• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

0h-so-Cold

Alt Account
Banned
Dec 2, 2020
803
I'm just still baffled by the sheer amount of people side with the megacorp in this or saying this is a win, all WB had to do was to compensate the talent, actors and crews (do people really think everyone in Hollywood are millionaires, even people like editors, screenwriters, make-up artists etc) and inform them of what was happening beforehand and besides a few minor things, we'd still likely be getting these via on-demand or another form at some point, there was no need for WB to screw over their creatives and partners like this, how is this so hard to understand?
I agree WB could have played this differently and give their production companies a heads up and some compensation for the shift in whatever losses they would incur to make more profit happen.

But as a distributor and content holder operating in a pandemic stricken world, I understand their decision to offer another avenue of revenue. The theatre industry will not be sustainable as it was before in profit for awhile, if ever.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,836
Nolan is not all Directors or all people against this or being screwed by this, I don't get, when does Nolan being a prick suddenly make this acceptable.

When WB bribed them with access to movies in their home is when it became acceptable. It's amazing how easily people are bought off when they get something like movies when it's at the expense of other people.
 

Baccus

Banned
Dec 4, 2018
5,307
I understand the need for a change but ... Why weren't the actual people consulted? Maybe they would have gotten some good ideas? Reeks of inflated management.
 

Rogue74

Member
Nov 13, 2017
1,757
Miami, FL
Yes, they fucked up the execution, but the consumer won here. I am still very happy and excited this is happening.

Consumers never completely win. Mega corps will always put profit first.

Big budget blockbusters can't survive just being part of a monthly subscription plan because the monthly cost gives the consumer the right to watch everything on the platform. Wheras a movie ticket or blu ray purchase is specific to a title. They can easily see what is the return on investment for a film. Not so much with streaming.

What this means is that if they determine that the data indicates most would rather watch a new film at home given the option, they will charge a premium to let you stream the new movie for the first couple of months and then it joins the general catalog available to all in the regular subscription tier. But they will make up the lost revenue somehow. You can count on that.

This is just a test. Timed exclusivity will still be a thing because there is money in it. They just haven't quite figured out how to implement it yet.
 

Autumn

Avenger
Apr 1, 2018
6,324
The idea that there's a large pool of talent that WB can easily shift nine digit productions to is pretty amazing. There's a reason successful directors have so much influence. Hiring the wrong one can be massively expensive.
But that's not the future. Sure the big studios will still make blockbusters, but most of their product with streaming will be lower budget films and series. As a service you need quantity. Also WB is one of the last studios that gives their creatives more control. It's no longer the norm. Look at the producer deals WB does compared to Disney. You are better off with brands than with creatives. Actors no longer get the profits TV actors got a decade ago. Movie actors are just next in line. It's already happening that's why you get so many actor/producers combos. Netflix pays peanuts outside a few big names. Royalties have shrunk and studios will only cut more people and do more with less. With one "nine digit production" you can get a slate of content to keep people paying for a whole year and not just one month to watch Dune.
 

INST

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,644
The consumer won't be winning much when WB ceases to be a talent/creative-first studio. Which it is will well on its way.

I'm curious tho(genuinely), where do they go? WB been the talent studio as you said but there ain't that many...I guess Blumhouse but then you'll have the budgetary constraints. Disney is...well Disney. No luck there. Universal? Sony?

Ironically they would need to sign up for Netflix or the like who does not mind spending the money but they could just stay with WB and build on an existing relationship and make new deals for a post Covid world.
 
OP
OP
Schlorgan

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
I'm curious tho(genuinely), where do they go? WB been the talent studio as you said but there ain't that many...I guess Blumhouse but then you'll have the budgetary constraints. Disney is...well Disney. No luck there. Universal? Sony?

Ironically they would need to sign up for Netflix or the like who does not mind spending the money but they could just stay with WB and build on an existing relationship and make new deals for a post Covid world.
WB just demonstrated that previously signed deals are worthless and can be discarded in an instant without notice. Why would creators put any faith in future deals with them?
 

hiredhand

Member
Feb 6, 2019
3,151
I'm curious tho(genuinely), where do they go? WB been the talent studio as you said but there ain't that many...I guess Blumhouse but then you'll have the budgetary constraints. Disney is...well Disney. No luck there. Universal? Sony?

Ironically they would need to sign up for Netflix or the like who does not mind spending the money but they could just stay with WB and build on an existing relationship and make new deals for a post Covid world.
They could go to China. They welcomed Renny Harlin like he was some sort of action film god. I'm sure someone like Davis Yates could get a very good deal there. Sure there is some censorship but most blockbuster are anyway made to be China-friendly so there wouldn't be that much change.
 

Freddy=Legend

Drive-in Mutant
Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,125
...you think directors are the bad guys here?

The way people are drawing the battle lines on this is wild.

You are severely underestimating how anti-theater a vocal amount of people are here. And how much convenance for them outweighs the effects it has on people from directors, to crew members....all the way down to the people working in said theater.
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
You are severely underestimating how anti-theater a vocal amount of people are here. And how much convenance for them outweighs the effects it has on people from directors, to crew members....all the way down to the people working in said theater.
You severely overestimate how many people are going to run back to the theater after covid. It's not going to be near the numbers it use to be and theaters and movie companies are going to have to adapt.
 

INST

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,644
WB just demonstrated that previously signed deals are worthless and can be discarded in an instant without notice. Why would creators put any faith in future deals with them?

Tbf the catalyst to that was a once in a lifetime pandemic and being in uncharted territory. And there is of course no guarantee that other studios would actually be better for them.
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
You severely overestimate how many people are going to run back to the theater after covid. It's not going to be near the numbers it use to be and theaters and movie companies are going to have to adapt.
Nah, I disagree, I think industries like theaters, restaurants, etc. will bounce back relatively quickly. It's a just a matter if they can survive the winter.
 

Gartooth

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,440
I think experimenting with the theatrical model is smart thinking along with different ways of delivering movies than before due to decreasing box office returns in the years pre-COVID. But the way they've handled this seems to have been a disaster with all their business partners.

Very curious if theyre about to walk back any of these movies coming to HBO Max after the announcement.
 

bluexy

Comics Enabler & Freelance Games Journalist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
14,517
Can someone actually quantify the tangible ways this hurts the director/talent/film crew? I don't really understand that aspect of the issue.
 
OP
OP
Schlorgan

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
Tbf the catalyst to that was a once in a lifetime pandemic and being in uncharted territory. And there is of course no guarantee that other studios would actually be better for them.
Disney communicated with creators before deciding how to handle their rollout of theatrical movies to streaming and paid them out accordingly before making those announcements, WB didn't.
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
Nah, I disagree, I think industries like theaters, restaurants, etc. will bounce back relatively quickly. It's a just a matter if they can survive the winter.
Restaurants and the such yes but theaters na with streaming being more day and date they will need to adapt and if they don't than they won't survive. It sucks but I know for most movies I have very little interest in going to the theater anymore going forward and I was going multiple times a month before.
 

Justin Bailey

BackOnline
Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,480
I love my streaming options, but I'm not sure this will be good for consumers in the long term. We might have seen the end of big budget blockbuster movies.
 

Freddy=Legend

Drive-in Mutant
Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,125
Can someone actually quantify the tangible ways this hurts the director/talent/film crew? I don't really understand that aspect of the issue.

For one, many directors & talent make a good chunk of their money off of the back end of box office performance. As far as film crews go, less work means less jobs. Lower budgets mean lower paying jobs. If WB "values" the movie at a certain price, then said artists may not be compensated anywhere close to what could have been originally agreed upon.
 

Riddler

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,780
Music industry changed and became more pro-consumer so I welcome the movie industry changing to be more pro-consumer.
 

PhoncipleBone

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,338
Kentucky, USA
WB doing self dealing on the movies hurts the compensation the talent gets as well. IIRC self dealing was a big part of the Bones lawsuit too.
 

hiredhand

Member
Feb 6, 2019
3,151
It's funny how half the user's here turn to megacorporation fanboys when their shitty business manoeuvres directly benefit them. Also see threads about Disney buying Fox.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
You are severely underestimating how anti-theater a vocal amount of people are here. And how much convenance for them outweighs the effects it has on people from directors, to crew members....all the way down to the people working in said theater.
Hardly surprising it's the same mindset that defends crunch because I want my fucking game right now
 

0h-so-Cold

Alt Account
Banned
Dec 2, 2020
803
I love my streaming options, but I'm not sure this will be good for consumers in the long term. We might have seen the end of big budget blockbuster movies.
How? Netflix and Amazon and Apple has shown that they can payout for $200+ million movie and TV streaming productions just the same as WB and Disney, Sony does with theatrical films...yes?
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
Can someone actually quantify the tangible ways this hurts the director/talent/film crew? I don't really understand that aspect of the issue.

You're an actor

you contract says you get made X base and then a % of box office


WB just said there's no box office, but WB will take all the US revenue from streaming subs for your movie, and pay you nothing.


Better yet you're a producer who footed 75% of the budget of a movie, WB paid 25% then says we control the release and puts it on their service where they get 100% of the money and you get fuck all for a movie you paid 75% of
 
OP
OP
Schlorgan

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
You're an actor

you contract says you get made X base and then a % of box office


WB just said there's no box office, but WB will take all the US revenue from streaming subs for your movie, and pay you nothing.


Better yet you're a producer who footed 75% of the budget of a movie, WB paid 25% then says we control the release and puts it on their service where they get 100% of the money and you get fuck all for a movie you paid 75% of
Also they didn't tell you they were going to do this before they did it.
 

Riddler

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,780
Didn't that come at the expense of screwing over smaller music artists though?

Well Lars did try to fight the change but it did come and yes it was harder for smaller artist but I argue that we wouldn't have new ways for them to flourish. For example Sound Cloud,etc...

Change is always hard.
 

Justin Bailey

BackOnline
Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,480
How? Netflix and Amazon and Apple has shown that they can payout for $200+ million movie and TV streaming productions just the same as WB and Disney, Sony does with theatrical films...yes?
I think those guys would rather invest the $100 millions in a series vs one-time blockbuster movies. I know currently there have been discussions around those guys buying some movies that have already been made (like the new Bond film), but I think going forward the incentive would be for smaller budget movies and larger budget "binge" shows.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,983
Consumers: Haha yes, screw the competition. More convenience for me.

Also Consumers: Why the hell is HBO raising the price to $70 a month? Monopolies are bad! Why did no one speak out?
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,836
Well Lars did try to fight the change but it did come and yes it was harder for smaller artist but I argue that we wouldn't have new ways for them to flourish. For example Sound Cloud,etc...

Change is always hard.

So you welcome change that benefits you at the expense of other people. Kinda like, a fuck you got mine, and let them figure out how to make it work as long as I benefit. Change isn't always for the better; change can be for the worst while other people pocket money from that change at the expense of others.

Man people can be awfully short sighted. It's just like how Amazon dominates now and exploits their warehouse workers to make sure you can get an item on the same day and how many businesses they decimated all because people were lured in with cheaper prices which have now disappeared. How did Amazon get to where they were and the market position that they were in? Because consumers were short sighted and only saw what benefited them immediately and didn't see how their actions would impact people over the long term.

But hey, you get movies for the next year without having to step out the door, totally worth the long term ramifications that people aren't thinking about.
 

Riddler

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,780
I love my streaming options, but I'm not sure this will be good for consumers in the long term. We might have seen the end of big budget blockbuster movies.

Ummm..Netflix,Hulu,Apple,Crunchyroll even! All showed they can offer "Big budget" studio offerings for live action, musical,animated feature.

One of my favourite movies this year Mank came from Netflix.
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
Restaurants and the such yes but theaters na with streaming being more day and date they will need to adapt and if they don't than they won't survive. It sucks but I know for most movies I have very little interest in going to the theater anymore going forward and I was going multiple times a month before.
That's your personal anecdote. You think that people won't go and see Black Panther 2, if it's only in theaters? There's a reason why Disney refuses to put Black Widow on Disney+
 

Justin Bailey

BackOnline
Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,480
Ummm..Netflix,Hulu,Apple,Crunchyroll even! All showed they can offer "Big budget" studio offerings for live action, musical,animated feature.

One of my favourite movies this year Mank came from Netflix.
Mank had a $20-30 million budget. I am talking about $300 million budget movies and such. I think the incentive going forward would be to invest that kind of money in a series vs a one-time blockbuster movie.

I'm not saying Netflix and the like can't put out good movies. I am solely talking about expensive, blockbuster, spectacle type movies.