Warner Brothers has decided to debut all their 2021 films simultaneously on HBO Max the same day they open in theaters

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Probably 20th Century Fox. 

[Bilbo 3,709]

53 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Nolan's statement, combined with the poor box office performance of Tenet, will probably make him cut ties with WB. I wonder which studio will produce his next movies, maybe Paramount? They co-produced Interstellar.

Wonder will many studios be willing to give him the creative freedoms he currently has with WB?

 

He can’t really complain about the box office performance of Tenet. He pushed for it to be released when it did not the studio.

[A24 4,331]

Let's hope it will be A24.

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

Nolan's statement, combined with the poor box office performance of Tenet, will probably make him cut ties with WB. I wonder which studio will produce his next movies, maybe Paramount? They co-produced Interstellar.

 

I bet they'd love that. Right now, anytime I think of the biggest thing Paramount has, I go to Star Trek...and they are struggling to do anything with that on the movie front. Chris Nolan films would be a boost for them, but yeah I don't know about how free he would be.

 

Honestly, I think once Warner deals with all the crap they seem to have not given a second thought to (talent contracts, backlash, buyouts, etc.) I'd imagine it would all blow over perception wise. That seems to be what happens with anything these days. They're screwed either way though. They can't reverse this to appease all the industry people they've pissed off without pissing off the consumers that they just announced this to. 

 

Just let it play out for a couple films and see what happens. It could work and it could not work. I'm sure they'll adapt if it doesn't work. Personally, I will be reinstating HBO Max to watch some of these films. 

[KK 3,307]

3 hours ago, Bilbo said:

Wonder will many studios be willing to give him the creative freedoms he currently has with WB?

 

He can’t really complain about the box office performance of Tenet. He pushed for it to be released when it did not the studio.

 

Any studio would be glad to have Nolan and still give him free rein, even despite Tenet. But I don't imagine Nolan will be cutting ties with Warner, despite him being critical at this point.

 

3 hours ago, AC1 said:

Let's hope it will be A24.

 

A24 has nowhere near the kind of money Nolan films eat up. That's not their business model.

 

9 hours ago, Bilbo said:

Christopher Nolan going for the privileged arsehole of the year award. 

 

He's not wrong though. The way Warner seems to have approached this is both unethical to it's long-term partners (both on the creative and distribution fronts) and will probably be fiscally harmful in the long term.

 

For the moment at least, streaming is just not going to rake in the kind of money optimal  theatrical distribution does when it comes to massive budget pictures like Tenet, Mulan, Dune, etc. And this kind of unilateral move is going to have long-term consequences for cinemas, and will probably mean even lower budget caps for all films across the board. Meaning we can probably expect more shoddy Netflix-quality films shot in studio parking lots. And it's only going to exacerbate the already growing gaps between blockbuster and independent films.

 

Cinemas will eventually bounce back. But this is certainly doing it no favours.

[A24 4,331]

I knew I should have used a smiley.

[TSMefford 1,509]

4 hours ago, KK said:

He's not wrong though. The way Warner seems to have approached this is both unethical to it's long-term partners (both on the creative and distribution fronts) and will probably be fiscally harmful in the long term.

 

That we can certainly agree on. I am still stoked for the idea, because I don't plan on going back to theaters anytime soon, but they definitely did this in such a chaotic and disrespectful way.

 

4 hours ago, KK said:

For the moment at least, streaming is just not going to rake in the kind of money optimal  theatrical distribution does when it comes to massive budget pictures like Tenet, Mulan, Dune, etc. And this kind of unilateral move is going to have long-term consequences for cinemas, and will probably mean even lower budget caps for all films across the board.

 

EDIT: Sigh. Sorry for the wall of text below, you guys. I'm quite bad at being succinct. I'm well aware.

 

Would you mind going into this more? Why do you think this will have long-term consequences? I disagree, but I have also yet to have someone spell out specifics on why they feel this way. I'm no expert by any means so I will gladly hear you out. Not trying to be condescending or anything with my questions (specifying because it's hard to tell with just pure text on the internet). Just trying to get some more details from this viewpoint, because I'd love to learn.

 

My thoughts: I'd say Warner's move isn't going to have big consequences unless everyone started doing it in perpetuity. Given the reaction from the industry...it seems less likely now that others will follow suit quickly unless it starts to work much better for Warner financially. Plus, It's only on streaming for one month, it still comes out in the theaters at the same time, and this is only for 2021 and only in the US with what seems to be intentions of going back to normal after that. And the key word there (as you emphasized) is optimal.

 

2021, in my view, will not have the opportunity to go back to the optimal distribution plan until around fall maybe, so what are the other options you would suggest for WB or any of these studios that want to maximize their earning on these films? Continue to delay these films until it is optimal? Open in theaters first, and then go to streaming directly after that window?

 

I see HBO Max distribution as additional money to the lowered costs from theaters that they'll make either way. I don't think this plan will severely impact what theaters will earn in 2021. I think those who want to go out and feel safe doing so will go to the theaters for these big films and those who don't will watch on HBO Max, but without the HBO Max option, I think those people who would've watched it through the service simply wouldn't have seen the films at all until they're out on streaming later on. As I said before, there will obviously be some exceptions, but I don't really think this will really take away a ton of people from theaters. I know I won't be going either way, but at least this way I can watch the films when they come out. You also gotta think that even if they did stick with theaters that not only will less people go in general, but theaters themselves have lowered capacity, so even less can go at one time. This seems like Warner's desperate attempt to get more money and to get more eyes on HBO Max. Now, considering the buyouts, contracts, and whatnot...it may cost more upfront than they'd bargained for and perhaps this is why others have done this with selected films.

 

Finally, what is the difference between this plan and Disney simply moving some of their films to streaming premieres and having no theatrical release in the US at all (for example: Soul) It appears no one in the industry was nearly this pissed off by these decisions. I assume it's because it's not all of their big films, but being done on a case-by-case basis, but what if Disney does this one at a time for all their films and the numbers ends up being close to WB's rollout?

 

4 hours ago, KK said:

...will probably mean even lower budget caps for all films across the board. Meaning we can probably expect more shoddy Netflix-quality films shot in studio parking lots.

 

Okay, I will be a little snarky here. Are we still going to continue to look down on the content on streaming services in such a blanket way? Yeah Netflix produces some shitty films, but so does literally every studio. I have seen Netflix and other streaming originals that look better than big budget releases. I've seen big budget releases with far worse writing than these streaming releases. I don't believe at all that it is consistently that low of quality anymore. I used to think the same thing, but there are truly some remarkably done films and TV Shows only on streaming.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

2 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Finally, what is the difference between this plan and Disney simply moving some of their films to streaming premieres and having no theatrical release in the US at all (for example: Soul) It appears no one in the industry was nearly this pissed off by these decisions. I assume it's because it's not all of their big films, but being done on a case-by-case basis, but what if Disney does this one at a time for all their films and the numbers ends up being close to WB's rollout?

 

Because Disney is a law unto itself and everyone seems to worship that silly cartoon company.

[KK 3,307]

Villeneuve's essay on the HBO deal:

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/dune-denis-villeneuve-blasts-warner-bros-1234851270/?fbclid=IwAR2kDHHPeBRqaFPFf44P9IvX3rllKboVxjgFqjcY7tVC0uIaBUjU_cZ_zKc

 

On 12/8/2020 at 6:17 PM, TSMefford said:

I see HBO Max distribution as additional money to the lowered costs from theaters that they'll make either way. I don't think this plan will severely impact what theaters will earn in 2021. 

 

Of course it will. Why would anyone want to take their family out to the theaters and pay 5 x $15 to watch a film on the big screen when they can settle for their family room screens for their regular monthly streaming fee? No real "additional money" is being made here, except that Warner Bros' parent company (AT&T) wants to find a way to both consolidate the lacklustre HBO Max market performance and WB's growing debt crisis with a single power move.

 

I mean, Disney charged an extra fee for Mulan, and they still didn't end up making nearly as much as they would have with a proper theatrical release.

 

On 12/8/2020 at 6:17 PM, TSMefford said:

Finally, what is the difference between this plan and Disney simply moving some of their films to streaming premieres and having no theatrical release in the US at all (for example: Soul) It appears no one in the industry was nearly this pissed off by these decisions. I assume it's because it's not all of their big films, but being done on a case-by-case basis, but what if Disney does this one at a time for all their films and the numbers ends up being close to WB's rollout?

 

Because a case-by-case scenario, as Disney is taking, is driven by necessity. This unilateral "one size fits all" solution from WB sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for the industry. WB should taken it case by case, rather than putting their whole roster on the line.

 

On 12/8/2020 at 6:17 PM, TSMefford said:

Okay, I will be a little snarky here. Are we still going to continue to look down on the content on streaming services in such a blanket way? Yeah Netflix produces some shitty films, but so does literally every studio. I have seen Netflix and other streaming originals that look better than big budget releases. I've seen big budget releases with far worse writing than these streaming releases. I don't believe at all that it is consistently that low of quality anymore. I used to think the same thing, but there are truly some remarkably done films and TV Shows only on streaming.

 

That wasn't my point. Just think about Netflix's production model. They only ever pour out massive $100 million budgets to recruit the big league directors/actors onto their catalogue (Scorsese, Fincher, Russo Brothers, etc) and then make a million other films for nothing to just generate content to be consumed. They're temporarily in debt for brand investment.

 

But if this WB deal sets a precedent for other studios to just start throwing all their films onto streaming sites, why should the Netflix types continue to dump all that money? I mean there's only so much return with a fixed price model. No more gargauntan budgets pictures like Dune or Nolan epics. The thinking of the past was that those films would guarantee a minimum billion dollar return in the box office. That's obviously not how streaming works, so it's natural that traditional budgets are just going to get slashed across the board. It's not a comment on Netflix quality so much as it is practicality.

 

And independent films are going to have a harder time than ever in finding an audience.

 

This, of course, all depends on whether this WB deal pays off. If it is successful, then it's only going to encourage more of this kind of thinking in the industry for the future.

[TSMefford 1,509]

3 hours ago, KK said:

Villeneuve's essay on the HBO deal:

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/dune-denis-villeneuve-blasts-warner-bros-1234851270/?fbclid=IwAR2kDHHPeBRqaFPFf44P9IvX3rllKboVxjgFqjcY7tVC0uIaBUjU_cZ_zKc

 

Thanks for linking this. While I agree on certain things, I still find it a bit overexaggerated. It sounds like Nolan and Villeneuve don't think that movie theaters could survive a simultaneous release with streaming. Why not? If the cinema is truly how these films are meant to be experienced and up on the pedestal of greatness they put it on, then would it not survive and make a comeback? It sounds to me like the fear is that this will wipe out cinemas forever and I don't think that's true at all. COVID itself will have far more impact long-term than a temporary streaming solution. Personally, I too value the cinematic experience and have it on a pedestal of greatness myself, but I do not fear that this move by WB will be the thing that kills it by any means. I have more faith in it than that. 

 

3 hours ago, KK said:

Why would anyone want to take their family out to the theaters and pay 5 x $15 to watch a film on the big screen when they can settle for their family room screens for their regular monthly streaming fee?

 

Because we're all sick and tired of being shut away and not able to go anywhere? I won't go until I feel safe, no matter how much I want to, but there are a lot of people that would go today. I mean, while Tenet vastly underperformed (without any streaming release on the table), plenty of people still saw it. The second a vaccine becomes available the floodgates will open and tons of people will want to go out and socialize or see films. 

 

3 hours ago, KK said:

I mean, Disney charged an extra fee for Mulan, and they still didn't end up making nearly as much as they would have with a proper theatrical release.

 

Yes, but I'd bet Coronavirus is the main factor killing box office money here. Not streaming. Even if Disney committed to theaters only for Mulan it wouldn't have made the money it would at a proper theatrical release. In my mind, no film (streaming option or not) will make that kind of money in theaters until late 2021 or early 2022. No film is going to have a remote chance at making a billion dollars anytime soon either way. However, if the streaming solution goes so poorly, Warner will absolutely pull the plug early and the experiment will be over.

 

3 hours ago, KK said:

Because a case-by-case scenario, as Disney is taking, is driven by necessity. This unilateral "one size fits all" solution from WB sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for the industry. WB should taken it case by case, rather than putting their whole roster on the line.

 

I will admit, after thinking about it more, perhaps this would've been the way to go, you're correct. At the very least the filmmakers and production studios should've been consulted individually to see if they were okay with their film taking that path and they could've responded to how things are looking. My knee jerk reaction was to applaud the forward thinking, because we truly don't know what it's going to look like come September or so. Could it be way better and back to normal? Possibly. But who knows.

 

As far as the Netflix comparison when it comes to budgets and quality and what not. Honestly, I have had similar fears. If we did go to ALL streaming, is there true motivation to create immersive 5.1, 7.1 and beyond sound mixes? Do films even need to be shot in such high resolutions? Etc etc. But this is with the assumption that things will go streaming only. And so far, I don't think anyone (Warner included) seems to be suggesting that. If there are movie theaters around, then there will always be a place for those giant event blockbusters.

 

I feel like my main disconnect with Nolan and Villeneuve and yourself is that:

1. It seems very clear to me that all this is only temporary. I don't believe Warner or AT&T or whoever intend to make this the new norm. Especially because I think you are correct in that this isn't going to make typical theater money, but it might make a little extra money for them for now. The only way I see other studios truly following in Warner's footsteps, especially after the backlash and poor handling, is if it makes a lot of revolutionary money and it won't.
2. I do not think that streaming is going to kill cinema. Cinemas were on a decline for plenty of other reasons. Increasing ticket and concession prices, poor experiences, etc. COVID really accelerated the decline before releasing films on streaming was a big idea. And yet I think they'll persevere through all of those things. They will adapt and figure out a way to make it work. I do think that theaters may become the way to experience specifically big budget movies. I think they may become more like events like a theme park or something.

Just a side note: I am quite confused by your fears over Indie films having a harder time finding an audience on streaming. Commonly I discover more indie films on streaming than I ever would've in a theatrical release as most of them have limited releases from the get go anyways (1000-2000 screens versus a 4000+ screen release), and more have even more limited of a release (less than 1000 screens). They've historically been way harder for me to find a screening of than your big blockbusters in theaters, especially when those big blockbusters are sometimes playing on 4-5 screens in a single theater. I've had to drive over an hour to find the closest screen playing indie films and some indie films aren't even in whatever state at times. 

 

At the end of the day though. All of this is just my personal theories based on my own experiences and thoughts. I am no expert clearly and am just some dude on the internet, so what do I know? Lol.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond and sharing more on your perspective. I enjoy the stimulating conversation.

[A24 4,331]

29 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

1. I do not think that streaming is going to kill cinema. Cinemas were on a decline for plenty of other reasons. Increasing ticket and concession prices, poor experiences, etc. COVID really accelerated the decline before releasing films on streaming was a big idea. And yet I think they'll persevere through all of those things. They will adapt and figure out a way to make it work. I do think that theaters may become the way to experience specifically big budget movies. I think they may become more like events like a theme park or something.

 

 

 

You've just described the end of cinema. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I've been to the cinema a few times this year, even during the pandemic. And some of you don't feel safe??

[TSMefford 1,509]

16 minutes ago, The Big Man said:

I've been to the cinema a few times this year, even during the pandemic. And some of you don't feel safe??

 

Sitting in a room even half full of people for 2-3 hours straight does not sound safe to me at the moment, no.

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

 

You've just described the end of cinema. 

 

Depends on who you ask.

 

Last I heard, the big budget epics were looked down upon by many "cinema" directors, but now it's the very thing we need to protect more than anything. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

25 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

Sitting in a room even half full of people for 2-3 hours straight does not sound safe to me at the moment, no.

 

 

Hardly anyone was there. Just me and a mate of mine. Besides, what's the worst they can do, breathe on you?

[A24 4,331]

2 hours ago, TSMefford said:

 

Last I heard, the big budget epics were looked down upon by many "cinema" directors, but now it's the very thing we need to protect more than anything. 

 

I know some directors raised the alarm for the impoverishment of cinema. They expressed their concerns that theatres will only be showing theme park movies while everything else will no longer find its way to the theatres. That doesn't mean they look down on theme park movies. 

[Smeltington 1,440]

9 hours ago, KK said:

WB should taken it case by case, rather than putting their whole roster on the line.

 

I think they want to be able to say, "every WB movie will be on HBO Max the SAME DAY it's in theaters!" for their marketing so more people will subscribe. If the rules were different for all the individual movies it would be less of a draw and more confusing for consumers.

 

 

9 hours ago, KK said:

No more gargauntan budgets pictures like Dune or Nolan epics. The thinking of the past was that those films would guarantee a minimum billion dollar return in the box office. That's obviously not how streaming works, so it's natural that traditional budgets are just going to get slashed across the board.

 

Shit, that might not be so bad. Maybe they'd get some young fresh artistic talent to compensate for the lower budgets. New Hollywood part 2!

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 hour ago, Smeltington said:

 

I think they want to be able to say, "every WB movie will be on HBO Max the SAME DAY it's in theaters!" for their marketing so more people will subscribe. If the rules were different for all the individual movies it would be less of a draw and more confusing for consumers.

 

That's exactly what it is, but now they've backed themselves into a corner. Lol. The industry is pissed at them, many claiming that this will be what kills the theatrical experience and that it won't be profitable anyways. If the issue of profitability is accurate and they decide to backtrack, then the consumers will be pissed at them. At this point, they need to roll this back now or hope and pray that it actually works out for them. Lol.

 

I think they probably should've stayed with a case-by-case basis at this point. Disney is doing just fine with that approach and no one seems to have a problem with it, be it industry apocalypse or consumer confusion. 

3 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

I know some directors raised the alarm for the impoverishment of cinema. They expressed their concerns that theatres will only be showing theme park movies while everything else will no longer find its way to the theatres. That doesn't mean they look down on theme park movies. 

 

Perhaps, but I seem to recall Scorsese at least, having issues with the films themselves, not just the concept of them taking over theaters.

[Smeltington 1,440]

14 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

That's exactly what it is, but now they've backed themselves into a corner.

 

Yeah they might have just goofed it all up.

 

15 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

I think they probably should've stayed with a case-by-case basis at this point. Disney is doing just fine with that approach and no one seems to have a problem with it, be it industry apocalypse or consumer confusion. 

 

But Disney+ was already successful, whereas I don't know about HBO Max, but in this thread people are saying they were struggling. So it seems like a push to get content on HBO Max to draw users, while simultaneously avoiding releasing all these expensive films to a fraction of the theatrical audience that was expected when the projects were conceived. I certainly wouldn't sign up for a new paid service just to have access to films that I still have to pay for individually (the Mulan setup), so to me it makes sense to lure people by having the films included in the subscription, from a consumer perspective.

 

Also the Mulan thing with Disney+ seemed like an experimental approach, and you could say this is another one, in this "unprecedented time". There's no real right answer for studios to recoup their money so I guess they're thinking of this as a different investment, to attempt to get their streaming platform off the ground.

[A24 4,331]

5 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Perhaps, but I seem to recall Scorsese at least, having issues with the films themselves, not just the concept of them taking over theaters.

 

He did say superhero movies aren't his idea of cinema but that's true for many directors. 

[TSMefford 1,509]

4 minutes ago, Smeltington said:

There's no real right answer for studios to recoup their money so I guess they're thinking of this as a different investment, to attempt to get their streaming platform off the ground.

 

I think so too. This time is so unpredictable and like I've said multiple times: I don't believe any film is going to make a billion dollars next year. For one thing, many still won't feel comfortable going to the theaters, but there's also the economic hardship this has taken on many people. I imagine that will have an impact. You won't have the normal theater numbers. You definitely will have a fair amount people still going though streaming or not.

 

As far as HBO Max. I don't know how well it's doing either. I actually like a lot of their content moreso than other streaming services and think it's a pretty great deal for what you get, but this is also coming from someone that hasn't had HBO in any form, so I can finally catch up on a lot of their shows that I haven't even seen. Plus, they have Ghibli films which was an unexpected. If HBO Max isn't doing well then I'd hate to think how poorly CBS All Access is doing. There's maybe two things on that service that I want to watch and even less on Hulu. 

 

At this point we're going to just have to see what happens.

 

7 minutes ago, AC1 said:

He did say superhero movies aren't his idea of cinema but that's true for many directors. 

 

I would consider that as looking down on them a bit. Lol.

 

Not that they're incorrect necessarily. I sort of inflate Marvel ratings specifically in my head because I have lower expectations for them. So a 10 for Marvel is like a 7 or 8 overall, they basically have their own scale. I enjoy the heck out of many of them and do watch and keep up with them (unlike Scorsese) though. I think I'm just a little confused why some Directors seem to not like these films and think they're stinking up the movie theater and now say that we NEED these kinds of films to keep the industry afloat. 

[Smeltington 1,440]

1 minute ago, TSMefford said:

If HBO Max isn't doing well then I'd hate to think how poorly CBS All Access is doing. There's maybe two things on that service that I want to watch and even less on Hulu. 

 

Things are getting very fractured, and I always say I'm waiting for the eventual Cord Cutter's Cable Bundle.

[TSMefford 1,509]

2 minutes ago, Smeltington said:

 

Things are getting very fractured, and I always say I'm waiting for the eventual Cord Cutter's Cable Bundle.

 

Ha. Yep. Only a matter of time before someone comes out with that "revolutionary" streaming package. I miss when it was just Netflix and Hulu fighting each other. 

[Smeltington 1,440]

The nice thing about it for now is it makes it easier for me to just opt out of all these services. In recent weeks I've actually reverted to renting Blu-Rays from a video store, lol. There's a nice one in town that's film nerd oriented and has all the classics, organized by director.

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 minute ago, Smeltington said:

The nice thing about it for now is it makes it easier for me to just opt out of all these services. In recent weeks I've actually reverted to renting Blu-Rays from a video store, lol. There's a nice one in town that's film nerd oriented and has all the classics, organized by director.

 

Nice. The only streaming service I have and actively pay for is Netflix. Everything else is off and on, but mostly off for right now (Had to make a big move and am still recovering from that). I will be going back to HBO Max at some point with or without these big movies. 

 

It's been a long time since I've rented something! Nowadays, I either see it on streaming first and then buy it if I like it, or I straight up blind buy it on Blu-Ray. 

[Smeltington 1,440]

1 minute ago, TSMefford said:

Everything else is off and on, but mostly off for right now

 

Signing up for streaming services temporarily is another legit way to go.

 

2 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Nowadays, I either see it on streaming first and then buy it if I like it

 

Movie rentals on streaming are nice too. I wish you had more than 48 hours to watch, though.

[TSMefford 1,509]

5 minutes ago, Smeltington said:

Movie rentals on streaming are nice too. I wish you had more than 48 hours to watch, though.

 

Yeah. Luckily it's only been a problem once when something came up and we never did watch it.

 

6 minutes ago, Smeltington said:

Signing up for streaming services temporarily is another legit way to go.

 

It's been the only way to go for me. Netflix is the only that has managed to keep me around consistently, which is hilarious because I was extremely anti-Netflix when it first got big.

[Smeltington 1,440]

Netflix feels like the one you have to have. Like you might not be a real person if you don't have Netflix.

[TSMefford 1,509]

41 minutes ago, Smeltington said:

Netflix feels like the one you have to have. Like you might not be a real person if you don't have Netflix.

 

Yeah, but they also come out with new stuff I'm interested in pretty consistently.

[publicist 4,643]

One other thing to consider, and an interesting parallel to Hollywood in the late 60's, when Old Hollywood imploded: top filmmakers/creatives (not only stars and directors) belong to the most pampered individuals in the whole world, drawing huge salaries, sweetheart deals and so on. Despite claims of being ripped off by big studios, operations that often feed 10,000s of employees worldwide, it's not them standing on shaky ground but said operations (as we are just witnessing, don't believe for a minute that a Chris Nolan or Judd Apatow are going to reduce their points or salaries).

 

A deal like Warner's just spells out what many other companies just think: reboot the system, get talent back on the table for re-negotiating their deals, and if this by association also means that we're seeing the end of the hollow blockbuster era as we know it, this whole thing might even be beneficial for us poor watchers.

 

 

[Edmilson 7,434]

Warner's chief has responded Nolan's and Villeneuve's criticism:

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/warnermedia-chief-jason-kilar-hbo-max-outrage-painful-1234604429/

[TSMefford 1,509]

28 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Warner's chief has responded Nolan's and Villeneuve's criticism:

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/warnermedia-chief-jason-kilar-hbo-max-outrage-painful-1234604429/

Interesting lol.

I do think he’s correct that no matter what they did no one would “stand up and applaud”. There’s no real solution like that for all the hardships caused by the pandemic.

 

But I find his comments overall way more “damage control” than actually sincere.

[Arpy 4,145]

It's a shitty move from Warner, regardless of how it will affect cinemas. Seems like Covid was what pulled the trigger on the sustainability of cinemas - in the US at least.

 

If the conventional cinema is to die, then they should remake and rebrand it for those of us who still enjoy wanting to see films that no regular home theatre setup can capture. 

[gkgyver 1,645]

Should move all the current day shite straight to video, and keep some theatres open to show the movies from when movies were actually good, and not a wagon to manipulate. 

[Deacon Blues 65]

Warner Bros. are being realistic with the future of cinema being doomed, it's a smart move imo.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

46 minutes ago, Harry Irene said:

Warner Bros. is being realistic with the future of cinema being doomed, it's a smart move imo.

 

Fixed. Company names are singular.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Warners 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Bruddahs

[Bayesian 1,363]

4 hours ago, Arpy said:

It's a shitty move from Warner, regardless of how it will affect cinemas. Seems like Covid was what pulled the trigger on the sustainability of cinemas - in the US at least.

 

If the conventional cinema is to die, then they should remake and rebrand it for those of us who still enjoy wanting to see films that no regular home theatre setup can capture. 

Exactly. We might one day get to the point where cinemas are mostly art house or repertory and as common as playhouses. In larger cities (or, more likely, in the suburban ring outside of larger cities) multiplex theaters with nothing but imax screens or Dolby theater experiences with those huge recliners and seatside food/drink service will thrive, but they will be fewer of them (making them true “destination” venues). Those places will still offer a moviegoing experience people can’t replicate at home. Moviegoing could almost become literally like going to an amusement park, something you do once or twice a year, knowing you’ll spend a shit-ton of money but worth the time and effort for a movie like Avatar. Other than that, you have no problem watching ordinary new release fare at home on your 80” TCL tv that costs next to nothing. 

[gkgyver 1,645]

20 hours ago, Harry Irene said:

Warner Bros. are being realistic with the future of cinema being doomed, it's a smart move imo.

 

Looking at your avatar, I don't think you're the best judge of "smart". 

[A24 4,331]

On 12/14/2020 at 1:03 AM, Harry Irene said:

... it's a smart move imo.

 

When it comes to Wonder Woman II, Gal Gadot seems to think it's the best option.

 

 

[SyncMan 314]

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Warner Bros.' Streaming Plan May Invite Piracy 'Bonanza'

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-streaming-plan-may-invite-piracy-bonanza

Quote

The studio’s decision to smash its theatrical windows for 2021 films could result in "high-quality" counterfeit versions of the titles "available on every pirate service in the world" the same day the features hit HBO Max.

The industry remains up in arms about Warner Bros.’ decision to send its biggest 2021 movies directly to HBO Max on the same day the titles hit U.S. theaters. But one group is probably pleased with the plan: Film pirates. “For sure, pirates are celebrating WarnerMedia’s decision,” says Abigail De Kosnik, director of the Berkeley Center for New Media and an associate professor at UC Berkeley.

Traditionally, the theatrical window has provided some buffer against piracy’s erosion of a film’s earnings. Usually, during the early days of a theatrical release the only pirate copies that become available are low-quality “cam” versions, surreptitiously recorded via phone or tablet by someone in a cinema. Law-breaking consumers in some territories have demonstrated a willingness to watch these copies — especially in places like Russia and Turkey, according to experts — but pirates throughout the West and among the more developed major markets of East Asia, such as Japan, South Korea and China’s major urban centers, tend to prefer to wait for the film to hit streaming services, whereupon a high-definition copy can be “ripped” and disseminated.

Warner Bros.’ hybrid plan of dropping next year’s film slate on HBO Max in the U.S. — the only territory where the service has fully launched so far — while simultaneously marketing and releasing the movies in cinemas overseas will likely erode international box office earnings of titles like Dune, The Matrix 4 and Godzilla vs. Kong. “If a film is made available in the U.S. on HBO Max, a high-quality pirate copy is going to be available on every pirate service in the world that same day,” notes Andy Chatterley, CEO of U.K.-based piracy data and analytics company Muso.

Those dynamics were on display when Disney opted to release its big-budget, live-action remake of Mulan over Disney+ in select territories this fall, while also opening it theatrically in the countries where the streaming service hasn’t yet launched (such as the enormous China market, crucially). The film attracted 21.4 million illegal downloads in the 12 weeks after it released, according to De Kosnik’s research, one of the highest totals she has observed since she began measuring pirate consumption in 2017. “Pirates will enjoy a real bonanza next year because of the WarnerMedia decision,” she adds.

Because piracy is such a complicated consumer decision, involving sensitivity to price, content availability, personal ethics and government efforts at deterrence, projecting its impact on box office earnings is difficult to do, explains Neil Gane, general manager of the Asia Video Industry Association’s Coalition Against Piracy. But thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, he says, pirates in many places are better poised to strike than at most moments in recent memory.

Gane says lockdowns and stay-at-home orders have boosted the fortunes of piracy syndicates in the same way that they have driven subscription gains on legitimate streaming platforms. "For example, during the peak lockdown period in Southeast Asia from the end of March to mid-May," he explains, "we saw a proportionate spike there in usage of both pirate streaming and legal streaming platforms." (Indonesia and Malaysia were rare exceptions in the region, thanks to recent government efforts to block access to piracy sites.)

Adds Muso’s Chatterley: “We’ve never seen so many big-budget movies hit pirate networks so quickly. The piracy rates are going to be staggering — that’s just inevitable.”

 

[Holko 9,519]

The main reason for piracy is convenience and that quote cleverly leaves out the fact that you had to pay a significant extra for Mulan on top of your existing subscription and the fact that cinemas aren't exactly convenient or even open this year, which is relevant for the territories where D+ is not available.

[Jay 37,346]

WarnerMedia’s CEO says that in 2022 his movies will debut in theaters before they stream

 

Well duh, wasn't this always the plan?

[bruce marshall 1,315]

I think WB should get a Nobel Peace Prize for not making audiences go to cinema to watch WW84😝

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

24 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

I think WB should get a Nobel Peace Prize for not making audiences go to cinema to watch WW84😝

Nah they can't get any prizes for that movie, it's so uniquely stupid that it don't even deserves razzies

[Jay 37,346]

WarnerMedia CEO Admits They Didn't Think Through Their HBO Max Release Plan

[Edmilson 7,434]

Godzilla vs Kong will be their only smash hit in 2021.

[Jay 37,346]

Matrix 4 will be bigger 

[Edmilson 7,434]

Not with the simultaneous release HBO Max.

[Jay 37,346]

I don't understand what you mean. Godzilla vs Kong was a simultaneous HBO Max release as well.