Netflix acquiring Warner Bros & HBO Max

[Sketi]

My reddit feed is full of people having existential freak-outs about this being the end of the cinema going experience.

It's definitely not ideal given Warner Bros is the signature movie studio of the last 100 years and Netflix CEOs are vocally anti movie theatres.

My possibly naive view is that cinemas will always kick on in some capacity because there is still a market for it. Even if Warner Bros eventually stop rolling out movies in cinemas (baffling just leaving money on the table) then someone will simply fill that void.

Is this the beginning of the end for cinemas or just another reshuffle in a long line of corporate reshuffling?

 

[jb04]

Got a coy email this morning from Netflix acknowledging that HBO Max is part of this deal.

I'm sure if the content gets combined in the future, the new price would be more or less the price of both put together.

 

[spinynorman]

I was considering starting this thread so thanks Sketi - though I’m more pessimistic than you! That said, I agree that cinemas won't die, per se - watching a movie is best done as a communal experience after all, and anywhere you can get a blank wall and a projector there'll be space for it (shout out to the underground warehouse cinemas). Just as movies should be seen as being well more than just whatever the US studios are making, cinemas can be what you want them to be also.

That said, Netflix are pretty intent on destroying cinemas and amplifying streaming; already one of the quotes was how they think two weeks in a cinema before streaming is a "democratic" model, which can only get worse if that's their quotes on day one (funny how the democratic model is also the one that involves paying into the Netflix coffers). I also note that if Warner Brothers are one of the better studios for allowing their archives to be played at retrospective screenings, this will almost certainly get worse, which isn't great given Netflix have shown their relucatance to having anything made pre-2000 on their platform. When they now have exclusive rights to Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, and most of the films of Stanley Kubrick, Clint Eastwood and the non-public domain Charlie Chaplin films (absurd that they aren't all public domain but that's a different argument about the problems with intellectual property owned by these megacorporations).

Anyway, it's not like the people who own all this stuff being anti-art is new. I did find this section from Netflix' statement pretty funny, at least.



So exciting to see the Casablanca franchise take its next steps!

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

There's still a lot of water to go under the bridge before this merger is finalized, so I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. I don't think we'll see any meaningful changes to the current state of play until 2027, myself. I can understand Netflix's position on theatrical releases, as it costs studios millions to release a movie widely in theatres. I can see a future where there's a limited cinema release for Netflix/WB movies, followed a few weeks later by a release on the streaming platform.

The only part of this merger that concerns me is the future of HBO. I can't see Netflix really keeping it, and the quality of those programs will be lost to us. Or they'll make HBO a Netflix subchannel that just shows current content, but the writers/producers who drive HBO programs will probably lose their jobs anyway.

 

[Sketi]

I was considering starting this thread so thanks Sketi - though I’m more pessimistic than you! That said, I agree that cinemas won't die, per se - watching a movie is best done as a communal experience after all, and anywhere you can get a blank wall and a projector there'll be space for it (shout out to the underground warehouse cinemas). Just as movies should be seen as being well more than just whatever the US studios are making, cinemas can be what you want them to be also.

That said, Netflix are pretty intent on destroying cinemas and amplifying streaming; already one of the quotes was how they think two weeks in a cinema before streaming is a "democratic" model, which can only get worse if that's their quotes on day one (funny how the democratic model is also the one that involves paying into the Netflix coffers). I also note that if Warner Brothers are one of the better studios for allowing their archives to be played at retrospective screenings, this will almost certainly get worse, which isn't great given Netflix have shown their relucatance to having anything made pre-2000 on their platform. When they now have exclusive rights to Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, and most of the films of Stanley Kubrick, Clint Eastwood and the non-public domain Charlie Chaplin films (absurd that they aren't all public domain but that's a different argument about the problems with intellectual property owned by these megacorporations).

Anyway, it's not like the people who own all this stuff being anti-art is new. I did find this section from Netflix' statement pretty funny, at least.

View attachment 2492656

So exciting to see the Casablanca franchise take its next steps!

That's a good point about retrospective screenings.

Look, the news is pretty terrible and my heart sank a bit when I heard it was going to be Netflix and not Paramount.

I was just trying to offer a counter argument to some of the wild doomsaying I have seen, probably as my own way of processing as I do care about the future of movie theatres.

Movie going seems to be in a pretty positive place here in Melbourne (not exactly a big sample size), judging by the amount of new places opening up. I think at the very least we will still continue to get plenty of indie and mid budget stuff coming out.

If it creates a gap in the market then surely someone will exploit that.

 

[dumb]

i'm more of an observer than having any real involvement. we have netflix, but i don't actively choose to watch anything, though watch something my wife wants to watch once a week or so. on her own, my wife seems to get enjoyment out of it. she also probably spends > %50 time watching foreign content.

i have a complicated relationship with cinema. very little i would choose to watch appears on offer in my locale. parenting and work makes a mess of the time i could devote. i'm also a devotee of physical media, and happy to wait for stuff to appear in that format (assuming it does). there is at least one movie club i can think of in my vicinity that do screenings that might align with my tastes occasionally but again, time issue. after seeing the dross typically on offer locally, i'm not in the habit of checking regularly for evening screenings when i could go. i'd be happy to go on my own but i'm disenfranchised.

so as only an occasional moviegoer, warner bros type content not appearing in cinema would make very little difference to me. it chapter one might have been a movie from WB that i seen in cinemas but i can't name anything else i've seen, i can't even name anything WB do without a google search. as for hbo, i already have my blu-ray GoT 8 season boxset and 4 seasons of true detective on dvd. i'm curious what i may be able to watch in the future with the acquisition. i'm also curious as to the effect on netflix subscription cost.

older movies - i'm saddened at the lack of access streaming companies give to these, like those already mentioned. i understand there's little business incentive. i'm guilt free when acquiring these through alternate methods.
streaming companies are not the champion older movies deserve. the 'internet archive' website is, though.

i'd be looking very closely at whether any gaps were filled by lower budget or more independent movies appearing in cinemas. it might motivate me to visit.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

The great one has shared his thoughts:

 

[Ry009]

Paramount coming in with a hostile bid for the whole lot:

Paramount launches $108.4bn hostile bid for Warner Bros Discovery

Paramount’s bid for the entire company counters $82.7bn Netflix deal for WBD’s studio and streaming operation

www.theguardian.com

 

[crafty_bernardo]

Please come in clutch Paramount



Sure Ted sure

 

[Sketi]

Please come in clutch Paramount

View attachment 2493398

Sure Ted sure

Coming from the guy who claimed Barbeneimer would have been as big on streaming, and that his son watched Lawrence of Arabia on his phone...

 

[spinynorman]

Please come in clutch Paramount

View attachment 2493398

Sure Ted sure

Sadly I'm not sure Paramount is better, owned as it is by the Ellisons with Jared Kushner as a co-funder. Given stories about them personally making movies at Trump's behest (thankfully Rush Hour 4, but that's not necessarily where it will end) and that they're blacklisting every actor who's spoken out for Palestine, I don't think they should be owning 25% of Hollywood production.

There's not really a good outcome here, unfortunately!

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Sadly I'm not sure Paramount is better, owned as it is by the Ellisons with Jared Kushner as a co-funder. Given stories about them personally making movies at Trump's behest (thankfully Rush Hour 4, but that's not necessarily where it will end) and that they're blacklisting every actor who's spoken out for Palestine, I don't think they should be owning 25% of Hollywood production.

There's not really a good outcome here, unfortunately!

Yeah from a purely "keeps movies in the cinema" point of view (potentially) paramount is the better bet but thats based solely on fact Ellison has bankrolled Tom Cruises movies for a while now, I dont think hes given any other indication he loves cinema.

The fact Trump is pushing hard for Ellison to win (and with today's revelations of who is financing the bid - kushner and the Saudi sovereign wealth funds) its pretty clear there isnt any "good guy" in this battle.
But I guess theres never been good guys in charge of movie studios, as they pointed out in a recent Big Pic podcast, the studio being fought over is named after Jack Warner after all.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

Sadly I'm not sure Paramount is better, owned as it is by the Ellisons with Jared Kushner as a co-funder. Given stories about them personally making movies at Trump's behest (thankfully Rush Hour 4, but that's not necessarily where it will end) and that they're blacklisting every actor who's spoken out for Palestine, I don't think they should be owning 25% of Hollywood production.

There's not really a good outcome here, unfortunately!

I’m only pushing purely from a cinema point of view. Paramount as you say worked with Cruise then there’s Nolan too. So from that they value theatre and making consistently good movies. Hollywood is already run by Jews so I don’t think Paramount having more market share is going to change the issues With Palestine or make it worse

 

[joey_jo_jo]

At the end of day having one big giant media conglomerate isn't a good thing whether its Paramaount/WB or Netflix/WB, you need diversity in ownership for a healthy media environment.

As much as everyone is now pointing out that the Ellisons are in bed with Trump, Zazlav and his key shareholder backer John Malone have been greasing the wheels with both the Biden Administration and now Trump for a while because you need Govt to sign off on these sorts of mega acquisitions due to the threat of a monopoly.

 

[Satan]

the kush and his arab mates are backing paramount. Watch Trump go over the top to stop netflix

 

[SnakeMan86]

At the end of day having one big giant media conglomerate isn't a good thing whether its Paramaount/WB or Netflix/WB, you need diversity in ownership for a healthy media environment.

As much as everyone is now pointing out that the Ellisons are in bed with Trump, Zazlav and his key shareholder backer John Malone have been greasing the wheels with both the Biden Administration and now Trump for a while because you need Govt to sign off on these sorts of mega acquisitions due to the threat of a monopoly.

Whilst true, and competition is good for business.. As a consumer its a nightmare. We are over inflated with streaming options and TV shows/Movies are so widespread across all of them and cost of living is already high.

So many Movies or TV shows are tied to one streaming service.
The Boys - Need Amazon Prime
Stranger Things? Need Netflix
True Detective? Need HBO Max
Severance? Ted Lasso? The Studio? Needed Apple TV
Most Marvel? Need Disney+
Yellowjackets? Tulsa King? Paramount +
Etc etc

As a consumer, mergers would bring down the overall cost of streaming and make programs more accessible.

 

[Satan]

Whilst true, and competition is good for business.. As a consumer its a nightmare. We are over inflated with streaming options and TV shows/Movies are so widespread across all of them and cost of living is already high.

So many Movies or TV shows are tied to one streaming service.
The Boys - Need Amazon Prime
Stranger Things? Need Netflix
True Detective? Need HBO Max
Severance? Ted Lasso? The Studio? Needed Apple TV
Most Marvel? Need Disney+
Yellowjackets? Tulsa King? Paramount +

Etc etc

then there is european/ english/ socceroos soccer streaming

epl went from optus to foxtel to optus and now stan sport

champions league been on more services than i had hot dinners

glad sbs has the world cup , a couple of world cups ago? optus streaming blew up and sbs stepped up showing bonus games

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Whilst true, and competition is good for business.. As a consumer its a nightmare. We are over inflated with streaming options and TV shows/Movies are so widespread across all of them and cost of living is already high.

So many Movies or TV shows are tied to one streaming service.
The Boys - Need Amazon Prime
Stranger Things? Need Netflix
True Detective? Need HBO Max
Severance? Ted Lasso? The Studio? Needed Apple TV
Most Marvel? Need Disney+
Yellowjackets? Tulsa King? Paramount +
Etc etc

As a consumer, mergers would bring down the overall cost of streaming and make programs more accessible.

I was looking at it more from a content creation perspective not streaming perspective.


I agree with you that its a real pain in the arse atm with streaming but I think we are already starting to see what happend with music streaming happen to video streaming.
After an initial disruption and multiple services its basically gone down to a handful of music streamers (mainly Spotify and then apple/YouTube). With music studios/artists licensing their content to all the streaming services.

When the video streaming boom first started every studio (except sony) wanted to create their own streaming service with their IP shown exclusively by their own service. We are already seeing a change with WB and other film studios licensing content to other streamers. Hopefully we reach equilibrium again in near future.

On the content creation side I believe the more avenues for movies /tv shows to be made the better.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

then there is european/ english/ socceroos soccer streaming

epl went from optus to foxtel to optus and now stan sport

champions league been on more services than i had hot dinners

glad sbs has the world cup , a couple of world cups ago? optus streaming blew up and sbs stepped up showing bonus games

Yeah the current landscape with sport is terrible. I hate news corp but man I miss every sport being available on the one reliable cable/satellite service.

 

[Cleavy]

As a consumer, mergers would bring down the overall cost of streaming and make programs more accessible.

OR they have to make their money back on the merger, so prices go up...

 

[SnakeMan86]

OR they have to make their money back on the merger, so prices go up...

I more think, if im paying $25 for one and $15 for another.. Sure the $25 will go up to $30ish.. but ill still be saving

 

[Cleavy]

I more think, if im paying $25 for one and $15 for another.. Sure the $25 will go up to $30ish.. but ill still be saving

or they maintain them both in the short term, and then you're up for $30+ and $20+

 

[dumb]

the kush and his arab mates are backing paramount. Watch Trump go over the top to stop netflix

yeah, unfortunately quite interesting. if you have concerns about the direction of american politics then it might be a first move to control a cultural behemoth. there's owning the news media, but 'hollywood' and celebrities aren't yet captured like they'd need to be.
then again, it could be purely business and mr trump never met a dollar he wouldn't want his family to have.

 

[Nugett]

The problem with the big five film studios and I’ll add Netflix to that as well, is for the most part they are no longer pushing boundaries per se as they are catering to a society that they don’t want to offend. So the movies they make are basically the same movie. As they are mainly comic book movies. Disney/Marvel. Sony Spider-Man. Warner Bros DC. Book series that were successful. Warner Bros Harry Potter. Lions Gate (Not a big 5) Hunger Games. Sony Jason Bourne. Or they make remakes of other successful movies or tv series. Think Mission Impossible, Charlie’s Angels, Oceans 11, The A Team, Get Smart ect.

It’s hard to think of films like Pulp Fiction, Falling Down, American History X, Donnie Darko, The Blair Witch, Mad Max, let alone a film like a Clockwork Orange would get made in today’s environment. A huge part of that is people wanting to be offended by everything, rather than enjoying the story being told, or understanding the movies message. So the studios avoid anything that could cause controversy. Where as in the past, there were more independent studios that would take that risk. There was also the security of video, DVD and Blu Ray sales and rentals, where they could recover costs if need be. So there was more room to take risks.

With Disney no longer distributing physical media in Australia, along with other countries, Netflix very rarely distributes physical media, as both companies are trying to monopolise the streaming market, by having exclusive content. So with Netflix buying out HBO, I can envision that HBO content also being made unavailable in physical form, forcing people to subscribe to their streaming service, to watch their programming.

So with mostly inferior content being made, with the odd “must watch” and the feeling of being forced to subscribe to their streaming service, is not a good thing, as it limits people’s choices of peoples viewing choices. $15-$30 a month for 1 service, where you are only renting what you watch, is borderline totalitarian.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

What does this mean for The Batman: Part 2?