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

[Cappoedameron]

Add on to the fact Rowling is an awful script writer.

22 minutes ago, Verrows said:

Which is crazy because then you're just making the universe smaller, when Zaslav's intent seems to be to grow these franchises.

 

The problem with Fantastic Beasts was the execution, not the idea.

 

[Verrows]

20 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

Add on to the fact Rowling is an awful script writer.

 

Yep, just like George Lucas was. Both Rowling and Lucas are great storytellers whose greatest strength is conceiving these world's and building them. But scriptwriting is a whole different beast entirely and that task is better left to others.

[dudalb]

On 11/15/2022 at 1:27 PM, ChipDerby said:

 

I can guarantee you that Daniel and Emma will never work with JK again. 0 chance.

Never say never.

But Watson will be the toughest to get; she had quite a sucessful career post Potter; much more so then Radcliffe.

But they both have net worths of over 80 Million, so it's not like either one has to do a paycheck movie again.

[dudalb]

5 hours ago, Verrows said:

Yep, just like George Lucas was. Both Rowling and Lucas are great storytellers whose greatest strength is conceiving these world's and building them. But scriptwriting is a whole different beast entirely and that task is better left to others.

Being a novelist and being a screenwriter have two different sets of skills. Not everybody has both.

Diffrence between Lucas and Rowling is that Rowling never was a good screenwriter; Lucas was but allowed his skills to deteorite.

I heard the dialogue in "Attack Of The Clones" and thought: "The Guy who did the great dialouge in American Graffiti wrote this?'.

[TestPattern]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/james-wans-atomic-monster-blumhouse-in-talks-to-merge-1235263672/

 

Quote

Atomic Monster previously had a deal at Warners, where Wan is in post-production on Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom and where his Conjuring movies and spinoffs generated more than $2 billion in box office revenue alone. That deal expired over the summer and observers were watching where the filmmaker would land next. Combining his shop with Blumhouse, in which he will have a substantial stake, if a deal closes, was not what most were expecting.

Wan's WB deal expired this Summer and he's potentially merging Atomic Monster with Blumhouse, who current has a first look deal with Universal.

So with Hamada gone and Wan possibly gone, who's going to produce their horror stuff? Also, what happens to the Conjuring franchise?

 

Blumhouse's Universal deal also soon, so if they do merge, I could see them signing with Paramount since Hamada is there and he produced so much of Wan's movies.

Edited November 16, 2022 by TestPattern

[lorddemaxus]

10 minutes ago, TestPattern said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/james-wans-atomic-monster-blumhouse-in-talks-to-merge-1235263672/

 

Wan's WB deal expired this Summer and he's potentially merging Atomic Monster with Blumhouse, who current has a first look deal with Universal.

So with Hamada gone and Wan possibly gone, who's going to produce their horror stuff? Also, what happens to the Conjuring franchise?

 

Blumhouse's Universal deal also soon, so if they do merge, I could see them signing with Paramount since Hamada is there and he produced so much of Wan's movies.

It's pretty likely Universal just keeps their deal with Blumhouse after the current one ends. They have a stake in the company.

Edited November 16, 2022 by lorddemaxus

[Noctis]

The problem with Fantastic Beasts was not that it didn't feature Hogwarts or the golden trio, it was because the original idea of a trilogy where Newt travels the world and has wild adventures with magical creatures was quickly transformed into becoming a five film series because (undeniably) Rowling got restless and wanted to include the Dumbledore/Grindelwald storyline. 

 

Two great stories that are utterly different from one another stitched together into a single series was never going to do justice to either story. 

 

Rowling's greatest gift, aside from her worldbuilding, is creating genuinely lovable and affecting characters. Even in Beasts, with all its faults, has some great characters that many will end up missing. 

 

At least FB3 ended on a satisfying enough note that gave closure to its characters. 

[Noctis]

I truly believe that entirely new characters and completely new stories in the WW would do very well. The series needs something fresh and new.

 

The universe is way too massive and detailed for it to be only tied to Potter lore.

[cax16]

I guess this is why Spielberg was meeting with Zaslav a few weeks ago. 
 

 

[dudalb]

With all respect to Spielberg, he can't top the car chase in the original Bullitt. It 's the one that every car chase sequence made since owes a lot to.

[JWR]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

With all respect to Spielberg, he can't top the car chase in the original Bullitt. It 's the one that every car chase sequence made since owes a lot to.

 

Nobody thought the original West Side Story could be outdone either...

[excel1]

WOW Zaslav with an epic win. Why would Spielberg return to the studio ?

[dudalb]

20 hours ago, excel1 said:

WOW Zaslav with an epic win. Why would Spielberg return to the studio ?

Because Warners has the rights to "Bullitt" and if Spielberg wants to do a movie about that charecter he does'nt have much choice......

[El Squibbonator]

I'm confused about something. Yesterday I saw a tweet dated to November 2nd, claiming that WB had cancelled 38 shows as a result of their merger. I haven't seen that number anywhere else, but I have seen, in an article from August, that they had removed 37 shows from HBO Max. The question is, which of those descriptions is accurate, assuming they're talking about the same thing? The numbers in the two accounts are just one away from each other, so I'm pretty sure it's just a counting error.

The question is, which one has the error? I'm skeptical of the first number, because I have a hard time believing WB even had 38 shows in production at the same time to begin with. Wikipedia tells me the number is closer to 15, but if you add in shows that were already complete but have been removed from HBO Max, you get somewhere around 37 or 38. So which is it?

 

I also saw an article way back in August saying that the layoffs and cancellations were expected to mostly be over by the end of October; can anyone confirm or deny that? 

Edited November 21, 2022 by El Squibbonator

[Cappoedameron]

After the Chapek news WB should follow suit cause if Chapek deserved to be fired Zaslav deserves to be fired....into the sun.

[El Squibbonator]

Who would replace him, though? WB just went through a huge merger, which is the reason he's in charge in the first place. 

[JWR]

10 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

After the Chapek news WB should follow suit cause if Chapek deserved to be fired Zaslav deserves to be fired....into the sun.

 

He hasn't fucked up badly (or long) enough to warrant it yet. 

[Macleod]

22 minutes ago, El Squibbonator said:

I'm confused about something. Yesterday I saw a tweet dated to November 2nd, claiming that WB had cancelled 38 shows as a result of their merger. I haven't seen that number anywhere else, but I have seen, in an article from August, that they had removed 37 shows from HBO Max. The question is, which of those descriptions is accurate, assuming they're talking about the same thing? The numbers in the two accounts are just one away from each other, so I'm pretty sure it's just a counting error.

The question is, which one has the error? I'm skeptical of the first number, because I have a hard time believing WB even had 38 shows in production at the same time to begin with. Wikipedia tells me the number is closer to 15, but if you add in shows that were already complete but have been removed from HBO Max, you get somewhere around 37 or 38. So which is it?

 

I also saw an article way back in August saying that the layoffs and cancellations were expected to mostly be over by the end of October; can anyone confirm or deny that? 

 

First rule is...don't trust Wikipedia for anything accurate.  Second rule is: Source the Hollywood trades for this kind of information.  Between Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, there should be some consensus (especially since they're now all owned by the same corporate entity!!!).  Either way, they're probably referring to any/all shows that are being "removed" from HBOMax and/or canceled.  But these things can be two different things, yes...

[WittyUsername]

Just now, Macleod said:

 

First rule is...don't trust Wikipedia for anything accurate.  Second rule is: Source the Hollywood trades for this kind of information.  Between Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, there should be some consensus (especially since they're now all owned by the same corporate entity!!!).  Either way, they're probably referring to any/all shows that are being "removed" from HBOMax and/or canceled.  But these things can be two different things, yes...

You don’t need to trust Wikipedia itself. The question is whether or not their sources are accurate. 

[Macleod]

6 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

You don’t need to trust Wikipedia itself. The question is whether or not their sources are accurate. 

 

That's why they can't be trusted -- because anyone can edit and anyone can add any source credit that seems "verifiable" to themselves, without any existing journalistic standards that established publications have.  People who add sources even get credits and names wrong -- I know because I recently discovered myself being referenced on a Wiki page, and they had me with a completely different first name in the bibliography at the bottom.  Whether the sources are accurate becomes immaterial when you can't even trust the standards of choosing sources.  

Edited November 21, 2022 by Macleod