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

[excel1]

35 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

Zaslov doesn't care about your weirdo identity politics and he isn't going to play them with a multi-billion dollar company on the line. His job is stop the studio from hemorrhaging money and put it on the track to start making a profit and he's going to hire the people who he believes are going to make that happen.

 

100%. Vast majority of film goers chose which projects they watch based upon quality, not the ethnicity of those involved, wtf, who does that in 2022? WB and Zaslav know they need to make quality films, period, and people will come out. How many regular casual movie goers gave even a seconds thought to the skin tones of Catwoman and Gordon in THE BATMAN? They were instantly, universally accepted and acclaimed. Alan Horn will push them to make films for America, not Twitter, which is exactly how it should be. 

 

People here loving drama.

 

"How will they run the studio when they piss off all the talent?!"

*Reeves signs first-look deal the next day*

*crickets*

 

"OMG they pushed back AQUABRO 2, they have no money!!"

*Aquabro 2 now is the favorite in win 2023*

*crickets*

Edited August 26, 2022 by excel1

[filmlover]

I haven't been following when and how WB's money problems began but if you ask me, it wouldn't be much of a shock if it went back to the silly decision to basically write off an entire year's worth of movies to boost their streaming service, instead of operating on a movie-by-movie basis as the year went along. A ridiculous choice even back when it happened and one that's probably had a profound impact to the point where we're seeing the side effects now.

[excel1]

7 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I haven't been following when and how WB's money problems began but if you ask me, it wouldn't be much of a shock if it went back to the silly decision to basically write off an entire year's worth of movies to boost their streaming service, instead of operating on a movie-by-movie basis as the year went along. A ridiculous choice even back when it happened and one that's probably had a profound impact to the point where we're seeing the side effects now.

Initially, the big problem was how it was handled. Over time, it was straighttup stupefying that they refused to change it as the year progressed. 

[IdahoJacket]

8 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

100%. Vast majority of film goers chose which projects they watch based upon quality, not the ethnicity of those involved, wtf, who does that in 2022? WB and Zaslav know they need to make quality films, period, and people will come out. How many regular casual movie goers gave even a seconds thought to the skin tones of Catwoman and Gordon in THE BATMAN? They were instantly, universally accepted and acclaimed. Alan Horn will push them to make films for America, not Twitter, which is exactly how it should be. 

 

People here loving drama.

 

"How will they run the studio when they piss off all the talent?!"

*Reeves signs first-look deal the next day*

*crickets*

 

"OMG they pushed back AQUABRO 2, they have no money!!"

*Aquabro 2 now is the favorite in win 2023*

*crickets*

Not to mention the fact that they still have a ton of "diverse" movies still coming out.  If you look at their scheduled DC movies for this year and next:

Black Adam - Black/Pacific Islander lead

Blue Beetle - Hispanic lead and director

Aquaman - White/Hawaiian lead and Malaysian Chinese director

The Flash - White (non-binary) lead and Hispanic director

 

Only Shazam has both a white lead and a white director.  There are also plenty of "diverse" non-DC movies scheduled such as House Party, Creed 3, and The Color Purple.  And one of the "creatives" Zaslav specifically offended was Clint Eastwood, an old white man.  Doesn't really fit the narrative of the racist CEO trying to eliminate all diversity in favor of white men.

[Potiki]

Keep on hearing all these ridiculous Warner was going broke remarks and whilst they may not have been in great shape they were far from going out of business.

 

A quick timeline on the Debt situation for Warner:

 

When AT&T was set to acquire them in 2016 they had roughly $20B in debt as an entity.

 

AT&T eventually took over Warner in 2018 and each of the years they operated the company the Warner segment had positive Operating Income (although diminishing over time as they invested in DTC + Pandemic) 2019 was $10.5B, 2020 was $8.2B and 2021 $7.2B. 

 

AT&T not long before the Warner deal also acquired DirecTV and that was a major failure which they also spun off and left them with heavy debt on top of the debt they had from buying Warner and keeping up with other telco expenses (moving to 5G and what not)

 

AT&T decided to lower their debt even more/get out of media and in doing so spun off Warner to merge with Discovery and loaded the new entity WBD with about $43B in debt.

 

WBDs way of paying for the merger was taking on debt from AT&T and they had known the figure since the beginning so it isn't like they (Zaslav and Discovery) merged without knowing what they were getting into. Now since the announcement of the deal maybe DTC growth, theatrical and pay TV revenues were less than expected. However it still seems like they are going above the $3B cost savings guidance and that won't even benefit them in the short term as their EBITDA over the next 2-3 years is set to be much worse than originally expected (I still don't understand how they go that so wrong.) 

 

In retrospect if Warner was never acquired by AT&T they probably would have been in a better position than they are right now but they were sold on the idea that distribution (telco) and content (media) were a great fit (on top of the nice ~$80B payday) 

 

Decided to add a TLDR: To break this down into simpler terms in 2016 Warner had ~$20B in debt if the AT&T deal didn't go throw they would likely have a similar amount of debt today although the company might overall have been around that same figure. However in present time due to the failure of AT&T they have roughly double that debt in the new entity that is WBD and are looking to cut costs given that fairly high level of debt (at least in media.)

Edited August 26, 2022 by Potiki

[eddyxx]

7 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

"whoever was going to be in charge was going to have to make cuts" yeah, we know. Those cuts usually aren't "umm all the people of color and all the diverse projects". People wouldn't be railing on him if he was cancelling the hundreds of reality shows.

To be fair though reality shows are really cheap to make so wouldn’t make a dent in their problem.

[El Gato]

17 hours ago, TestPattern said:

They won't sell DC or even stop producing comics, there's no point in that. DC as a division is profitable last I checked.

He's more likely, and I have no idea why he hasn't done this yet, to sell WB Games. They could easily fetch a few billion for it and they would save money on game development and make money by licensing out their IPs to studios to make games.

Because WBIE is the only other profitable business WB has outside of HBO. Seriously WBIE just had a HUGE success with Multiversus and they have Gotham Knights coming in October. Next year they have Hogwarts Legacy (going to be huge!), Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, plus several other titles… Zaslav would be foolish to sell 

[YM!]

6 hours ago, excel1 said:

Aquabro 2 now is the favorite in win 2023

Not even close. There’s like at least three films I see outdoing it lol.

[Legion Again]

AQM2 I guess like 300M DOM, 1B WW assuming China? I could see that good enough for 2nd WW but more ~6th DOM.

[Napoleon]

8 hours ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

Zaslov doesn't care about your weirdo identity politics and he isn't going to play them with a multi-billion dollar company on the line. His job is stop the studio from hemorrhaging money and put it on the track to start making a profit and he's going to hire the people who he believes are going to make that happen.

White men are not better, smarter and more competent than women and people of color. If someone were to seek the best people to the jobs they're offering, they would naturally end up with a diverse group of people, because gender and race were not part of equation, only the skills. If you only hire white men, than it's pretty likely that, even if only on a subconscious level, you do believe that white men are better. I'm not saying it's the case with Zaslav, though, I have not checked if those claims are accurate, I'm just talking in general. 

[YM!]

1 hour ago, Legion By Night said:

AQM2 I guess like 300M DOM, 1B WW assuming China? I could see that good enough for 2nd WW but more ~6th DOM.

I think 350M DOM/1B WW. Should be enough for about 4th DOM, with it finishing under Guardians 3, Mermaid, and Indy. There’s definitely a few wildcards domestically like Mario for instance.

[Legion Again]

12 minutes ago, YM! said:

I think 350M DOM/1B WW. Should be enough for about 4th DOM, with it finishing under Guardians 3, Mermaid, and Indy. There’s definitely a few wildcards domestically like Mario for instance.

I had marvels and ant-man above my 300 fig as well. AQM1 ~400 adjusted, maybe 420 by then, 25-30% drop perfectly normal for a sequel though could do better for sure esp if reception is good and completion weak etc. 350 I think good for 5th, that doesn’t account for surprise breakouts (except insofar as “well hey maybe they’ll cancel with surprise misses” 😛 )

[excel1]

The abnormally long 5 year gap should help this hold better than most sequels. There will be curiosity factor again.

[excel1]

1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

White men are not better, smarter and more competent than women and people of color. If someone were to seek the best people to the jobs they're offering, they would naturally end up with a diverse group of people, because gender and race were not part of equation, only the skills. If you only hire white men, than it's pretty likely that, even if only on a subconscious level, you do believe that white men are better. I'm not saying it's the case with Zaslav, though, I have not checked if those claims are accurate, I'm just talking in general. 

 

I am sorry but the bolded is entirely irrelevant, pointless, and not needed. Stop. Good things they haven't only hired white men. 🤣

[YM!]

43 minutes ago, Legion By Night said:

I had marvels and ant-man above my 300 fig as well. AQM1 ~400 adjusted, maybe 420 by then, 25-30% drop perfectly normal for a sequel though could do better for sure esp if reception is good and completion weak etc. 350 I think good for 5th, that doesn’t account for surprise breakouts (except insofar as “well hey maybe they’ll cancel with surprise misses” 😛 )

I got Quantumania at just about 300M and The Marvels at 330M-345M.

[YM!]

8 minutes ago, excel1 said:

The abnormally long 5 year gap should help this hold better than most sequels. There will be curiosity factor again.

Sure but unless like there’s a big new thing or addition, I expect it to act like a normal sequel. Like Thor 3 to 4. 

[Eric S'ennui]

6 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

I am sorry but the bolded is entirely irrelevant, pointless, and not needed. Stop. Good things they haven't only hired white men. 🤣

Except it is. It is already proven that the more diverse a company is, the more profitable the company is, the wider the audience, the more creative the company is in terms of products and campaigns, better relations with clients, and so on. Removing diversity in your company like this is not only a bad look, whether you like it or not, but is limiting the company and its scope, which in turn hurts the bottom line. Their "Middle America" push is also a bad idea, because not only has WB pushed for them already, and successfully, but they're ignoring tons of other audiences that are also profitable. So yeah, all of this stuff is relevant because this has potential to hurt the bottom line.

 

And if these articles aren't enough to convince you, please note that I work for a recruiting agency. I hear about this stuff every day and my team advise this stuff all the time to our clients. So I have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about.

[Menor the Destroyer]

47 minutes ago, YM! said:

Sure but unless like there’s a big new thing or addition, I expect it to act like a normal sequel. Like Thor 3 to 4. 

I think it has less going for it than Thor 4 did from 3, but better reception could counteract that.

[excel1]

1 hour ago, Eric the Genie said:

Except it is. It is already proven that the more diverse a company is, the more profitable the company is, the wider the audience, the more creative the company is in terms of products and campaigns, better relations with clients, and so on. Removing diversity in your company like this is not only a bad look, whether you like it or not, but is limiting the company and its scope, which in turn hurts the bottom line. Their "Middle America" push is also a bad idea, because not only has WB pushed for them already, and successfully, but they're ignoring tons of other audiences that are also profitable. So yeah, all of this stuff is relevant because this has potential to hurt the bottom line.

 

And if these articles aren't enough to convince you, please note that I work for a recruiting agency. I hear about this stuff every day and my team advise this stuff all the time to our clients. So I have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about.

 

I don't care who you work for. Do you see anyone on here disagreeing with the notion that diversity is good? I said the point was pointless because there was nobody here saying otherwise. The initial post & your post read as responses to things that nobody said. Where in this thread did anyone say that prioritizing diversity was bad? You post and the other post read as if WB is committing a wrong should they hire a white male, even if they happen to the most suited for the project, which would of course be ridiculous. Viewing people through a lens that says "minorities are less likely to receive attention then white people, so we are going to give esteem extra attention" is equally off base. Zaslav should be judging the creators strictly off of the reception of their previous work and the potential of their relevant ideas for these projects. 

 

What is much more important is understanding where diversity falls on the priorities list. Everyone is agreement that it belongs there, but acting like it should be at, or even near, the top of the priority list is absurd. The idea that the company should push through low-quality products simply because they happen to also promote diversity is lunacy. The idea that a company should not hire a more qualified white male creator in favor of a less qualified minority because of their race would be both racist and horrible business. Focusing on "middle America" is not any more racist, intelligent, or dumb than saying "focus on urban". Marvel had virtually no diversity and pushed an obvious "Middle America" angle for what many consider to be a "fair" amount of success. Focusing on quality is what transcends both segments. 

 

What they to need do, and be unapologetic about, is hiring the most talented creators for their projects. If that is a white guy, ala Matt Reeves, or an Asian ala James Wan, or a POC ala Michael B. Jordan, so be it. 

 

If they announced tomorrow that JJ Abrams or even Michael Bay will be directing Jacon Elordi as Superman with a prime release in 2025, should we be concerned about box office due to lack of diversity from the 2 headliners? This conversation is so silly.

Edited August 26, 2022 by excel1

[WittyUsername]

1 hour ago, excel1 said:

 

I don't care who you work for. Do you see anyone on here disagreeing with the notion that diversity is good? I said the point was pointless because there was nobody here saying otherwise. The initial post & your post read as responses to things that nobody said. Where in this thread did anyone say that prioritizing diversity was bad? You post and the other post read as if WB is committing a wrong should they hire a white male, even if they happen to the most suited for the project, which would of course be ridiculous. Viewing people through a lens that says "minorities are less likely to receive attention then white people, so we are going to give esteem extra attention" is equally off base. Zaslav should be judging the creators strictly off of the reception of their previous work and the potential of their relevant ideas for these projects. 

 

What is much more important is understanding where diversity falls on the priorities list. Everyone is agreement that it belongs there, but acting like it should be at, or even near, the top of the priority list is absurd. The idea that the company should push through low-quality products simply because they happen to also promote diversity is lunacy. The idea that a company should not hire a more qualified white male creator in favor of a less qualified minority because of their race would be both racist and horrible business. Focusing on "middle America" is not any more racist, intelligent, or dumb than saying "focus on urban". Marvel had virtually no diversity and pushed an obvious "Middle America" angle for what many consider to be a "fair" amount of success. Focusing on quality is what transcends both segments. 

 

What they to need do, and be unapologetic about, is hiring the most talented creators for their projects. If that is a white guy, ala Matt Reeves, or an Asian ala James Wan, or a POC ala Michael B. Jordan, so be it. 

 

If they announced tomorrow that JJ Abrams or even Michael Bay will be directing Jacon Elordi as Superman with a prime release in 2025, should we be concerned about box office due to lack of diversity from the 2 headliners? This conversation is so silly.

Well, there was a poster who unironically used the phrase “weirdo identity politics,” so there’s that. 
 

Also, what is it with you and Jacob Elordi?