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

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

As long as DC movies/shows don't leave Max, I don't see an issue with allowing other streamers to have them available.

 

Also regarding the Watchmen thing, it is the motion comic (or something) that is leaving Max, not the show.

Back fefore streaming, you had the big premium cable channels continuing to show movies ever after they had sold to the broadcast networks. They even made a marketing thing of the premium channels having the "Complete, Uncut" versions.

[excel1]

The "WB December" commercial was a great touch. Wonka, Aqua, and Purple are going to combine for a lot of money. 

[emoviefan]

9 hours ago, excel1 said:

The "WB December" commercial was a great touch. Wonka, Aqua, and Purple are going to combine for a lot of money. 

Something tells me 2 of those movies are going to carry a lot of the load. 

[poweranimals]

I'm surprised the other studios just conceded the Christmas season to WB.

[Speedorito]

43 minutes ago, poweranimals said:

I'm surprised the other studios just conceded the Christmas season to WB.

They probably assumed Aquaman 2 would steamroll everything the first one did in 2018.

 

 Plus most of the studios stuck with dates that typically worked for them in the past, like Lionsgate and WDAS placing a Hunger Games movie and Disney musical around Thanksgiving.

[filmnerdjamie]

On 12/13/2023 at 9:00 AM, emoviefan said:

Something tells me 2 of those movies are going to carry a lot of the load.

 

Heh heh heh heh

 

"Load."

[Spidey Freak]

[Scubasteve716]

A company that’s paid off $12 billion in debt in its first 16 months of inception with positive EBITDA isn’t going to all of a sudden not be able to pay its debts. It has no major debt maturing soon. It’s stock us been up over 10% in the two days that “report” came out - if it were even remotely accurate it would sell off. I get not everyone is into finance but it’s kind of embarrassing people are running with this. Nothing indicates it’s heading for bankruptcy. 

[SpiderByte]

I think bankruptcy is overstated. It's much more likely it gets sold....again...before that happens.

[belblazer]

 

 

 

Gunn just confirmed that the Arkham show produced by Matt Reeves is actually part of the DCU.

 

Hopefully we can get a individual thread for the DCU as more info about the universe comes in.

Edited December 17, 2023 by belblazer

[WittyUsername]

9 minutes ago, belblazer said:

 

 

 

Gunn just confirmed that the Arkham show produced by Matt Reeves is actually part of the DCU.

 

Hopefully we can get a individual thread for the DCU as more info about the universe comes in.

Between this and Gunn saying that he hasn’t been given a script for The Batman 2 yet, this makes me wonder if the plan is to phase out the Batverse. Assuming that is the case, I suppose it would at least solve the problem of having multiple Batmen at the same time, but what would that mean for Robert Pattinson? Will they simply have him be the DCU Batman? 

[Speedorito]

16 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Between this and Gunn saying that he hasn’t been given a script for The Batman 2 yet, this makes me wonder if the plan is to phase out the Batverse. Assuming that is the case, I suppose it would at least solve the problem of having multiple Batmen at the same time, but what would that mean for Robert Pattinson? Will they simply have him be the DCU Batman? 

I thought Pattinson didn’t want to be part of a cinematic universe and just wanted to do strictly The Batman stuff? Unless he changed his mind ($$$).

[WittyUsername]

2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:

I thought Pattinson didn’t want to be part of a cinematic universe and just wanted to do strictly The Batman stuff? Unless he changed his mind ($$$).

Keep in mind, I’m only speculating here. I just recall that Zaslav specifically stated how they didn’t want multiple Batmen. 

[belblazer]

30 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Between this and Gunn saying that he hasn’t been given a script for The Batman 2 yet, this makes me wonder if the plan is to phase out the Batverse. Assuming that is the case, I suppose it would at least solve the problem of having multiple Batmen at the same time, but what would that mean for Robert Pattinson? Will they simply have him be the DCU Batman? 

He made clear that The Batman universe is elseworld and will remain separated from the DCU because Matt himself declined Gunn's offer to put it in the new DCU.

 

We don't know when they will release The Brave and the Bold, but it clearly won't be too soon... maybe close to The Batman part III so we won't have multiple Batmen (thinking that it will be a trilogy).

[WittyUsername]

2 minutes ago, belblazer said:

He made clear that The Batman universe is elseworld and will remain separated from the DCU because Matt himself declined Gunn's offer to put it in the new DCU.

 

We don't know when they will release The Brave and the Bold, but it clearly won't be too soon... maybe close to The Batman part III so we won't have multiple Batmen (thinking that it will be a trilogy).

I’m aware. That’s why I said that I’m wondering if they plan to phase out the Batverse in favor of the DCU Batman. I obviously have nothing to truly base this on, hence why I said that I’m only speculating. I just find it interesting that they’d have Matt Reeves develop Batman related projects for both the DCU and the Batverse. 

[SpiderByte]

Seems like an easier idea than having it be in Reeves version. Gives them more room to use the wackier villains too

[Macleod]

I put only a 60/40 on Reeves' Batman sequel going ahead.  My gut is telling me that they might just let it be a one-off.  Either way, I'm sure Reeves is not 100% happy about having another Batman floating around, just as rumors indicated Nolan wasn't when George Miller almost made his "Justice League" during the Dark Knight trilogy... And of course it was going to happen again with Affleck and Keaton, but nixed...and Keaton's became a one-off appearance.  They still have yet to test this theory as an ongoing concept... 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Macleod

[Speedorito]

50 minutes ago, Macleod said:

I put only a 60/40 on Reeves' Batman sequel going ahead.  My gut is telling me that they might just let it be a one-off.  Either way, I'm sure Reeves is not 100% happy about having another Batman floating around, just as rumors indicated Nolan wasn't when George Miller almost made his "Justice League" during the Dark Knight trilogy... And of course it was going to happen again with Affleck and Keaton, but nixed...and Keaton's became a one-off appearance.  They still have yet to test this theory as an ongoing concept... 

The Batman is the only financially successful DC film since 2019’s Joker and no other film has come close. There’s no way they’d let him get away. They might just give him more leeway to keep him happy.

[dallas]

4 minutes ago, Speedorito said:

The Batman is the only financially successful DC film since 2019’s Joker and no other film has come close. There’s no way they’d let him get away. They might just give him more leeway to keep him happy.

I think Super-Pets was financially successful, with ancillaries and all. 

[Speedorito]

5 minutes ago, dallas said:

I think Super-Pets was financially successful, with ancillaries and all. 

Lol I actually forgot about that film.