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

[Chen G. 6,291]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

the only way movie theaters can be saved is if they completely reinvent themselves.

 

Well, if Netflix takes over Warners, they won't get a chance to.

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

They'll reinvent themselves into home theatres.

[Tallguy 7,578]

3 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

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.

 

Not to be serious. But "as someone with ADHD" a) I LOVE movie theaters. b) If I watch a movie at home we stop to clean up the dishes or someone takes a phone call or lets the dog out or or or or or...

 

ADHD? You know what can beat that? FOCUS. Movie theaters are a GODSEND.

 

One of the (sometimes kinda fun) flip sides to ADHD is time-blindness and hyper-focus. Movie theaters feed into both of these.

 

There is no movie no matter the scale that I would not rather watch in a theater than at home.

 

EDIT: @Edmilson - Impressive.

[Marian Schedenig 11,872]

5 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

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.

 

I'm pretty sure I have ADHD, but a film is a film. I get annoyed when I watch a film and other people don't pay proper attention.

 

As for TV/streaming programming… since when has that *not* been targeted at people with compromised attention spans? All those sitcoms and syndication shows running on endless repeats (not to mention game shows etc) have always been watched (or not watched) by people doing dozens of other things and just having the TV on in the background. Compared to that, any of the bigger Netflix shows I've seen demands much more attention just to roughly keep track of what's going on.

[Glóin the Dark 1,879]

I generally find it difficult to focus properly on a film if there’s someone else present who isn’t watching it, even if they’re not doing anything outwardly disruptive.

[BloodBoal 8,891]

2 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Not to be serious. But "as someone with ADHD" a) I LOVE movie theaters. b) If I watch a movie at home we stop to clean up the dishes or someone takes a phone call or lets the dog out or or or or or...

 

ADHD? You know what can beat that? FOCUS. Movie theaters are a GODSEND.

 

One of the (sometimes kinda fun) flip sides to ADHD is time-blindness and hyper-focus. Movie theaters feed into both of these.

 

There is no movie no matter the scale that I would not rather watch in a theater than at home.

 

Well, I suppose there are varying degrees of ADHD. You seem to be on the lower end of that scale.

 

What do all those kids who keep on scrolling Tik Tok videos when in a movie theater suffer from, then? Super ADHD? Über ADHD? Tik Tok Syndrome?

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I'm pretty sure I have ADHD

 

Self-diagnosis is not worth much, Mr. Schedenig.

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

a film is a film.

 

On that we both agree.

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I get annoyed when I watch a film and other people don't pay proper attention.

 

So do I. Does that mean I have ADHD?

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

As for TV/streaming programming… since when has that *not* been targeted at people with compromised attention spans? All those sitcoms and syndication shows running on endless repeats (not to mention game shows etc) have always been watched (or not watched) by people doing dozens of other things and just having the TV on in the background.

 

I am not sure the same thing is at play here. You mention shows that are running on endless repeats: the important thing is "repeat". When people put that on TV, it is not because they want to watch it: they generally already have seen it. They put it, as you say, just to have the TV on in the background. To have background noise, either not to feel lonely (because their house feels empty if there is no sound), or because, as you often hear, "nothing else interesting is on at the moment" (but since a familiar show/film is on, it makes for comfort food, even if just in the background). I don't think this has anything to do with attention span. This has to do with being limited to what is being shown on TV at the moment you put the TV on.

 

Now, if you go on Netflix, you have the choice. You get to decide exactly what you want to watch, so technically, you would think people are going to choose something they have an interest in, and if you have an interest in something, I would expect you to watch it with undivided attention, but what it seems is going on with a lot of people is that they tweet (sorry, I mean they... X?) about what they are "watching" as they are "watching" it, they post pictures of their TV while the show is on, they read people comments about the show/film as they are "watching" it, and of course, now this kind of behaviour is also found in movie theaters.

 

If ADHD is not the best way to describe that (that may be the case), then how do we call that?

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Compared to that, any of the bigger Netflix shows I've seen demands much more attention just to roughly keep track of what's going on.

 

I can't think of a great many original Netflix shows (if any) where it is hard to keep track of what's going on if you are not paying attention. Most of them appear to be pretty streamlined. Do you have any specific examples?

 

  

2 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I generally find it difficult to focus properly on a film if there’s someone else present who isn’t watching it, even if they’re not doing anything outwardly disruptive.

 

It's annoying, isn't it?

 

[Jay 46,807]

1 minute ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I generally find it difficult to focus properly on a film if there’s someone else present who isn’t watching it, even if they’re not doing anything outwardly disruptive.

 

YES!!!!!

[bollemanneke 4,365]

6 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

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?"

I'm sure I'm going to sound very old now, but why is it that everybody seems to need to capitulate to Tik tok, YouTube or 'the socials' in general? Maybe we should be teaching some of these phone-addicted morons that not everything has to last 10 seconds or needs to be shared, liked and photographed or filmed 24/7? Why have we suddenly embraced the fact that everybody's attention span can only cope with 1 minute and that just watching/doing one thing at a time is somehow wrong? I get SICK of teenagers telling adults they like scrolling (puke puke), but can't give one fucking example of what they've been watching. the same debate is happening regarding TV in Belgium too. 'Traditional TV is dead! Everything is on social media now!' Yeah, but that's only because we're not fighting back. Everybody seems to agree social media is generally bad, but we're not going to do anything about it, because… Yeah, because we just like whinging, I guess.
 

[BloodBoal 8,891]

OK, so what do you propose we do?

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

38 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Über ADHD?

 

ÄDHD.

[Marian Schedenig 11,872]

24 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Self-diagnosis is not worth much, Mr. Schedenig.

 

Which is why I intend to get an official diagnosis (either way) this year.

 

24 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

So do I. Does that mean I have ADHD?

 

I was trying to point out that ADHD doesn't mean you can't focus at all (it generally means you can't focus well on something that doesn't interest you enough), or that it doesn't bother you if other people don't focus.

 

24 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

I am not sure the same thing is at play here. You mention shows that are running on endless repeats: the important thing is "repeat". When people put that on TV, it is not because they want to watch it: they generally already have seen it. They put it, as you say, just to have the TV on in the background. To have background noise, either not to feel lonely (because their house feels empty if there is no sound), or because, as you often hear, "nothing else interesting is on at the moment" (but since a familiar show/film is on, it makes for comfort food, even if just in the background). I don't think this has anything to do with attention span. This has to do with being limited to what is being shown on TV at the moment you put the TV on.

 

My impression has always been that people have the stuff on repeat running in the background as a means of "watching it" on the side, without ever having watched much of it properly. It certainly goes for other programmes that were made to be watched like that - as I mentioned, many sitcoms, game shows, all those lawyer "reality" programmes (are those still a thing?) and similar "debate" spectacle shows. My point is that TV in the 80s and 90s was much more unfocused and devoid of content than your average narrative 10 episodes per season series these days, whether Netflix or otherwise.

 

And that also goes for the syndicated shows that were the norm back in those days. They were never made with the assumption that most people would watch them in order (if they were even broadcast in order!), or might now miss half of the episodes. Cf. the Star Trek reset universe. You could miss 10 episodes a season and would still be told everything relevant that has happened (if anything relevant had happened at all). Nowadays, if you miss 10 episodes, you've typically missed the entire season. And now they *are* meant to be watched in order, and without skipping episodes. I'm sure you can put together much of what's relevant if you miss a stretch - and they do try to recapitulate the important bits (helpful if you don't binge it and take a longer break between episodes).

 

Point is, in my view narrative series storytelling hasn't become less focused or more shallow/devoid of content in the Netflix age. Rather the opposite (not *because* of Netflix, mind you). And if you want to stick to the ADHD context, it still makes sense, or probably even more so, because ADHD is nothing new - it just used to go undiagnosed a lot, which perhaps explains why so much TV "content" was made just to run in the background and nobody ever seemed to question it. (Personally, I always found it annoying - I've either got the TV on because I'm watching something, or I turn it off)

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

39 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

On that we both agree.

 

Unless it's a movie.

 

40 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

So do I. Does that mean I have ADHD?

 

That's like the single criteria.

[Tallguy 7,578]

  

39 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

What do all those kids who keep on scrolling Tik Tok videos when in a movie theater suffer from, then? Super ADHD? Über ADHD? Tik Tok Syndrome?

 

39 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

If ADHD is not the best way to describe that (that may be the case), then how do we call that?

 

Bad manners?

 

42 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Self-diagnosis is not worth much, Mr. Schedenig.

 

I have an official one if that helps you.

 

4 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I was trying to point out that ADHD doesn't mean you can't focus at all (it generally means you can't focus well on something that doesn't interest you enough), or that it doesn't bother you if other people don't focus.

 

This.

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

1 minute ago, Tallguy said:

Bad manners?

 

I'd say scrolling addiction.

[TSMefford 1,728]

The social media issue is not just about ADHD or teenagers. It's made to be addicting intentionally by these companies, and anyone can become an addict to something.

 

Part of the problem is that it's kind of a spiral or a cycle with the algorithms. Companies like Instagram, which began as an image based platform, or Twitter (I'm not calling it X), which began as a primarily text based platform, don't have to prioritize video. They could stick to why people originally jumped on board with them and maintain their niche. But they're too obsessed with growth for the sake of growth, short term goals and short term profits, because that's what shareholders are always worried about. If a new gimmicky trend pops up that threatens to steal away the attention, they can't just ride it out and wait until the hype dies down - they suddenly feel compelled to support that on their platform and encourage it.

 

I'd argue that these companies are moreso to blame. I don't really think it's as much these "morons" that want this kind of content, but these companies that are shoving it down everyone's throats. Because when these companies have to keep growing and making huge profits, peoples attention becomes one of the most valuable things and they simply can't stand to not have as much attention as they can get. More time on their platforms means less time on their competitors and more people watching ads on their platform means more money, more profit. And it all only works if the user is as unaware they are being manipulated as possible. And lots of young people have only ever existed with these platforms and how addicting they are.

 

So they make it more and more addictive intentionally and as part of the cycle - they've all stolen all the features from everyone else, so many of them feel unfocused or like a clone of another. When TikTok was the big new thing and took attention away from Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. those companies immediately added a TikTok clone feature to their platforms (Like Stories and Reels on Instagram / Facebook and Shorts on YouTube) and they started prioritizing that kind of content so they could pull eyes back to their own platforms. But what happens when you artificially start boosting a certain kind of content in order to compete with a company who's whole thing is that? Well, it means more people watch it. With more people watching it, it means the algorithm with continue to prop it up more and more and more and it just spirals.

 

It's why bullshit exists like a photo or a screenshot being converted into a 30 second video and posted. There's no actual video content and it's annoying as hell, but the algorithm favors videos now so it's gotta be a video. It's also why ragebait exists, because negative content gets more engagement. So, people make videos intentionally to piss people off - and it's not just politics. It's people intentionally making videos of them cooking terrible food or making dangerous crafts. It's people posting a clip of a movie and intentionally not labeling or mislabeling the film so that people comment and react to it. Those things get high engagement, so the algorithm rewards it, then people see more and more of it. It's also why vertical video is rewarded because it makes it less likely people will stop scrolling. And why Netflix and Youtube of all places have games that you can play in platform now.

 

It's a mess. The only way to escape it is to stop being on it. Which is luckily happening more and more, just not enough to make a huge impact - and the companies don't want that either so... gotta make it more additcing...

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

I reckon it's great!

[Marian Schedenig 11,872]

37 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

It's why bullshit exists like a photo or a screenshot being converted into a 30 second video and posted.

 

Fully agreed on everything, except I'd point out that even this isn't that new or specific to algorithm driven social media. 10 minute videos that could have been a 3 minute text article (basically the non-business version of a meeting that could have been an e-mail) have been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. Social media algorithms have latched on to that and certainly helped spread it even wider, but I think the whole issue predates that and has evolved independently. It's easier to catch people's attention with a video, and influencers now make a living doing just that - but at the same time, they *depend* on catching people's attention, repeatedly, and desperately trying to a) keep it long enough to create ad revenue and I guess b) at least partly also making enough content to "justify" earning your money that way. Which means creating much more "content" than actual *content* - long videos with people rambling about stuff, where the key takeaway is a 30 second bit in the middle that was overhyped by the click bait video title. As social media text posts (perhaps with a matching stock photo), those 30 seconds of information would be useful, but instead they keep getting packaged in social media noise. Ironically, this seems to be meant to easily attract ADHD people, and I guess to that extend (*attracting* them) it works (*I* keep falling victim to these channels, because sometimes they have relevant info, and then the algorithm keeps flooding my timeline with more and more of their clickbait videos before I learn to just ignore them because it's the only way to get other suggestions that might actually be useful) - but info-less content that goes on and on is certainly the worst way to *keep* ADHD people's attention. But the "everything has to be a 10+ minutes video, with background music and a long winded introduction" phenomenon is so widespread that you can't even learn a new programming language or framework properly anymore, because most of the available information is locked up in these kinds of videos, which at the same time don't allow for half as much information as a simple text article would - so most of the official information you *can* get is superficial and not really good enough for professional use.

[TSMefford 1,728]

Oh yeah for sure @Marian Schedenig. Definitely agreed.

 

Reminds me of recipes online that start with 5 paragraphs of the authors life story and the significance of the recipe to their relationship with their dad or something. Sole purpose is trying to make you stay on the page longer. It's so annoying.

 

I'm like you as well in that there is so much that are videos where I'd prefer it to be something I can read. I also constantly get told that young people "don't read anymore" so people want to make things as videos, but that is just continuing the problem.

[Edmilson 12,606]

51 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

The social media issue is not just about ADHD or teenagers. It's made to be addicting intentionally by these companies, and anyone can become an addict to something.

 

Part of the problem is that it's kind of a spiral or a cycle with the algorithms. Companies like Instagram, which began as an image based platform, or Twitter (I'm not calling it X), which began as a primarily text based platform, don't have to prioritize video. They could stick to why people originally jumped on board with them and maintain their niche. But they're too obsessed with growth for the sake of growth, short term goals and short term profits, because that's what shareholders are always worried about. If a new gimmicky trend pops up that threatens to steal away the attention, they can't just ride it out and wait until the hype dies down - they suddenly feel compelled to support that on their platform and encourage it.

 

I'd argue that these companies are moreso to blame. I don't really think it's as much these "morons" that want this kind of content, but these companies that are shoving it down everyone's throats. Because when these companies have to keep growing and making huge profits, peoples attention becomes one of the most valuable things and they simply can't stand to not have as much attention as they can get. More time on their platforms means less time on their competitors and more people watching ads on their platform means more money, more profit. And it all only works if the user is as unaware they are being manipulated as possible. And lots of young people have only ever existed with these platforms and how addicting they are.

 

So they make it more and more addictive intentionally and as part of the cycle - they've all stolen all the features from everyone else, so many of them feel unfocused or like a clone of another. When TikTok was the big new thing and took attention away from Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. those companies immediately added a TikTok clone feature to their platforms (Like Stories and Reels on Instagram / Facebook and Shorts on YouTube) and they started prioritizing that kind of content so they could pull eyes back to their own platforms. But what happens when you artificially start boosting a certain kind of content in order to compete with a company who's whole thing is that? Well, it means more people watch it. With more people watching it, it means the algorithm with continue to prop it up more and more and more and it just spirals.

 

It's why bullshit exists like a photo or a screenshot being converted into a 30 second video and posted. There's no actual video content and it's annoying as hell, but the algorithm favors videos now so it's gotta be a video. It's also why ragebait exists, because negative content gets more engagement. So, people make videos intentionally to piss people off - and it's not just politics. It's people intentionally making videos of them cooking terrible food or making dangerous crafts. It's people posting a clip of a movie and intentionally not labeling or mislabeling the film so that people comment and react to it. Those things get high engagement, so the algorithm rewards it, then people see more and more of it. It's also why vertical video is rewarded because it makes it less likely people will stop scrolling. And why Netflix and Youtube of all places have games that you can play in platform now.

 

It's a mess. The only way to escape it is to stop being on it. Which is luckily happening more and more, just not enough to make a huge impact - and the companies don't want that either so... gotta make it more additcing...

Great comment. And it's true, this didn't start with Netflix but rather with crazed, unhinged big tech with social media apps ran by ultra greedy executives. 

 

I mean, Netflix's first original show (or one of them at least) was House of Cards, a show that isn't exactly the "streaming slop" we all know and hate but rather an attempt at a HBO-like prestige show for adults, with a deliberately slow narrative and complex script. 

 

Problem is, they're primarily a tech company who has access to infinite data. Their shareholders told them to reduce churn and that's what they did, making their app so addictive and "essential" that today people still want to pay for it even if they watch ads. It's not because their shows are "better", it's because they mastered the art of the economy attention in the age of social media.

 

And, in proccess, dragged the whole movie industry down, both on a qualitative level and on a "changed consumer's habits for the worse" level.

[Holko 12,108]

15 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Fully agreed on everything, except I'd point out that even this isn't that new or specific to algorithm driven social media. 10 minute videos that could have been a 3 minute text article (basically the non-business version of a meeting that could have been an e-mail) have been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. Social media algorithms have latched on to that and certainly helped spread it even wider, but I think the whole issue predates that and has evolved independently. It's easier to catch people's attention with a video, and influencers now make a living doing just that - but at the same time, they *depend* on catching people's attention, repeatedly, and desperately trying to a) keep it long enough to create ad revenue and I guess b) at least partly also making enough content to "justify" earning your money that way. Which means creating much more "content" than actual *content* - long videos with people rambling about stuff, where the key takeaway is a 30 second bit in the middle that was overhyped by the click bait video title. As social media text posts (perhaps with a matching stock photo), those 30 seconds of information would be useful, but instead they keep getting packaged in social media noise. Ironically, this seems to be meant to easily attract ADHD people, and I guess to that extend (*attracting* them) it works (*I* keep falling victim to these channels, because sometimes they have relevant info, and then the algorithm keeps flooding my timeline with more and more of their clickbait videos before I learn to just ignore them because it's the only way to get other suggestions that might actually be useful) - but info-less content that goes on and on is certainly the worst way to *keep* ADHD people's attention. But the "everything has to be a 10+ minutes video, with background music and a long winded introduction" phenomenon is so widespread that you can't even learn a new programming language or framework properly anymore, because most of the available information is locked up in these kinds of videos, which at the same time don't allow for half as much information as a simple text article would - so most of the official information you *can* get is superficial and not really good enough for professional use.

10 minute videos specifically came about because of how Youtube was putting more ads in and therefore giving out more money for longer videos hitting that mark, and pushing them more because they'd get more money from them too. Fucking ads and braindead immoral infinite growth are the two roots of all evil.

[TSMefford 1,728]

Yep. 100% @Holko

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

12 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

you can't even learn a new programming language or framework properly anymore, because most of the available information is locked up in these kinds of videos, which at the same time don't allow for half as much information as a simple text article would - so most of the official information you *can* get is superficial and not really good enough for professional use.

 

Well, that's one of the reasons we have books.

 

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 11,872]

10 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Reminds me of recipes online that start with 5 paragraphs of the authors life story and the significance of the recipe to their relationship with their dad or something. Sole purpose is trying to make you stay on the page longer. It's so annoying.

 

I'm not so strict about those as most people seem to be, because it *can* be helpful/interesting context, and sometimes also provides generally useful knowledge. But that always depends on the author, of course, and it's much better for everyone if there's a clear link straight to the recipe at the top of the page.

 

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Well, that's one of the reasons we have books.

 

The problem is: I like a good tech book, but I don't buy them anymore, because many (in the programming/framework world) are themselves rather superficial, but on top of that by the time they're released and you actually get around to reading them, they're already out of date compared to online content that's similarly superficial, but at least more recent.

[Tallguy 7,578]

9 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Well, that's one of the reasons we have books.

 

"Read" or just "have"?

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

Does it really matter if they're leatherbound?

[Tallguy 7,578]

6 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Does it really matter if they're leatherbound?

What you do in your private life is your own business.

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

1 minute ago, Tallguy said:

What you do in your private life is your own business.

 

Exactly!

[Parker Luciani 10,319]

28 minutes ago, Holko said:

10 minute videos specifically came about because of how Youtube was putting more ads in and therefore giving out more money for longer videos hitting that mark, and pushing them more because they'd get more money from them too. Fucking ads and braindead immoral infinite growth are the two roots of all evil.

There was a time, when youtube videos couldn't go past 10 minutes, my how things have changed.

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

There was a time before Youtube. Imagine that.

[Parker Luciani 10,319]

1 minute ago, Jurassic Shark said:

There was a time before Youtube. Imagine that.

There was a time before Time, imagine that!

[TSMefford 1,728]

21 minutes ago, The Score Cleaner said:

There was a time before Time, imagine that!

 

We dont have to imagine. They made a movie about it:

[Tallguy 7,578]

I forgot. I hope time didn't forget.

[Jurassic Shark 16,572]

24 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

We dont have to imagine. They made a movie about it:

 

It's actually spelled TALE.

[Yavar Moradi 4,466]

4 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

I can't think of a great many original Netflix shows (if any) where it is hard to keep track of what's going on if you are not paying attention. Most of them appear to be pretty streamlined. Do you have any specific examples?

 

The Witcher (love it or hate it), Dark, 1899, Blue Eye Samurai, Arcane, Stranger Things (though I stopped watching a few episodes into season 2)... I'll avoid listing things that became Netflix originals but which didn't start on Netflix.

 

I actually can't think of any original Netflix shows I watch which I can just put on in the background and it doesn't matter if I'm paying attention. But then I don't really watch that sort of TV in general, because that's not my watching style.

 

Yavar

[Edmilson 12,606]

Another interesting data to add to those that I posted earlier:

 

18 hours 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.

Take a look at this table:

 

 

Between 2013 and 2017, there were over 800 theatrical releases in North American theaters per year. In 2018, the last year where 20th Century Fox functioned as an independent entity, there were 993 movies. In the next year, even though Disney already owned Fox and released its many flops leftovers from the previous administration, there were 910 movies.

 

Then of course there were the pandemic in 2020 and the strikes in 2023. Even then, the next year after the strikes was the post-pandemic year with the most releases: 677. Last year: 666 (lol) movies.

 

If we assume that 2024 and 2025 represent the new normal post-Covid, what does it tell us? That if on the previous decade movie theaters received 800-900 releases every year, now they can expect, at most, a little more than 600 releases. That correlates with the box office numbers, which were above 10 billion during the 10 years between 2009 and 2019 but since Covid never even reached 9 billion.

 

What happened between 2019 and 2025 aside from Covid? Disney buying Fox and reducing it from an independent studio to an IP provider and more and more movies going straight to streaming.

 

If Paramount buys WB, a Disney/Fox scenario might happen (WB becoming only an IP factory); if Netflix wins, the most probable outcome is big IPs in theaters for a very limited time (17 days to begin with, and then getting shorter and shorter with time) and non-IP stuff straight to Netflix.

 

It's bad either way, but Netflix seems to be an even more nightmarish scenario. 

 

Of course, it's not as simple as "more movies = bigger box office", as other factors are preventing about 200 million people stopped going to the theaters every year in North America. But I'm sure releasing EVEN LESS movies on the big screen, especially those of the kind that WB used to do, could damage the movie industry beyond repair.

[NewBlueEyes 252]

We only got 8,078 signatures on the petition. We must spread the word.

[bollemanneke 4,365]

Nobody gives a shit about the consumers/users. It's MONEY, man. Those of us, including me, who still believe in a tiny little thing called culture, are lost.

[Tallguy 7,578]

11 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Nobody gives a shit about the consumers/users. It's MONEY, man. Those of us, including me, who still believe in a tiny little thing called culture, are lost.

 

When did they? When did a studio ever pick "culture" (of any kind) over money?

[Mr. Hooper 9,374]

9 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

When did they? When did a studio ever pick "culture" (of any kind) over money?

Well, Warner Bros. did keep Stanley Kubrick in their stable for the prestige, even if his films didn't bring in the big bucks.

[Chen G. 6,291]

If you look at any studio's accounting, it's a case of the big tentpole balancing out any number of smaller, less lucrative motion pictures. A good example from recent times is Warners investment in One Battle After Another: let's be clear, that movie will never turn a profit. But it was worth it for them for the prestige, and they had enough successes to comfortably offset that expenditure.

[BloodBoal 8,891]

Thank god for that Mineshaft movie...

[Parker Luciani 10,319]

Just now, BloodBoal said:

Thank god for that Mineshit movie...

Fixed?

[BloodBoal 8,891]

You could have gone with Minecrap, though I suppose it was too obvious...

[Tallguy 7,578]

Didn't see it. I did see Anaconda. And I didn't go see Tron: Ares in the theater. I chose poorly. (Anaconda was OK. Tron was more OK.)

[Chen G. 6,291]

Yeah, I can't stand movies like that either. But I guess they help give movies I do like more breathing room...

[Tallguy 7,578]

Just now, Chen G. said:

Yeah, I can't stand movies like that either. But I guess they help give movies I do like more breathing room...

 

That used to be the case. But who is going to see The English Patient in the cinema these days? That is not a "Ohhhh, this is the kind of movie YOU like" dig. That was actually a HIT, wasn't it?

 

Going to the movies for us these days is not just a "Hey, let's go to the movies. What's playing?" thing anymore. It's a LOT of money. So it almost has to be something we've been waiting for for months or years. Doomsday. Star Wars. Whatever Nolan makes.

 

I think half of the movies I saw in 2025 were special re-releases. Jaws. Back to the Future. (When did I see North by Northwest?)

[Chen G. 6,291]

10 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

So it almost has to be something we've been waiting for for months or years. Doomsday. Star Wars. Whatever Nolan makes.

 

Yes. But even those benefit from being made in a stable home!

 

I make no qualms about the fact that the only reason Warners' slate as a whole - at least insofar as crap like Minecraft and Superman  is concerned - interest me is because Warners doing well commercially means a good, stable and hopefuly quiet home front for The Hunt for Gollum. That's what it comes down to for me, at least at the moment.

[Xander Harris 9,808]

Who the Hell wanted a Gollum series, or a series where Superman is repeatedly pummeled and humiliated. It’s a total disaster.

[Chen G. 6,291]

7 hours ago, Xander Harris said:

Who the Hell wanted a Gollum series

 

It's a movie.

 

It's not like Star Wars which has twelve movies, goodness-knows how many shows, and about half a dozen more of each in the pipeline.

[Mephariel 697]

21 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

It's a movie.

 

It's not like Star Wars which has twelve movies, goodness-knows how many shows, and about half a dozen more of each in the pipeline.

 

People really want a Gollum movie? How much longer are they going to milk this material?