-Harley Quinn

-Matrix 5

 

Hopeful future projects:

-Harry Potter 9/10/11 with the original trio

-GOT movie

-Euphoria movie

-Succession movie

-Peacemaker movie

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by excel1

[WittyUsername]

4 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

There are thousands of up-and-coming artists that would kill to work for WB. Again, where were the careers of most major Marvel actors/actresses/directors prior to Marvel?

 

Things should frankly be pretty straight-forward for WB:

 

-Batman: develop the Matt Reeves verse; keep making quality film around BATMAN, develop his side characters too- Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, Freeze, Dent/Two-Face, Robin>Nightwing are all popular enough on their own to carry the occasional solo films that will make team-up films bigger deals.

 

-Joker: ride the Phoenix joker as long as possible; in a golden world, it eventually merges with Reeves universe somehow. 

 

-Superman: If Cavill isn't locked up by the end of 2022, the need to announce publicly that his time is done and a new project is underway. A few months later, Jacob Elordi should be cast.

 

-Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Flash should be developed along the same time-line, simply continue. Gadot likely had 5-6 years left of being a capable Wonder Woman, Momoa a similar time frame for Aquaman. Who knows about Miller as Flash.

 

TBD

-Harley Quinn

-Matrix 5

 

Hopeful future projects:

-Harry Potter 9/10/11 with the original trio

-GOT movie

-Euphoria movie

-Succession movie

-Peacemaker movie

 

 

 

 

 

How many artists do you honestly think would kill to work for a studio that treats its talent like crap? 

[excel1]

3 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

How many artists do you honestly think would kill to work for a studio that treats its talent like crap? 

 

For a foot in the door and/or a paycheck? A lot. 

[WittyUsername]

38 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

For a foot in the door and/or a paycheck? A lot. 

You make it sound like WB is the only option in Hollywood. 

[filmlover]

8 hours ago, excel1 said:

-Euphoria movie

[Porthos]

You know without taking sides on this whole thing vis a vis WB and hiring, I will say that I am old enough to remember when lots of folks were talking about the bridges being burnt over in the land of Disney thanks to Chapek's numerous fuckups.

 

Funny how that all turned out.

[Porthos]

2 minutes ago, Porthos said:

You know without taking sides on this whole thing vis a vis WB and hiring, I will say that I am old enough to remember when lots of folks were talking about the bridges being burnt over in the land of Disney thanks to Chapek's numerous fuckups.

 

Funny how that all turned out.

 

Now if I want to be more serious, the size and sheer breadth of the fuckups are a much larger degree.  That being said, I am... sympathetic to the idea  — no that's not quite right, so let's go with fairly cynical instead — of Money (and Exposure) Talks.

 

And debt problems notwithstanding, WB is gonna have lots of dollars to throw around on projects.

 

So, sure, more than a few actors and creators and other folks above the line* will be hesitant to work with WB. On the other hand, there are a lot of people looking for work in the entertainment biz.  And if three (or five or ten or even twenty) people say "no" to a role/project, there are still people out there who will think that this won't happen to them/it's worth the risk/as long as I get paid I don't care/whatever-rationalization-they-come-up-with, that WB will still be able to find folks for their projects and folks will be coming to them for deals.

* And perhaps below the line for that matter.

 

Where this does hurt them, I think, is the overall pool of folks willing to deal with them will be reduced (for now at least) and/or some people who have more star power behind their name will ask for more money/control upfront for risk-compensation [which then probably has a series of dominos falling elsewhere if budgets are skewed to overcome hesitancy].

 

Does this mooted shrinking talent "hurt" WB?  I suppose it depends on how interchangeable one really thinks actors, writers, directors and everyone else in the creative process are when it comes to making shows.  I think it has to hurt them, by definition. But I also think it's gonna be hard to measure just how much they are being hurt.

 

For instance we'll probably hear gossip about how so and so refused to work with WB if one particular show or movie doesn't do well, and then get to engage in a game of "if they did work with WB, then maybe the show/movie would have been better".  Or so and so refused to have their hit project at WB and went to a rival studio instead.  At the same time, we kinda hear that gossip already.  

 

So I suppose, ultimately, put me in the camp of WB has raised the bar of difficulty in getting shit done when it comes to scripted programming.  Just how high that bar has been raised, for how long, and for which projects?  Well, time will tell.  Got my own guesses to that, but ultimately, it probably really is too soon to tell.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Porthos

[JustLurking]

On 8/19/2022 at 11:43 PM, WittyUsername said:

The debt that WB is in was only exacerbated by the Discovery purchase. What Zaslav is doing comes off as extremely shortsighted and counterintuitive. How does he expect to turn WB into a powerhouse that can compete with Disney, if he alienates a good chunk of Hollywood?

Why do you think his current goal is to compete with Disney? Going from "debt-ridden company in desperate need to reduce said debt" to "powerhouse that rivals disney" seems like skipping quite a few steps to me, and I doubt they're even thinking about that right now. I don't think they even will think about that until (and if) they have succeeded in actually bringing said debt down.

[NamakFiskKa]

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

You know without taking sides on this whole thing vis a vis WB and hiring, I will say that I am old enough to remember when lots of folks were talking about the bridges being burnt over in the land of Disney thanks to Chapek's numerous fuckups.

 

Funny how that all turned out.

that or they could end up where Fox is right now

[WittyUsername]

6 hours ago, JustLurking said:

Why do you think his current goal is to compete with Disney? Going from "debt-ridden company in desperate need to reduce said debt" to "powerhouse that rivals disney" seems like skipping quite a few steps to me, and I doubt they're even thinking about that right now. I don't think they even will think about that until (and if) they have succeeded in actually bringing said debt down.

If I recall, insiders have claimed that he’s trying to copy the Disney model, and that he paradoxically wants to increase WB’s cinematic output, despite also going out of his way to cut costs and rejecting projects from people like Clint Eastwood. It sounds like he has no clue what he’s doing.

 

I don’t know how anyone can defend Zaslav’s decisions. I get that WB is in debt, but again, their debt only got worse after the Discovery buyout. If this is such a problem for Zaslav and Discovery, then they should never have agreed to buy out WB in the first place. No one forced them to do that. 

[JustLurking]

39 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

If I recall, insiders have claimed that he’s trying to copy the Disney model, and that he paradoxically wants to increase WB’s cinematic output, despite also going out of his way to cut costs and rejecting projects from people like Clint Eastwood. It sounds like he has no clue what he’s doing.

 

I don’t know how anyone can defend Zaslav’s decisions. I get that WB is in debt, but again, their debt only got worse after the Discovery buyout. If this is such a problem for Zaslav and Discovery, then they should never have agreed to buy out WB in the first place. No one forced them to do that. 

Who says I am defending his decisions though? I am just saying that it really does not seem to me like he's trying to rival disney from what we've seen. There's a bunch of headscratchers and things that I don't agree with for sure but we will only see if/how much he was wrong in some years at this point.

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, JustLurking said:

Who says I am defending his decisions though? I am just saying that it really does not seem to me like he's trying to rival disney from what we've seen. There's a bunch of headscratchers and things that I don't agree with for sure but we will only see if/how much he was wrong in some years at this point.

This.

People here don't get just how deadly a debt situation can be to a company and that is is a problem that cannot be kicked down the road.

Deep cuts would have to be made no matter who is in charge. Question is how well id Zaslev handle the cuts.

A lot of pain is ahead for Warners no matter who is in charge.

Warners ig going to , for the next couple ofyears, have less money to spend than they have in the past.