Warner Bros. Discovery sale (Universal? Paramount? Netflix?)

[Nick1Ø66 8,479]

I don’t even know this was controversial. It’s been pretty extensively written about. A lot. Often. There are countless videos demonstrating this. People who have worked on Netflix shows (and we’re talking asking about their in house produced originals) have talked about it. It’s real, and it’s intentional. 

 

When Netflix is creating shows for the largest, most diverse audience in the world, that by definition need to have  appeal across multiple, and often divergent cultures, countries, languages etc. it’s hardly a surprise they’d be scripted broadly, and have a certain visual sameness and language to them…even if they may have some superficial differences at first glance. 

 

I mean, there’s a reason it’s called “content”. And Netflix is hardly alone in this trend.

 

All that said, I concede some shows suffer from this more than others. Some shows had an established visual look before Netflix acquired them, and some “Netflix originals” aren’t produced in house, where Netflix may have less creative control. But those shows are the exception.

[Parker Luciani 10,319]

Anyone else remember when content actually meant something had meat to it? pepperidge farm remembers.*


*Or at least that's how I understood it back then

[Yavar Moradi 4,466]

56 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Kinda disappointing to see that Yavar, who is usually reasonable here, is a massive Netflix fan.

Huh? I’m not “a massive Netflix fan” and I never said I was. I just think it’s unfounded nonsense to say that all of their shows look alike. They have a lot of good shows and even more bad shows… just like any other streaming service. I’m not a “massive fan” of ANY streaming service. I guess in the realm of streaming TV I think Apple TV+ has the most impressive track record of original shows lately.

 

56 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Are you happy that it's Netflix, which according to you has produced some of the most brilliant, incredible TV ever, is buying WB? Even though they'll pretty much destroy it and the theatrical industry (which is their goal)?

 

No I’m not “happy that it’s Netflix”, and I never expressed any sentiment close to that. I also never claimed Netflix “has produced some of the most brilliant, incredible TV ever”, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply pointed out some good shows they’ve made which have noticeably varied style and definitely don’t look the same.

 

I think Netflix buying WB is disastrous. I do however think Paramount buying WB would be even more disastrous for a whole host of reasons, even if there might be a silver lining of the WB film music catalogue opening back up to the film music specialty labels again. It’s a terrible situation. I don’t know what the best case (or least worst) scenario is, to be honest. I guess it’s a little bit AvP: “Whoever wins, we lose.”

 

Yavar

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

[Nick1Ø66 8,479]

 

11 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dunno. I don’t think these photos are helping your case. Much the opposite, in fact. I see this same lighting and composition everywhere.

 

I mean, if you can’t see it, I don’t know what to tell you. Which of these would fit nicely with the images you posted?

[Edmilson 12,606]

4 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Huh? I’m not “a massive Netflix fan” and I never said I was. I just think it’s unfounded nonsense to say that all of their shows look alike. They have a lot of good shows and even more bad shows… just like any other streaming service. I’m not a “massive fan” of ANY streaming service. I guess in the realm of streaming TV I think Apple TV+ has the most impressive track record of original shows lately.

 

 

No I’m not “happy that it’s Netflix”, and I never expressed any sentiment close to that. I also never claimed Netflix “has produced some of the most brilliant, incredible TV ever”, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply pointed out some good shows they’ve made which have noticeably varied style and definitely don’t look the same.

 

I think Netflix buying WB is disastrous. I do however think Paramount buying WB would be even more disastrous for a whole host of reasons, even if there might be a silver lining of the WB film music catalogue opening back up to the film music specialty labels again. It’s a terrible situation. I don’t know what the best case (or least worst) scenario is, to be honest. I guess it’s a little bit AvP: “Whoever wins, we lose.”

 

Yavar

Thanks for your response. Sorry if my post came out overtly harsh and sarcastic; now I can better understand your position. 

 

The thing about Netflix is that they thrive on quantity over quality. Of course, they do have a lot of great stuff (I mean, House of Dynamite was one of my favorite movies from the last year), but since they had to start from scratch, without full access to a century-old media library, they had to produce lots and lots and lots of series and movies... so of course most of them had to be bland to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

But I don't even think this is their biggest "crime" against the entertainment industry. I mean, every single one of Hollywood's big companies produces a lot of crap.

 

But what's different about Netflix is how, since they're primarily a tech company that uses people's data to inform their decisions, this has led to them dumbing down movies and shows (first their own and then their competitors' who had to accompany their "innovations") in order to make them easy to follow for people who don't actually watch them but just let the TV on while scrolling their social media feeds:

 

 

Or how their flat, boring cinematography (from where Drax's "they all look the same!" criticism came from) is infecting almost the entirety of Hollywood:

 

 

And that is not even mentioning the issue of the theatrical windows, which is a huge disaster for everyone... except for them, and that's their whole point. Predatory capitalism at its finest.

 

So yeah, they are huge culprits (not the only ones, of course, but one of the biggest) in the continued enshittification of the entertainment industry.

[Parker Luciani 10,319]

Isn't the shadows thing (at least partially) based on the whole "we can't see anything/everything!!!!" complaints that are everywhere?

[BloodBoal 8,891]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

The thing about Netflix is that they thrive on quality over quantity.

 

Ha! 

[NewBlueEyes 252]

4 hours ago, enderdrag64 said:

A change.org petition will do absolutely nothing to prevent a multi billion dollar merger I'm afraid. You'd have better luck contacting your local antitrust regulator and praying that they are competent and that they have an interest in blocking the merger 

Oh? Then how many signatures were there on the Avatar Aang movie? 35,000 signatures!

[Edmilson 12,606]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Ha! 

 

That's what happens when you don't revise your posts, especially the very long ones, before posting them.

[bollemanneke 4,365]

17 hours ago, enderdrag64 said:

This is just idiotic, I don't know why they keep doubling down on such a bad offer

That's because this industry is seemingly full of brainless idiots.

[Chen G. 6,291]

At least they're not giving up.

 

[MaxMovieMan 356]

To be honest I really didn’t like Cobra Kai in its latter seasons once Netflix took over. Also 1899 and Mindhunter were both canned by Netflix for practically no reason. They can’t be trusted with premium TV because they’d rather churn out slop like Stranger Things. Netflix is like the Michael Bay of streaming services.

[Quintus 6,659]

On 08/01/2026 at 7:42 AM, FBC Director said:

So that's a rationale and justification for the enshittification of screened entertainment? They should consider themselves above that, but instead they've capitulated to the techbro gods 

 

That's pretty rich considering the techbro capitulation that has taken place at a higher level in the last year. They couldn't bend the knee quick enough. I mean, how many billions do these morally vacant CEOs need to have before they grow a spine? In any other climate the 180s from some of these guys would have been funny, but you suddenly feigning naivety about what really motivates supposedly artistic enterprises is laughable at least.

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

Can't talk about that or else the chief will never forgive me.

[Tallguy 7,578]

33 minutes ago, Jim said:

 

That's pretty rich considering the techbro capitulation that has taken place at a higher level in the last year. They couldn't bend the knee quick enough. I mean, how many billions do these morally vacant CEOs need to have before they grow a spine? In any other climate the 180s from some of these guys would have been funny, but you suddenly feigning naivety about what really motivates supposedly artistic enterprises is laughable at least.

 

Perhaps this is what they really believe and they were just "bending the knee" before? Maybe they don't care and they just go wherever they're being pushed?

[Quintus 6,659]

I refer you to the part about these poor under pressure billionaires growing a spine. I hear Warren Buffet managed it.

[Quintus 6,659]

When people say that Netflix productions all look the same, I think they're referring to that hyperclean visual ID that has become synonymous with both their serials and the movies they make. It's designed to feel reassuringly accessible, but I think people who traditionally considered themselves to have somewhat more fussy taste or thought of themselves as being a bit of a buff, they tend to find the in-house veneer to be a sort of sterile two-dimensional diorama that is more interested in strict visual branding than it is 'creator's vision'. 

 

Programming that is geared firmly towards their female audiences exhibit the issue most: Emily In Paris, Bridgerton, Jane the Virgin... these all share the archetypal Netflix production line 'colourful fluff' that has won them millions of subs. I think these shows are the prominent Netflix aesthetic that is conjured when people say their stuff all looks the same, and I think it is deserved.

 

As it happens I thought The Witcher had truly rubbish photography, which was no better than Amazon's own overblown yet tacky looking Rings of Power. The people hired as cinematographers on these things seem inexplicably clueless about how to light fantasy television, but fuck 'em. 

 

And then for every flavourlessly lit show on Netflix, there is the occasional Stranger Things, or Bloodline. Irrespective of their debatable dramatic quality, these are series that are cinematically lensed and feel produced well outside of the bland Netflix ecosystem. But they are not the norm.

 

[Jay 46,807]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

Jane the Virgin

 

This is a show made for The CW broadcast network that aired on traditional over the air network television with commercial breaks.  Netflix had nothing to do with it.

 

All of your other examples are shows that Netflix made, but not this one.

[Quintus 6,659]

Right, I saw it being watched on Netflix. Swap it out with Virgin River instead then.

[Quintus 6,659]

Wrong thread 

[Edmilson 12,606]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

When people say that Netflix productions all look the same, I think they're referring to that hyperclean visual ID that has become synonymous with both their serials and the movies they make. It's designed to feel reassuringly accessible, but I think people who traditionally considered themselves to have somewhat more fussy taste or thought of themselves as being a bit of a buff, they tend to find the in-house veneer to be a sort of sterile two-dimensional diorama that is more interested in strict visual branding than it is 'creator's vision'. 

 

Programming that is geared firmly towards their female audiences exhibit the issue most: Emily In Paris, Bridgerton, Jane the Virgin... these all share the archetypal Netflix production line 'colourful fluff' that has won them millions of subs. I think these shows are the prominent Netflix aesthetic that is conjured when people say their stuff all looks the same, and I think it is deserved.

 

As it happens I thought The Witcher had truly rubbish photography, which was no better than Amazon's own overblown yet tacky looking Rings of Power. The people hired as cinematographers on these things seem inexplicably clueless about how to light fantasy television, but fuck 'em. 

 

And then for every flavourlessly lit show on Netflix, there is the occasional Stranger Things, or Bloodline. Irrespective of their debatable dramatic quality, these are series that are cinematically lensed and feel produced well outside of the bland Netflix ecosystem. But they are not the norm.

 

Exactly. This is the point of the video I posted above. Most Netflix shows have this flat, boring cinematography that is otherwise pleasing to the Joe Public if not particularly inspired. And because everyone subscribes to Netflix, soon the entirety of Hollywood began adopting their model.

 

This for me is all that is wrong with Netflix. They turned movies and TV shows into just content, designed by data to reduce churn rates.

[MedigoScan 431]

Netflix kept Sesame Street alive. They can't be all soulless.

 

...

Where's a third party when you need one.

[Nick1Ø66 8,479]

On 10/1/2026 at 1:21 AM, Edmilson said:

Exactly. This is the point of the video I posted above. Most Netflix shows have this flat, boring cinematography that is otherwise pleasing to the Joe Public if not particularly inspired. And because everyone subscribes to Netflix, soon the entirety of Hollywood began adopting their model.

 

This for me is all that is wrong with Netflix. They turned movies and TV shows into just content, designed by data to reduce churn rates.

 

Given that a majority of their viewers see the world through an Instagram filter, is it surprising that Neflix wants their shows to look the same? Or that they're scripted as such?

[Mr. Hooper 9,374]

In the drab, dystopian future, everyone will be watching drab Netflix shows in their drab tenement.

 

[Edmilson 12,606]

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Given that a majority of their viewers see the world through an Instagram filter, is it surprising that Neflix wants their shows to look the same? Or that they're scripted as such?

Surprising? No. Depressing? Yeah.

 

20 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

In the drab, dystopian future, everyone will be scrolling on Instagram while drab Netflix shows play in the background in their drab tenement.

 

Fixed.

[Jay 46,807]

Paramount Escalates WBD Fight, Sues Over Netflix Deal and Aims to Install Friendly Directors at Warner Shareholder Meeting

[Yavar Moradi 4,466]

On 09/01/2026 at 7:54 AM, Jim said:

Programming that is geared firmly towards their female audiences exhibit the issue most: Emily In Paris, Bridgerton, Jane the Virgin... these all share the archetypal Netflix production line 'colourful fluff' that has won them millions of subs.

 

I hardly think that's unique to Netflix... gosh do those first two shows suck, though (never seen Jane the Virgin but I think I've heard it's decent?)

 

Yavar

[Jay 46,807]

WBD Slams “Meritless Lawsuit,” Attacks On Board As Paramount Seeks To Derail Netflix Deal

[TSMefford 1,728]

My god Paramount. Give it a damn rest. This is crazy.

 

But also. No one should be buying anybody. Mergers don't need to happen.

[Holko 12,108]

Yeah. WB could just fire their leadership and find someone who's not completely braindead.

[Chen G. 6,291]

13 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

My god Paramount. Give it a damn rest. This is crazy.

 

No. However forceful their measures and however bad mergers may be, a Paramount deal keeps theatrical distribution alive.

 

A Netflix merger kills it right there and then.

[TSMefford 1,728]

Nah. Both would be just as terrible for different reasons.

I'm over it. No mergers I say! lol

[Chen G. 6,291]

If Netflix come to own Warner Brothers, movie theatres will cease to exist.

 

It's as simple as that.

[Slitherjump 174]

31 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

a Paramount deal keeps theatrical distribution alive.

As much as I want to agree with you, they just recently decided to downgrade their avatar the last Airbender movie from a theatrical release to streaming. So I hesitate to take their word on them keeping theatrical releases either

[TSMefford 1,728]

I think that is a bit of a reach. Will it harm movie theaters? Oh yeah, certainly.

Is Netflix anti-movie theater and Ted Sarandos a giant moron? Absolutely.

 

But what you're implying is that Warner Brothers is single handedly keeping movie theaters in business, which simply isn't the case.

 

All that being said. Paramount also has a slew of significant cons themselves that have already been discussed to death in this thread. 

 

I'm not saying I want Netflix to buy WB. I don't. I also don't want Paramount to buy WB. What I want is for the regulators to do their job and prevent either from happening, because this consolidation is too far. That's what I want. And wanting that doesn't mean I want Netflix to buy WB or that I want movie theaters to go away, because neither of those things is true.

 

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter what either of us say or want. These billionaires and millionaires will do what they do. Whine and fight and throw money around and whatever happens will happen.

 

3 minutes ago, Slitherjump said:

As much as I want to agree with you, they just recently decided to downgrade their avatar the last Airbender movie from a theatrical release to streaming. So I hesitate to take their word on them keeping theatrical releases either

 

Yep. Any and all of these giant studios will ditch the movie theaters at the first opportunity they get the second they no longer serve them enough. These giant companies don't have any real values at the end of the day - they go where the money is.

[BloodBoal 8,891]

3 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

What I want is for the regulators to do their job and prevent either from happening, because this consolidation is too far.

 

It will be really funny if this how this whole drama ends.

[TSMefford 1,728]

2 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

It will be really funny if this how this whole drama ends.

 

Oh absolutely. After all the temper tantrums, legal battles, and wasted money - I'd love if somehow it was all for nothing. 

[Slitherjump 174]

5 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

I think that is a bit of a reach. Will it harm movie theaters? Oh yeah, certainly.

Is Netflix anti-movie theater and Ted Sarandos a giant moron? Absolutely.

 

But what you're implying is that Warner Brothers is single handedly keeping movie theaters in business, which simply isn't the case.

That’s true. I’m just mentioning this because Paramount claimed that if they bought water Brothers, they will keep the theater business alive and I think an announcement like that contradicts their statements

[TSMefford 1,728]

1 minute ago, Slitherjump said:

That’s true. I’m just mentioning this because Paramount claimed that if they bought water Brothers, they will keep the theater business alive and I think an announcement like that contradicts their statements

 

Sorry that wasn't directed at you. I didn't see that you had replied until after I finished my novel. No I certainly agree with your point. 

 

These studios can and will pull the plug on nearly finished or completely finished films for tax write offs for goodness sake. They don't care about art or the experience of a movie theater if it doesn't make them money. 

[Edmilson 12,606]

5 hours ago, Jay said:

WBD Slams “Meritless Lawsuit,” Attacks On Board As Paramount Seeks To Derail Netflix Deal

Get them, Paramount. Take no prisoners. Kill them all. No mercy!

[Tallguy 7,578]

On 09/01/2026 at 11:21 AM, Edmilson said:

They turned movies and TV shows into just content, designed by data to reduce churn rates.

 

You know, I was thinking of when I was a kid and you had "old" movies at all hours of the day on independent stations. Because they were cheap. And they filled air time. Is that not "content"? What were Happy Days and Cheers but a vehicle to run ads on?

 

(At some point I realized that when I saw the James Mason Journey to the Center of the Earth on late night TV it was TWENTY. It was newer than Batman Begins is now!)

[Edmilson 12,606]

4 hours ago, TSMefford said:

I think that is a bit of a reach. Will it harm movie theaters? Oh yeah, certainly.

Is Netflix anti-movie theater and Ted Sarandos a giant moron? Absolutely.

 

But what you're implying is that Warner Brothers is single handedly keeping movie theaters in business, which simply isn't the case.

Let's put it this way: according to Deadline, in 2025 North American theaters sold 780 million admissions (which is down almost 5% in comparison with 2024's 820 million admissions).

 

Out of these 780 million admissions, 26% went to movies distributed by Disney and 20% went to Warner Bros movies. 

 

WB actually had the highest grossing movie and the one that sold most tickets in 2025 with A Minecraft Movie in North America ($424 million at the box office and 37.5 million tickets sold), though Zootopia 2 and Avatar 3 may or may not surpass it before they are pulled out of theaters. 

 

Their biggest movies in 2025 at the domestic box office were:

1. Minecraft ($424 million)
2. Superman ($354 million)
3. Sinners ($280 million)
4. F1 ($190 million)
5. The Conjuring: Last Rites ($178 million)

It's been said that WB had a banner year in 2025, with a solid string of hits, some of which were also critically acclaimed. 

 

Now, imagine if Netflix were already their owners in 2025. Minecraft, Superman and maybe Conjuring would probably be in theaters for, say, 17 days (like Sarandos wishes, but only for the biggest movies). The others, even those meticulously made by their filmmakers to be seen in the biggest screen possible like Sinners, Weapons and One Battle After Another, would die a sad, miserable death by being released straight to Netflix and being forgotten in amidst a sea of streaming slop in about a weekend.

 

Now, you may argue that a 20% share is not that big of a deal and that the remaining big studios (Disney/20th, Paramount, Universal and Sony), the smaller ones (A24, Lionsgate, etc) and the tech companies that still release (some of) their stuff in theaters because they want to look more sophisticated than Netflix (Amazon/MGM, Apple) will be able to carry on the theatrical industry even with a heavily compromised WB.

 

But when you take a closer look at the numbers, the situation is much scarier. As said above, in 2025 theaters sold 780 million admissions, down almost 5% from the 820 million in 2024. As the Deadline report informs us, "Pre-Pandemic, the industry averaged well over 1B tickets sold annually during the period of 2005 to 2019."

 

For three consecutive years (2023, 24 and 25), the domestic box office finished the year having earned between $8.5 billion and $8.9 billion. It's a considerable downturn from the pre-Covid days, when the domestic box office made over $10 billion per year between 2009 and 2019, and over $11 billion during the 2015 to 2019 stretch.

 

And that despite the fact that movie tickets today are much more expensive than in 2009, 2015 or even 2019. 

 

 

Some of that may have to do with the fact that premium screens like IMAX are much more popular today than in years past (IMAX had its best year ever in 25).

 

Now, let's take a broader look at these and other infos:

• Movie tickets are more expensive and a larger share of a big blockbuster's box office comes from premium screens such as IMAX;
• Fewer people are going to the movies in the 2020s than in comparison with the 2010s or any previous decade;
• Ergo, going to the movies is becoming a less popular, more exclusive and perhaps more elitist pastime;
• This touches upon questions that living conditions for the middle and lower classes in the USA are dreadfully expensive and thus most families can't afford going to the movies - if they want to see a movie, they simply subscribe to Netflix, but only the basic, ad-supported plan, which, given the worsening high cost of living, isn't a surprise that it became so popular;

Therefore, even in a year where Warner Bros operated with a string of zeiteist-setting blockbuster hits and critically beloved new classics that brought every kind of audience to the movie theater, the theatrical industry still struggled and failed to hit even the extremely coveted $9 billion mark (which is still short from the $11 billion of the last 5 years before Covid). 

 

So, if even with a WB at full capacity and with a winning series of hits the theaters still struggle, imagine with a WB that is severely compromised by Netflix morons? 

 

Heck, we don't even need to look at this from purely a quantitative point of view. I'd argue Warner Bros is essential for movie theaters because what other studio would put millions of dollars and then release in theaters movies like Barbie, Sinners, Weapons, One Battle, Crazy Rich Asians, Dune, Mad Max: Fury Road and all of those risky Nolan movies based on original ideas (Dunkirk, Interstellar, Inception)? 

 

Sure, sometimes their idiotic executives take dumb decisions (Furiosa would never be a box office hit, no matter how critically beloved it was, and let's not even mention Joker 2), but when these bets pay off (Dune, Fury Road, Sinners, Interstellar, even that fucking Barbie movie), they remind people that going to the theaters to watch something other from the typical Disney blockbuster can be awesome - and that is what keeps movie theaters alive, not just the endless Fast & Furious, Jurassic World and Transformers sequels, spin-offs, prequels, etc - which to be fair they also do a lot. But they take risks no other studio does.

 

Would removing or severely crippling WB be enough to effectively kill movie theaters? Maybe not... at the moment. But it would still be a massive loss that could damage the Hollywood movie industry beyond repair. 

 

Now, I agree with you that it would be better if neither Netflix nor Paramount nor anyone bought WB and it remained an independent studio. But to be fair, it was actually WB (or, more importantly, the Antichrist of cinema David Zaslav) who put it for sale. So, even if it's not one of them, it'll be someone else.

 

Whoever it is though... It's clear that Netflix is the worst, most apocalyptic choice.

[Nick1Ø66 8,479]

40 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Let's put it this way: according to Deadline, in 2025 North American theaters sold 780 million admissions (which is down almost 5% in comparison with 2024's 820 million admissions).

 

Out of these 780 million admissions, 26% went to movies distributed by Disney and 20% went to Warner Bros movies. 

 

WB actually had the highest grossing movie and the one that sold most tickets in 2025 with A Minecraft Movie in North America ($424 million at the box office and 37.5 million tickets sold), though Zootopia 2 and Avatar 3 may or may not surpass it before they are pulled out of theaters. 

 

Their biggest movies in 2025 at the domestic box office were:

1. Minecraft ($424 million)
2. Superman ($354 million)
3. Sinners ($280 million)
4. F1 ($190 million)
5. The Conjuring: Last Rites ($178 million)

It's been said that WB had a banner year in 2025, with a solid string of hits, some of which were also critically acclaimed. 

 

Now, imagine if Netflix were already their owners in 2025. Minecraft, Superman and maybe Conjuring would probably be in theaters for, say, 17 days (like Sarandos wishes, but only for the biggest movies). The others, even those meticulously made by their filmmakers to be seen in the biggest screen possible like Sinners, Weapons and One Battle After Another, would die a sad, miserable death by being released straight to Netflix and being forgotten in amidst a sea of streaming slop in about a weekend.

 

Now, you may argue that a 20% share is not that big of a deal and that the remaining big studios (Disney/20th, Paramount, Universal and Sony), the smaller ones (A24, Lionsgate, etc) and the tech companies that still release (some of) their stuff in theaters because they want to look more sophisticated than Netflix (Amazon/MGM, Apple) will be able to carry on the theatrical industry even with a heavily compromised WB.

 

But when you take a closer look at the numbers, the situation is much scarier. As said above, in 2025 theaters sold 780 million admissions, down almost 5% from the 820 million in 2024. As the Deadline report informs us, "Pre-Pandemic, the industry averaged well over 1B tickets sold annually during the period of 2005 to 2019."

 

For three consecutive years (2023, 24 and 25), the domestic box office finished the year having earned between $8.5 billion and $8.9 billion. It's a considerable downturn from the pre-Covid days, when the domestic box office made over $10 billion per year between 2009 and 2019, and over $11 billion during the 2015 to 2019 stretch.

 

And that despite the fact that movie tickets today are much more expensive than in 2009, 2015 or even 2019. 

 

 

Some of that may have to do with the fact that premium screens like IMAX are much more popular today than in years past (IMAX had its best year ever in 25).

 

Now, let's take a broader look at these and other infos:

• Movie tickets are more expensive and a larger share of a big blockbuster's box office comes from premium screens such as IMAX;
• Fewer people are going to the movies in the 2020s than in comparison with the 2010s or any previous decade;
• Ergo, going to the movies is becoming a less popular, more exclusive and perhaps more elitist pastime;
• This touches upon questions that living conditions for the middle and lower classes in the USA are dreadfully expensive and thus most families can't afford going to the movies - if they want to see a movie, they simply subscribe to Netflix, but only the basic, ad-supported plan, which, given the worsening high cost of living, isn't a surprise that it became so popular;

Therefore, even in a year where Warner Bros operated with a string of zeiteist-setting blockbuster hits and critically beloved new classics that brought every kind of audience to the movie theater, the theatrical industry still struggled and failed to hit even the extremely coveted $9 billion mark (which is still short from the $11 billion of the last 5 years before Covid). 

 

So, if even with a WB at full capacity and with a winning series of hits the theaters still struggle, imagine with a WB that is severely compromised by Netflix morons? 

 

Heck, we don't even need to look at this from purely a quantitative point of view. I'd argue Warner Bros is essential for movie theaters because what other studio would put millions of dollars and then release in theaters movies like Barbie, Sinners, Weapons, One Battle, Crazy Rich Asians, Dune, Mad Max: Fury Road and all of those risky Nolan movies based on original ideas (Dunkirk, Interstellar, Inception)? 

 

Sure, sometimes their idiotic executives take dumb decisions (Furiosa would never be a box office hit, no matter how critically beloved it was, and let's not even mention Joker 2), but when these bets pay off (Dune, Fury Road, Sinners, Interstellar, even that fucking Barbie movie), they remind people that going to the theaters to watch something other from the typical Disney blockbuster can be awesome - and that is what keeps movie theaters alive, not just the endless Fast & Furious, Jurassic World and Transformers sequels, spin-offs, prequels, etc - which to be fair they also do a lot. But they take risks no other studio does.

 

Would removing or severely crippling WB be enough to effectively kill movie theaters? Maybe not... at the moment. But it would still be a massive loss that could damage the Hollywood movie industry beyond repair. 

 

Now, I agree with you that it would be better if neither Netflix nor Paramount nor anyone bought WB and it remained an independent studio. But to be fair, it was actually WB (or, more importantly, the Antichrist of cinema David Zaslav) who put it for sale. So, even if it's not one of them, it'll be someone else.

 

Whoever it is though... It's clear that Netflix is the worst, most apocalyptic choice.

 

One of the longest comments ever on JWFAN not about George Lucas or Wagner.

 

Where are the footnotes?

[NewBlueEyes 252]

6 hours ago, Slitherjump said:

As much as I want to agree with you, they just recently decided to downgrade their avatar the last Airbender movie from a theatrical release to streaming. So I hesitate to take their word on them keeping theatrical releases either

You should have seen how many signatures there is on bringing the Avatar movie into theaters now: over 35 thousands

[BloodBoal 8,891]

Anyway, whoever acquires Warner Bros., movie theaters are doomed in the long (well, more like medium) term. Everything is done in our society to encourage ADHD, and the last thing people with ADHD want is to sit in a dark room and watch a single story being shown to them for 2 hours straight. To them, it is the equivalent of spending a month in Guantanamo Bay.

 

No, the only way movie theaters can be saved is if they completely reinvent themselves. Like, say, instead of screening movies, they start screening Tik Tok videos, all day long (and replace their horizontal screens with vertical ones). That way, they can even get rid of the whole showtimes problem. People can buy their tickets whenever they want, come in the screening room whenever they want, react with their friends to the videos (even film their reactions to then post them on their Youtube channel. Don't forget to Like and subscribe) and leave whenever they want.

 

I tell you, the Tik Tok Theaters are the way of the future. Neo-Neo-Neo-JWFANers will make threads like: "What was the last Tik Tok video you saw in a Tik Tok theater?", "Share your Tik Tok Theater reaction video", "My reaction video is going to be screened in a Tik Tok Theater!" and "Does anyone know what a movie theater is?"

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

That formatting wtf

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

13 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

No, the only way movie theaters can be saved is if they completely reinvent themselves.

 

Cue 3D movies.

 

13 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

"Does anyone know what a movie theater was?"

 

Fixed...

[BloodBoal 8,891]

13 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Fixed...

 

Good point.

[Parker Luciani 10,319]

Hmmm... Some people with ADHD claim caffeinated soda does the opposite onto those who don'thave that and calms them down, and what do theaters serve? exactly!