schmendeler said:
Is fox news not enough for the zombies?
Is owning every other major media outlet for the past several decades not enough for your zombies?
Netflix to Buy WB
8,222 Views |
142 Replies |
Last: 18 hrs ago by TCTTS
Is owning every other major media outlet for the past several decades not enough for your zombies?
To be clear, under the Netflix deal, as it is now, in terms of who would run what, both the Warner Bros movie studio and HBO (along with Max) would remain separate from Netflix. In other words, roughly the same team running the WB movie studio, and roughly the same team running HBO and Max, would all be kept in place. They would just be owned by Netflix. There's even talk of keeping HBO Max as a separate app. But, like, Warner Bros as an entity, with all their thousands of employees, and the Warner Bros lot/the HBO offices, would all be basically kept as-is. The big negative is, over the next few years, Warner Bros movies would essentially evaporate from theaters. They'd still release blockbuster in theaters, but only for a two-week-or-so run before they'd go to Netflix, which would be a disaster for the theatrical market.
Whereas, under the Paramount deal, yes, they would release way more movies to theaters, but the team running the Warner Bros movie studio would basically be fired (though some of them might remain), and the Paramount movie studio would handle both Paramount and WB releases. That said, it sounds like the team running HBO and Max would remain intact, though HBO would become a tile on Paramount+, and HBO Max would disappear completely.
Of course, there's a lot more to it than that, but overall it's not as cut-and-dry as some are making it out to be, in terms of a clear, Netflix = bad / Paramount = good scenario.
Whereas, under the Paramount deal, yes, they would release way more movies to theaters, but the team running the Warner Bros movie studio would basically be fired (though some of them might remain), and the Paramount movie studio would handle both Paramount and WB releases. That said, it sounds like the team running HBO and Max would remain intact, though HBO would become a tile on Paramount+, and HBO Max would disappear completely.
Of course, there's a lot more to it than that, but overall it's not as cut-and-dry as some are making it out to be, in terms of a clear, Netflix = bad / Paramount = good scenario.
Whats funny is CNN is hardly even left leaning compared to MSNOW yet CNN is always the whipping boy by right-winged pundits as some crazy liberal network.
cajunaggie08 said:
Whats funny is CNN is hardly even left leaning compared to MSNOW yet CNN is always the whipping boy by right-winged pundits as some crazy liberal network.
They think pbs is practically Das Kapital
TCTTS said:
To be clear, under the Netflix deal, as it is now, in terms of who would run what, both the Warner Bros movie studio and HBO (along with Max) would remain separate from Netflix. In other words, roughly the same team running the WB movie studio, and roughly the same team running HBO and Max, would all be kept in place. They would just be owned by Netflix. There's even talk of keeping HBO Max as a separate app. But, like, Warner Bros as an entity, with all their thousands of employees, and the Warner Bros lot/the HBO offices, would all be basically kept as-is.
That all sounds great. But I suspect that over time Netflix would exert more and more influence over HBO and WB as the current employees are phased out through attrition or core synergies or some nonsense. Eventually there would be little difference.
I would agree in most instances, but not when it comes to HBO. There's a consensus on both sides that HBO is too valuable/prestigious/precious to **** with that brand in any way. Even Netflix realizes this. Though, ten years from now maybe you're right...
TCTTS said:
There's a consensus on both sides that HBO is too valuable/prestigious/precious to **** with that brand in any way.
Even Warner Bros couldn't resist doing this. Watch HBO....on MAX!
I hear you, but the team running HBO and the HBO content itself was still never meddled with. It was just that the morons above them had no clue how to name the damn app. And all of those decision-makers are long gone now.
Quote:
In addition to the fact that Paramount wouldn't kill the theatrical market like Netflix eventually would?
Why are people assuming Paramount will be some huge savior of the cinema experience? Especially since they just announced a huge push and change to their own streaming network Paramount+ with a new young CEO that is "The industry's first millennial mogul wants to change the DNA of Hollywood"
https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3573509
Also right now WB and Paramount release movies on the same weekend or close to each other. If Paramount owns both they won't want to compete with themselves, so movie releases could be more spread out and therefore less.
I just posted the below tweets on the previous page. This is something Ellison has been saying for months, and now he's doubling down. Could he be lying? Sure. But he would be crucified (and would probably face legal action, assuming this is a contractual part of the deal) if he spent all this time saying he was going to release 30-ish movies a year in theaters, only to then go back on his word...
Following the announcement of its 108B hostile takeover bid, Paramount just released to the press their commitment to release, at least, 30 movies theatrically per year, if they succeed in buying WB.
— Luiz Fernando (@Luiz_Fernando_J) December 8, 2025
That’s more than the 25 films Paramount (12) & WB (13) combined released in… pic.twitter.com/xqcYIyS6RW
Paramount Promises To Release 30+ Films Annually If It Acquires Warner Bros: “We’re Going To Satisfy The Needs Of The Moviegoing Public”https://t.co/LWjtb7Fogy pic.twitter.com/JtbYBbVyXz
— Deadline (@DEADLINE) December 8, 2025
Quad Dog said:Quote:
In addition to the fact that Paramount wouldn't kill the theatrical market like Netflix eventually would?
Why are people assuming Paramount will be some huge savior of the cinema experience? Especially since they just announced a huge push and change to their own streaming network Paramount+ with a new young CEO that is "The industry's first millennial mogul wants to change the DNA of Hollywood"
https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3573509
Also right now WB and Paramount release movies on the same weekend or close to each other. If Paramount owns both they won't want to compete with themselves, so movie releases could be more spread out and therefore less.
30 movies over 52 weeks is very doable. And with longer theatrical windows (or standard/proper theatrical windows, rather), as Ellison has also promised, any inner-company competition would ultimately work itself out. Even if he doesn't hit that 30-movies-a-year mark - say it's 25 or whatever - that's still better than 15 Paramount movies per year, along with the tiny theatrical windows Netflix would give, like, ten movies a year, should Netflix win the bid.
Someone's getting nervous their deal is in jeopardy...
Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos now says they will keep Warner Bros’ theatrical model largely the same once they buy the studio.
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) December 8, 2025
“When this deal closes, we are in [the theatrical] business, and we’re going to do it… We didn’t buy this company to destroy that value” pic.twitter.com/VmZ5K4wvFZ
I actually don't think Netflix is wrong here.
ALL the box office money is made in the first 2 weeks, and beyond that, they can monetize it better.
Legs occasionally exist, but that' *super rare*. Outside of a kid's movie being used for babysitting, you can count on one hand the number of times you talked to a friend that went to see a movie during week 3.
ALL the box office money is made in the first 2 weeks, and beyond that, they can monetize it better.
Legs occasionally exist, but that' *super rare*. Outside of a kid's movie being used for babysitting, you can count on one hand the number of times you talked to a friend that went to see a movie during week 3.
Ha, no offense, but I fundamentally disagree with everything you just said. Especially for blockbusters, a **** ton of money is still made after the first two weeks, and giving people/families only two weeks to see any given movie in theaters, especially in the fall/over the holidays, would be a disaster. Plenty of people - especially busy families - don't catch movies theatrically until week three or four. Enough to make a noticeable/crucial difference in the overall health of the theatrical industry, that's for sure.
And Netflix is saying "we can monetize that more" after that 2 week window.
The theatres don't like it. But that doesn't make it not right.
The theatres don't like it. But that doesn't make it not right.
To your point, as things are right now, if I know that a movie will be streaming 2-6 weeks after it's released in the theater, and I'm iffy on whether I want to see that movie in the first place, i guarantee you that I'm waiting for that movie to come out on streaming rather than spending the money that I would in a theater to see it. And I guarantee you there are plenty of people with the same mindset.
But if I know that I'll have to wait 3-6 months before its streaming then there's a good chance I'll suck it up and go to the theater.
So, I disagree with your premise that movies' value are only in the first two weeks, and it's fine to pull them and send them to streaming after that.
But if I know that I'll have to wait 3-6 months before its streaming then there's a good chance I'll suck it up and go to the theater.
So, I disagree with your premise that movies' value are only in the first two weeks, and it's fine to pull them and send them to streaming after that.
Anything that severely kneecaps the theatrical model is "not right" in my book. I could not give two ****s what Netflix sees as right for them or their brand.
Amen.
Aaaand- a large part of the theatrical experience is money to get sht made.
With incredible content like this, how could you not root for Netflix here?
Holy crap this is a real show pic.twitter.com/wwYlusc4Sd
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) December 8, 2025
Rigs said:
Aaaand- a large part of the theatrical experience is money to get sht made.
So, in your version how does Netflix monetize a movie by pulling it from the theater and streaming it after only 2 weeks? Honest question.
Do they expect that to lure in a boatload more subscribers, and that's their plan? I don't see that being a big enough lure to bring in that many new subscribers.
Do they plan to increase their current rates or add even more expensive tier plans if you want to watch movies streaming two weeks after the theatrical release? People are already balking at the price of subscription services and I'd see this route being a huge failure.
But i'm certainly not in the entertainment business so maybe i'm just not thinking of what their plan might be if they go your theoretical route.
Certainly they will.
Take a movie like Jurassic Rebirth.
70% of its box office done in 14 days.
If you can tell that remaining 30% you don't have to leave your house if you pay an extra $15/month to stream? Guarantee you they'll do it.
(And at that point, Netflix isn't splitting the gate with theatre chains.)
Take a movie like Jurassic Rebirth.
70% of its box office done in 14 days.
If you can tell that remaining 30% you don't have to leave your house if you pay an extra $15/month to stream? Guarantee you they'll do it.
(And at that point, Netflix isn't splitting the gate with theatre chains.)
I think there's a virtually unlimited amount of unmitigated garbage on any streaming service but that looks absolutely like a Mad Libs creation.
Rigs said:
Certainly they will.
Take a movie like Jurassic Rebirth.
70% of its box office done in 14 days.
If you can tell that remaining 30% you don't have to leave your house if you pay an extra $15/month to stream? Guarantee you they'll do it.
(And at that point, Netflix isn't splitting the gate with theatre chains.)
Of that 70% - if people knew they could see it at home 2 weeks later I would bet a significant portion of those would wait and see it on streaming...effectively killing theater revenue. Even a higher percentage during that second week as many of those would only need to wait a few days.
People aren't patient enough to wait 3-6 months to wait and see it at home, but they will wait for 2 weeks. Especially when you are talking a family of 3-4 in this economy.
Warners has 3 big movies this year.
Minecraft- 81% done in 2 weeks.
Superman- 77% done in 2 weeks.
Sinners- your rare exception- 52% done in 2 weeks. But that movie would have been monetized the hell out of at that point.
That's it. Tell me you couldn't monetize those tails.
Minecraft- 81% done in 2 weeks.
Superman- 77% done in 2 weeks.
Sinners- your rare exception- 52% done in 2 weeks. But that movie would have been monetized the hell out of at that point.
That's it. Tell me you couldn't monetize those tails.
Rigs said:
Certainly they will.
Take a movie like Jurassic Rebirth.
70% of its box office done in 14 days.
If you can tell that remaining 30% you don't have to leave your house if you pay an extra $15/month to stream? Guarantee you they'll do it.
(And at that point, Netflix isn't splitting the gate with theatre chains.)
OK, so you and I just disagree. I disagree that a lot of people would pay that additional fee.
Here on the entertainment board we sometimes forget how much more we like movies than the average person. I think most people are truly interested in less than half a dozen theatrical release movies a year.
So, I think the average person would think to themselves, "Am I really interested in that many movies that i'm willing to pay an extra $200 a year on top of what i'm already paying Netflix, just so I could stream Netflix/WB's releases quickly?" They'd do the math, and then I bet that most would say no to that proposition.
(BTW, i just watched jurassic park rebirth on a flight last weekend..... good lord, what utter garbage! Thank God, I didn't pay a streaming service any money to watch that, lol)
Well..if they can't get it anywhere else 6 weeks later, where else can a consumer get it?… that would be why you buy the IP.
javajaws said:Rigs said:
Certainly they will.
Take a movie like Jurassic Rebirth.
70% of its box office done in 14 days.
If you can tell that remaining 30% you don't have to leave your house if you pay an extra $15/month to stream? Guarantee you they'll do it.
(And at that point, Netflix isn't splitting the gate with theatre chains.)
Of that 70% - if people knew they could see it at home 2 weeks later I would bet a significant portion of those would wait and see it on streaming...effectively killing theater revenue. Even a higher percentage during that second week as many of those would only need to wait a few days.
People aren't patient enough to wait 3-6 months to wait and see it at home, but they will wait for 2 weeks. Especially when you are talking a family of 3-4 in this economy.
Bingo! If you're telling people that they can stream it just two weeks after it's released in the theater, there goes 95% of all theatrical revenue. So Netflix would barely make any money in theaters those first two weeks, and then just make a little bit on streaming via the people who want to pay the additional fee to stream movies quickly.
The theatre experience exists because a certain 70% needs to see it immediately, in that venue.
That's not changing.
It's how you make money off the other 30%.
That's not changing.
It's how you make money off the other 30%.
Rigs said:
Certainly they will.
Take a movie like Jurassic Rebirth.
70% of its box office done in 14 days.
If you can tell that remaining 30% you don't have to leave your house if you pay an extra $15/month to stream? Guarantee you they'll do it.
(And at that point, Netflix isn't splitting the gate with theatre chains.)
You are not factoring in the perception.
What FL_Ag said was that, if he knows he has to wait 3-6 months to see it, he will go to the theatre. If he's already making up his mind to see it in the theatre, why would he wait 3 months to do so? He would probably go in the first couple of weeks.
However, if he KNEW the movie would be streaming in 2-3 weeks, then he would not go see it in the first 2 weeks.
It's a psychological thing. Or did you forget you are talking about the actions of emotional beings? You must be AI.
Rigs said:
Well..if they can't get it anywhere else 6 weeks later, where else can a consumer get it?… that would be why you by the IP.
Okay, so netflix owns Jurassic Park IP, and the only place anybody can ever watch a Jurassic Park movie is on netflix. Are you raising all netflix rates $15/month for that privilege? And are you saying nobody could ever buy a digital copy of the movie to watch whenever they feel like?
That leads to the broader but important question of how much more do you think streaming services can raise their rates. I personally think the streaming services are at their limit for how much increases people will take before they start cutting back on how many they subscribe to.
Which I guess is the point. These streamers see that that is the endgame, so right now they're all trying to acquire as much valuable property as they can so that in the end they become the one streaming service that consumers subscribe to. The question you and I are arguing is this - how important to consumers is the immediacy of watching movies? I simply don't think it's as important as you do.
At the end of the day, watching movies, and watching them quickly after release, is not a necessity and therefore has a ceiling on the pricetag. It's worth it to pay extra a couple times during the year to go to the theater. But not worth an extra $15-20 a month on my subscription.
Rigs said:
The theatre experience exists because a certain 70% needs to see it immediately, in that venue.
That's not changing.
It's how you make money off the other 30%.
Agree to disagree on this point. Two weeks is pretty immediate, so I'd be willing to bet most of that 70% you're referring to could wait two weeks, dropping that seventy percent down to 30% for most movies and maybe as high as 50% for big blockbusters.
Either way this goes, i feel like physical media is still a smart move.
Netflix hasn't said, by the way, that they would put everything on your screen after 14 days.
They've just said that after 14 days, we think there is more money to be made elsewhere, which is why we want to buy this.
They've just said that after 14 days, we think there is more money to be made elsewhere, which is why we want to buy this.
Featured Stories
See All
13:27
1d ago
17k
Liucci joins TexAgs Live as Jay Bateman is headed to Kentucky
by Billy Liucci
18:09
1h ago
1.6k