Now Introducing HBO Max Classic

[Arachnerd]

Warner Bros. Discovery CFO: Restructuring, Write-Off Frenzy Is Over - Variety

2024 is the first year they can legally sell off the company.

 

[metaphysician]

And a more detailed update on Looney Tunes


"The “Looney Tunes” and “Flintstones” content was licensed to HBO Max from Warner Bros. under an intra-company deal. Those licensing agreements expired at the end of 2022 and HBO Max did not renew them, as it seeks to reduce content expenses. It’s unclear whether the “Looney Tunes” and “Flintstones” content that is no longer on HBO Max will be available other streaming platforms.

HBO Max’s removal of the “Looney Tunes” shorts was reported Dec. 31 by a Twitter account called The Cartoon News. In a follow-up post Monday, the account said without citing a source that the “Looney Tunes” clips were “removed temporarily due to a maintenance check to fix the photoshop titles” and that “they will be returning to HBO Max soon.” A source familiar with HBO Max told Variety that the “Looney Tunes” shorts will not, in fact, be coming back to the service."

I boggle at the insanity where they claim they want to "reduce expenses". . . by dropping shows where the only expense is money paid *to themselves*. By any rational standard, that's losing out on revenue to save *nothing*.

Of course, the answer is "WB is not a rationally designed and operated company". The different divisions probably *are* in warfare with each other, where paying money to another division isn't "accounting black magic", but a literal loss in budgetary power.

 

[metaphysician]

Maybe not enough people were watching them to make it worth it?

The thing is, those licensing fees weren't to an outside party, it was WB shuffling money from one account it owns, to another account it owns. They are only saving that internal money shuffling, at the cost of losing all the *actual* revenue it was bringing in.

Either WB is at war within itself, or else the claimed reason is entirely pretextual in the first place.

 

[Prison Mike]

What actual profit were those shows bringing in though? If they were actually making money off them I’m sure they would keep them, especially since they are so cash strapped. The shows they canceled were probably ones where the costs to keep them on exceeded any revenue they were making. Don’t confuse revenue for profit.

 

[Lily Adler]

Peacock Max...

 

[Sithborg]

The thing is, those licensing fees weren't to an outside party, it was WB shuffling money from one account it owns, to another account it owns. They are only saving that internal money shuffling, at the cost of losing all the *actual* revenue it was bringing in.

Either WB is at war within itself, or else the claimed reason is entirely pretextual in the first place.

Welcome to the fun of a multi-company umbrella. The major theme we have been hearing about WBD the whole time is that they are cash strapped. Even if it is under the same corporate umbrella, they still have to pay for the other division's content. The same applies to Disney and NBCUniversal and Paramount. On the macro scale, it really doesn't matter switching cash from one to another. But on the smaller scale, the more practical scale, it does.

A big refrain we have been hearing is that Zaslav doesn't want to pay residuals, which is why he is dumping content like crazy. Probably why TCM is about to be gutted as well. WBD as a whole, does not have the cash to pay for content, even the content they own.

 

[Asr]

WBD as a whole, does not have the cash to pay for content, even the content they own.

I honestly wouldn't mind if WBD just sells the entire HBO Max service to another studio or company at this point, especially if they need cash. I just want to be able to watch the content it had (and still has), I don't care who owns it.

 

[Still Wynning]

I honestly wouldn't mind if WBD just sells the entire HBO Max service to another studio or company at this point, especially if they need cash. I just want to be able to watch the content it had (and still has), I don't care who owns it.

I’ve said it before, but Apple TV+.

They are very good and the most sensible at picking/managing quality programming and showrunners/creators. Not every single show is good/great, but 8-9 times out of 10, you can usually expect quality. Also, they are the most drama free of any of the streaming services, as I haven’t heard anything regarding not paying their talent enough, mistreatment behind the scenes, swindling customers with underhanded practices (like unceremoniously raising prices and removing password sharing), etc., at least as far as I can tell. They would also do right by the animation side of things and give each of the animated shows their proper due, and not disregard it as “just something for kids”.

If they were able to do that, and still maintained their current price, they would absolutely own the streaming market.

 

[dark_b]

Cameron also discussed the downside of streaming and how that bubble, quickly inflated by the pandemic which kept everyone housebound for an extended period, has ‘burst’ in recent months:
“I feel like everyone got caught up [streaming] it when the pandemic hurt – it just didn’t hurt; it killed [cinemagoing]. We’re resurrecting it out of the grave now, [but] it killed [theaters] dead for almost a year.
Everybody had a great story for Wall Street about how they were going to create all this content, and from what I’ve seen from afar because I wasn’t directly in the game, it seemed like everyone was throwing stupid money at it to generate content and to try and create a new or constantly refreshing flow.
But it seems to me now the average viewer has to have eight or ten different subscriptions to see everything. So, it seems unsustainable on its face like a big Ponzi scheme, to me. I think there’s going to be some consolidation.”

 

[Iceman]

There’s a bit too much competition now for it to be convenient and make sense price wise for many consumers. Cable used to be super expensive but you were able to see everything so when Netflix came on the scene and getting most big things it was a huge difference. If it had stayed down to 3 big streaming companies competing it could have still been a huge net positive for the average consumer IMO but now I have to start a new sub for just one show that likely would have been on Netflix before.

 

[Filmfreak]

Cameron also discussed the downside of streaming and how that bubble, quickly inflated by the pandemic which kept everyone housebound for an extended period, has ‘burst’ in recent months:
“I feel like everyone got caught up [streaming] it when the pandemic hurt – it just didn’t hurt; it killed [cinemagoing]. We’re resurrecting it out of the grave now, [but] it killed [theaters] dead for almost a year.
Everybody had a great story for Wall Street about how they were going to create all this content, and from what I’ve seen from afar because I wasn’t directly in the game, it seemed like everyone was throwing stupid money at it to generate content and to try and create a new or constantly refreshing flow.
But it seems to me now the average viewer has to have eight or ten different subscriptions to see everything. So, it seems unsustainable on its face like a big Ponzi scheme, to me. I think there’s going to be some consolidation.”

He speaks the truth. People were insisting that cinema is dead and streaming is the future and yet the former is reviving and the latter has already started to crumble. How can one expect to raise enough subscriptions to make profit after spending billions in content, with fierce competition, where everyone and their mother has a platform now? Lower the prices and you lose revenue. Raise the prices and you will lose subscribers. It's just not sustainable anymore.

 

[Drizzle]

He's right but at the same time people aren't exactly going to movie theaters in droves like they used to. Sure, Avatar, Top Gun and the MCU are exceptions to the rule but then you look at The Fabelmans or Babylon which flopped at the box office, albeit for different reasons but still...you release either of those a decade ago and they would have done much better. People are now accustomed to waiting until a movie is on streaming since the window between theatrical and home release has shrunk exponentially over the past several years. I'm guilty of this myself. Even something like The Menu which did alright at the box office I feel has gotten a lot more attention now that it's on streaming.

 

[Prison Mike]

There’s a lot of movies out there currently in theaters that I want to see, but just at home. I just don’t get that “special feeling” of being at the theaters like I used to when I was younger.

 

[Sithborg]

Cameron also discussed the downside of streaming and how that bubble, quickly inflated by the pandemic which kept everyone housebound for an extended period, has ‘burst’ in recent months:
“I feel like everyone got caught up [streaming] it when the pandemic hurt – it just didn’t hurt; it killed [cinemagoing]. We’re resurrecting it out of the grave now, [but] it killed [theaters] dead for almost a year.
Everybody had a great story for Wall Street about how they were going to create all this content, and from what I’ve seen from afar because I wasn’t directly in the game, it seemed like everyone was throwing stupid money at it to generate content and to try and create a new or constantly refreshing flow.
But it seems to me now the average viewer has to have eight or ten different subscriptions to see everything. So, it seems unsustainable on its face like a big Ponzi scheme, to me. I think there’s going to be some consolidation.”

To be fair, so much of Hollywood economics is little more than money laundering.

He is right in that they were throwing absolutely stupid money to generate "content". Good side, it did get Benioff and Weiss off Star Wars.

 

[-Arya-]

He's right but at the same time people aren't exactly going to movie theaters in droves like they used to. Sure, Avatar, Top Gun and the MCU are exceptions to the rule but then you look at The Fabelmans or Babylon which flopped at the box office, albeit for different reasons but still...you release either of those a decade ago and they would have done much better. People are now accustomed to waiting until a movie is on streaming since the window between theatrical and home release has shrunk exponentially over the past several years. I'm guilty of this myself. Even something like The Menu which did alright at the box office I feel has gotten a lot more attention now that it's on streaming.

It’s mind blowing how fast stuff comes to VOD or streaming if it bombed. We’re talking a matter of weeks. Remember when it used to be 6 months for DVDs?

I wonder if studios will skip theatrical for non blockbusters altogether going forward

 

[Iceman]

He speaks the truth. People were insisting that cinema is dead and streaming is the future and yet the former is reviving and the latter has already started to crumble. How can one expect to raise enough subscriptions to make profit after spending billions in content, with fierce competition, where everyone and their mother has a platform now? Lower the prices and you lose revenue. Raise the prices and you will lose subscribers. It's just not sustainable anymore.

Streaming is around to stay IMO, just the weakest will die off with too many new entrants who can't offer the same level of service/value. Most of the world who can afford leisure can afford one small monthly payment to cover a large number of films and shows and doing it any other way (outside pirating) would cost much more, especially as you can still unsub from that one sub any time you are busy or can't afford it and can binge everything and then switch to another platform and start bingeing there. It's not all that uncommon when everyone discovers something that it suddenly gets overvalued until the market corrects to a sustainable level. Streaming is just an alternative that can coexist with cinema, which also won't be going anywhere.

 

[Filmfreak]

Streaming is around to stay IMO, just the weakest will die off with too many new entrants who can't offer the same level of service/value. Most of the world who can afford leisure can afford one small monthly payment to cover a large number of films and shows and doing it any other way (outside pirating) would cost much more, especially as you can still unsub from that one sub any time you are busy or can't afford it and can binge everything and then switch to another platform and start bingeing there. It's not all that uncommon when everyone discovers something that it suddenly gets overvalued until the market corrects to a sustainable level. Streaming is just an alternative that can coexist with cinema, which also won't be going anywhere.

I have no doubt that streaming will stay, but I also have no doubt that this level of spending will soon be over and like you said only the big ones will survive. I'm predicting a future of not only fewer platforms but one that focuses more on back catalogue titles and less on original exclusive content. Especially for blockbuster movies. It's the only sustainable way for both consumers and studios.

 

[Drizzle]

There’s a lot of movies out there currently in theaters that I want to see, but just at home. I just don’t get that “special feeling” of being at the theaters like I used to when I was younger.

Not only that but it's also getting more expensive to go to the movies when you factor in the cost of snacks too. That said, I did regret not seeing The Fabelmans and The Menu in theaters, especially the latter because that would have been fun with a packed house.

It’s mind blowing how fast stuff comes to VOD or streaming if it bombed. We’re talking a matter of weeks. Remember when it used to be 6 months for DVDs?

I wonder if studios will skip theatrical for non blockbusters altogether going forward

And even then, 5-6 months used to be on the shorter end of the window before 3-4 months between theatrical and DVD started to become the norm about 10-15 years ago. I remember the 8 month wait for The Two Towers DVD release being particularly agonizing. And going way back, I still remember being a kid and waiting a year or more for the VHS releases of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King and Jurassic Park.

 

[Prison Mike]

Both streamers and theaters need each other. It will become clearer this year and next year but once we’re at the 2018/2019 levels of theatrical releases, it will be survival of fittest because not all movies will be a box office smash. Those movies will find a second life on streaming. Streaming won’t be a substitute for theaters but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make movies just for streaming either. It would be nice if we had quality movies just for streaming, like that Chip n’ Dale movie on Disney+ last year.

 

[-Arya-]

My only real problem are with streaming exclusives like Knives Out 2 or Del Toro’s Pinocchio not having physical releases. I like to own movies I like. Netflix sometimes does those like with The Irishman but I doubt the 2 movies i mentioned above will get Blu-rays.

 

[CaptainWagner]

What actual profit were those shows bringing in though? If they were actually making money off them I’m sure they would keep them, especially since they are so cash strapped. The shows they canceled were probably ones where the costs to keep them on exceeded any revenue they were making. Don’t confuse revenue for profit.

I fail to see how the library of some of the most iconic cartoons of all time can NOT be seen as a boon to any streaming service. And even if they weren't drawing in customers, it doesn't matter, because they're part of the WB brand and huge pieces of cultural and industry history.

The problem is that Warner Brothers isn't being run by people who care about any of that stuff. None of this is art to them, none of it is "culturally important." These are soulless MBA suits, to them, everything is just "content," lifeless lines of data on a spreadsheet. These are the type of people who ruin thousands of lives shutting down profitable businesses just to make their charts look better. They don't give a **** about any of it, much less art, much less ANIMATION, which already has a hard enough time getting the film industry to take it seriously, much less people who don't take ANY film seriously.

 

[Arachnerd]

Couldn't have put it better.

 

[Drizzle]

My only real problem are with streaming exclusives like Knives Out 2 or Del Toro’s Pinocchio not having physical releases. I like to own movies I like. Netflix sometimes does those like with The Irishman but I doubt the 2 movies i mentioned above will get Blu-rays.

I wouldn't give up hope. The Power of the Dog got a Blu-ray release recently and that seems like much less likely of a choice than Glass Onion to get a physical release.

 

[-Arya-]

I wouldn't give up hope. The Power of the Dog got a Blu-ray release recently and that seems like much less likely of a choice than Glass Onion to get a physical release.

Fingers Crossed

 

[Prison Mike]

Looney Tunes isn’t disappearing off the face of the Earth. It will most likely be moved to their FAST service or maybe some other service altogether. All streaming services adds and removes content every month due to licensing agreements. The Looney Tunes/Flinstones case doesn’t seem that much different. It will eventually show up somewhere else.