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

[MightyDargon]

38 minutes ago, Juliet said:

Devaluing Looney Tunes out of Public Domain fears does nothing for WB. It just means they can't make money out of the properties just like everyone else can't

I mean, they could simply be devaluing them out of Zaslav's incompetence too. It's very difficult for me to tell. But the dude has nothing but contempt for WB animation that isn't Adult Swim.

[dudalb]

17 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Canceling Batgirl isn’t something I think can be justified no matter how you slice it. He could’ve just sold it to another streamer like they’re trying to do with the Wile E. Coyote movie. 
 

Also, the lengths they went to when they tried to sell people on The Flash completely blew up in their face. The various marketing stunts they pulled with that film will always be embarrassing. 
 

At the very least, I can concede that he hasn’t alienated talent away from WB, although he reportedly had a pretty difficult time finding someone to be the head of DC before settling on James Gunn and Peter Safran, because no one else apparently wanted the job. 

Or just shown the damn thing on Whatever the hell they are calling the WB streaming service nowdays....which would have made sense because it was intended as  Television movie from the beginning; .

 

[dudalb]

16 hours ago, AniNate said:

It definitely is a bummer they got the Cruise endorsement after all they did. I suppose he does have enough clout in his own right where he can prevent something like that happening to one of his films.

And of the course there is the eternal fact about the film business:

 

Money Talks, No One Walks.

[dudalb]

5 hours ago, MightyDargon said:

He's the one that decided to hold Coyote vs Acme hostage in hopes of a gubmint tax writeoff, not me. 

Of course, this could REALLY be about him intentionally trying to devalue the Looney Tunes since the back part of the WB catalog will start to go public domain and be free of his grimy mitts

Or Maybe Coyote vs Acme was just not very good.

I have no problems with Zaslev deciding not to give it a threatical release if ht thought it would flop, but why not make isn attraction on the  WB Streaming Service? That is what I don't get.

[dallas]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Or Maybe Coyote vs Acme was just not very good.

Literally everything indicated that it is. 

[excel1]

Canning Batgirl was no doubt about further protecting IP that was already clearly going in the wrong direction. They would have further diluted the brand and for the worse. I wanted to return Burton's Gotham as much as anyone but that is what it is. They can't give the mouse that cookie. Multiple versions of these characters at once is insane and worked for 1 film (NWH).

 

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it does make it's way out down the line after a new DC era has been established and there will far less emotional reactions from fans.

Edited January 12 by excel1

[MightyDargon]

10 hours ago, excel1 said:

Canning Batgirl was no doubt about further protecting IP that was already clearly going in the wrong direction. They would have further diluted the brand and for the worse. I wanted to return Burton's Gotham as much as anyone but that is what it is. They can't give the mouse that cookie. Multiple versions of these characters at once is insane and worked for 1 film (NWH).

 

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it does make it's way out down the line after a new DC era has been established and there will far less emotional reactions from fans.

We weren't returning to "Burton's Gotham" anyway because BURTON wasn't coming back. If WB gave us THAT we would have been busting down theatre doors.

[dudalb]

Peop-le forget that Batgirl was originally meant to be a streaming movie. The decision to make it a threatircal release happened only after filming had begun.

I think it hsould have just reverted to being a streaming movie and I think that might still happen once the year they took the rtax write off for is past.

[AJG]

Don't know when this happened but I loaded up The Color Purple and it looks like WB finally fixed their logo:

 

 

And here's the old app-icon friendly version from the time that mad man ran the company:

 

[Kon]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:59 PM, dudalb said:

Peop-le forget that Batgirl was originally meant to be a streaming movie. The decision to make it a threatircal release happened only after filming had begun.

I think it hsould have just reverted to being a streaming movie and I think that might still happen once the year they took the rtax write off for is past.

I've understood it was never decided Batgirl would be a theatrical movie. WB just decided the tax write off was more convenient than streaming or theatrical release.

 

Now, WB can't just revert a tax write off. They will need to return the money they saved with the tax write off first. Also, I should mention that Batgirl movie wasn't really complete. So, it's likely too expensive too release Batgirl movie.

Edited January 16 by Kon

[Scubasteve716]

4 hours ago, AJG said:

Don't know when this happened but I loaded up The Color Purple and it looks like WB finally fixed their logo:

 

 

And here's the old app-icon friendly version from the time that mad man ran the company:

 

Yeah started with Wonka I believe. Really disliked the old one this is much better

[dudalb]

On 1/16/2024 at 6:32 AM, Kon said:

I've understood it was never decided Batgirl would be a theatrical movie. WB just decided the tax write off was more convenient than streaming or theatrical release.

 

Now, WB can't just revert a tax write off. They will need to return the money they saved with the tax write off first. Also, I should mention that Batgirl movie wasn't really complete. So, it's likely too expensive too release Batgirl movie.

US TAx Law in incredibly complex.

Thing is when the year that they got the tax write off for is over, Warners can do what it wants with "Batgirl",.

[poweranimals]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:42 AM, AJG said:

Don't know when this happened but I loaded up The Color Purple and it looks like WB finally fixed their logo:

 

 

And here's the old app-icon friendly version from the time that mad man ran the company:

 

But why is it so dark?

[Human]

13 hours ago, poweranimals said:

But why is it so dark?

To match Lego Batman's song from The Lego Movie.

[dudalb]

On 1/16/2024 at 6:32 AM, Kon said:

I've understood it was never decided Batgirl would be a theatrical movie. WB just decided the tax write off was more convenient than streaming or theatrical release.

 

Now, WB can't just revert a tax write off. They will need to return the money they saved with the tax write off first. Also, I should mention that Batgirl movie wasn't really complete. So, it's likely too expensive too release Batgirl movie.

If a Business that got a tax write off for losing money one year made a profit in the next year, they don't have to return the tax write off. The write off is for a specific year, Batgirl did cost them that much money the year they got the tax write off; so they don;t have to return the write off if, in another year, they make a profit on streaming with it.

[AJG]

22 hours ago, poweranimals said:

But why is it so dark?

It’s a screenshot of a HDR copy running on my MacBook. I imagine the SDR version is brighter.

[eddyxx]

On 1/10/2024 at 8:01 PM, excel1 said:

People rooting for Zaslav or Iger want WBD or Disney to stay (and thrive) as large media company, probably because the people doing the rooting are fans of the content the companies make. 🙄

 

Obviously people can be fans of companies whose product they like and wish for them to successful, what a strange thing to otherwise insinuate. @Scubasteve716 is 100% on point. 

this would make sense if the CEO’s actually created any of that product that the people like but ceos do not actually create anything.

[Maggie]

Kim Masters of THR and Matthew Belloni discuss the Cruise and WB deal. Maters says that Cruise is not looking to do adult oriented movie at WB, he wants a new franchise. This is disappointing, if true. I though after the MI end he'd return to "acting", but it seems no.

 

Listen here https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/the-business/tom-cruise-warner-bros-jon-batiste/strategic-partnership-top-gun-paramount

[lorddemaxus]

30 minutes ago, Maggie said:

Kim Masters of THR and Matthew Belloni discuss the Cruise and WB deal. Maters says that Cruise is not looking to do adult oriented movie at WB, he wants a new franchise. This is disappointing, if true. I though after the MI end he'd return to "acting", but it seems no.

 

Listen here https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/the-business/tom-cruise-warner-bros-jon-batiste/strategic-partnership-top-gun-paramount

Does not say anywhere that the franchise would not be adult oriented

[Maggie]

44 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Does not say anywhere that the franchise would not be adult oriented

I meant adult DRAMAS. And let's be real a franchise as Mission is mostly watched by adults, but it's still popcorn movies. I want dramas