What can DC/WB do now to move forward? Is there hope?

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the end of the day, the viewership for the DC TV shows is basically a drop in the bucket in comparison to the amount of people who see these movies and the amount of people needed to see them to make them successful.

The last Supergirl episode pulled in only about 2.66 million viewers. Just saying. Getting worked up about how a TV cuts off a film at the knees is just false. The TV shows are hardly undercutting the movies. The movies simply do that on their own.
 
I never stated that the Flash TV show should be canceled, and I definitely don't think Grant can be a movie actor, but there has to be a way to have TV and movies without conflicts. I still question why Ezra is Barry Allen and not Wally West seeing as how his personality fits more with the JLU Flash.
And as for Superman, Snyder and co were working to show people a different Superman ala the comics and the 90s TV shows and I support that decision. But on TV, as always, they go back to the lame Christopher Reeves chariacature of Superman and Clark. To me that is WB having their cake and eating it to; they want a more realistic human Superman that will be more successful than Singers rehash then instead of supporting their request for that more human Superman they do the same ole song and dance on TV.
Maybe I'm too sensitive because I am tired of pot shots at DCEU Superman, but it seems like some of WBs decisions cut their people off at the knees. And it goes beyond the actors but to their directors as well.
I guess it shouldn't really matter because WB is never going to be loyal to one universe at a time because they will always have movies TV and DVDs at the same time.

Yeah in YOUR opinion! Please make sure that it is clear next time you make such a subjective statement and pass it on as a fact.
See for me Chris Reeve's superman had more charisma and charm in his fake S curl than Cavill's realistic, human superman had in it's entire 2 movie (5 and a half) run.

I personally really liked Hoechlyn's superman but I don't want to see a CW series about superman because I just don't think they're good enough to be honest. The silly romantic melodramas that seem to go nowhere and the overtly long 20+ episode seasons only serve to prolong these unnecessary story elements IMO.
 
I
And as for Superman, Snyder and co were working to show people a different Superman ala the comics and the 90s TV shows and I support that decision. But on TV, as always, they go back to the lame Christopher Reeves chariacature of Superman and Clark. To me that is WB having their cake and eating it to; they want a more realistic human Superman that will be more successful than Singers rehash then instead of supporting their request for that more human Superman they do the same ole song and dance on TV.

1. Tyler's Superman was basically 2000's Superman with only a dash of Chris Reeve in there.

2. Let's not make the implication that Chris Reeve's Superman wasn't reflective of the comics. Superman in the comics didn't start with John Bryne.

3. Supergirl is a light hearted show to begin with. They were never going to do a Snyder esque Superman.

You're complaining about a version of Superman that is only getting, so far, a two episode appearance on a CW show, when you've gotten two films of the Superman you prefer, with one more coming next year.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'm pretty sure WB, the studio, didn't specifically request that SG feature a more lighthearted Superman. That doesn't even make sense.
 
Also I can't reiterate this enough, but "divided fan loyalties" implies that the DC movies would have better reception were it not for TV counterparts. That's flat out untrue.

Either people like something or they don't.
 
Yeah, wouldn't you want to see more of something (or, in this case, someone) that you like? Insisting that the opposite is true is like saying that people avoid buying burgers at fancy restaurants just because they have easy access to Five Guys.
 
What about what they do to their directors?
It is nor just the actors or just Superman!
It is Zack and David as well as what the studio did to their projects after the fact. The issue I am raising is not just about the actors but about WB doing one thing or asking for one thing and then not supporting it fully.
I will drop the Superman angle because the show is a light weight, fluffy clouds and rainbows show and that's the kind of characters they will have; in addition I conceded that I'm probably overly sensitive to the issue. Despite the fact that er have all seen divided loyalties between Grant and Ezra now Henry and Tyler.
But still my biggest issue is that WB doesnt seem to stand behind their decisions.
 
Last edited:
And people here keep mentioning the ATT thing; can someone explain the WWWWW of this?
 
And people here keep mentioning the ATT thing; can someone explain the WWWWW of this?

AT&T (the wireless provider and telephone company) has agreed in principle to purchase Time Warner for $85 billion dollars

Time Warner is the parent company of numerous entertainment properties like HBO, the Turner cable channels - like TNT and TBS, Warner Bros, and DC Comics

it would be the biggest such acquisition since Comcast bought Universal/NBC a few years back
 
It's Official: AT&T Buys Time Warner for $85 Billion
The completed deal was announced Saturday.
Paul Bond & Georg Szalai said:
Time Warner has agreed to be acquired by AT&T in a stock and cash transaction that values the entertainment conglomerate at $86 billion.

Investors will get up to $110 per share of Time Warner, roughly a 40 percent premium to where the stock traded last week, before news leaked that the two companies were in advanced talks. The deal still needs some final details hammered out between both sides, and may be officially announced before the end of the weekend, the person said.

The boards of both companies came to a preliminary agreement during meetings anchored in New York on Saturday, the person said. The agreement was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The combination of AT&T and Time Warner will create a media-telecommunications firm that is much larger than Comcast, the giant cable TV distributor that purchased NBCUniversal five years ago. It also makes AT&T a major media power player after its acquisition last year of DirecTV for $48.5 billion.

But the provider of phone services wanted to shore up its thrust into entertainment with a steady pipeline of TV shows and movies that it owns. Some say, though, that snapping up Time Warner may be a risky strategy.

"Creating value by acquiring content is tricky," Cowen analyst Doug Creutz said. "Marrying content and distribution has been tried several times in the past, with generally poor results. We view Comcast-NBCU as the exception that proves the rule."

As of Monday, the two biggest market caps among the seven entertainment conglomerates were Comcast at $154 billion and Walt Disney at $150 billion. A combined AT&T-Time Warner would boast a market cap north of $305 billion, making it a more valuable company than Comcast and Disney, combined.

Earlier on Saturday, Donald Trump expressed he would not approve the AT&T and Time Warner deal if he was elected president. "Deals like this destroy democracy," said Trump during a rally in Gettysburg, PA where he discussed what he would do in his first 100 days of presidency. The Republican nominee also said he would like to break up the Comcast/NBC Universal merger.

The AT&T deal would be subject to regulatory approval.

Analysts seem mostly confident that an AT&T-Time Warner merger will survive regulatory scrutiny, though there are some lawmakers who are likely to object — including some who approved of Comcast-NBCU but now regret their decision.

"At best, we believe a lengthy antitrust review of AT&T-Time Warner with an uncertain outcome may give both sides pause on considering a combination," said Credit Suisse analyst Omar Sheikh on Friday, prior to the board meetings.

Both sides are also closing in on a new management structure that could help AT&T absorb Time Warner's sprawling film and television assets. Former Fox top executive Peter Chernin is expected to take a major role overseeing Time Warner once the deal is completed, according to industry sources on Friday. The formalization of that role may take time to crystallize, as the proposed merger — assuming it passes federal muster — would be about a year off.

Chernin, 65, is said to be uninterested in a day-to-day executive job, but that does not preclude a significant role overseeing the combined company's content operations. or years, Chernin has been deeply involved in the media world — at times working closely with AT&T — while keeping a fairly low profile. He runs his eponymous production company, investing here, advising there, potentially putting himself in a position to run a media giant but never alighting anywhere.

He declined to comment.


Peter Chernin Poised for Top Time Warner Role if $85 Billion AT&T Deal Closes
The former Fox executive is said to be interested in a significant role overseeing the combined company's content operations.
Kim Masters said:
Prior to Otter and the Chernin Group, best known as the company behind the rejuvenated Planet of the Apes film franchise, Chernin was an executive at Murdoch’s News Corp. for two decades. Under Murdoch, Chernin was regarded as one of the most powerful executives in Hollywood. When he ran Fox Broadcasting, he took it to No. 1 in the 18-49 demographic, and when he ran 20th Century Fox Television it became the top supplier of shows to all networks.

As head of Fox Filmed Entertainment, he oversaw production of Titanic and Avatar, which remain the top two films in history in terms of worldwide box office, combining for nearly $5 billion.
 
Is there any chance federal government or FTC could kill this merger? FYI, the government killed the AT&T and T-Mobile merger in 2011. However, that was two major telephone coverage companies.

This would be telecommunications buying a multimedia conglomerate so I guess it's not the same as T-mobile, but still.
 
Yeah but politicians say a lot of things and don't follow through. Also, would the President have the power to veto a merger like this?
 
Originally Posted by Kim Masters
Prior to Otter and the Chernin Group, best known as the company behind the rejuvenated Planet of the Apes film franchise, Chernin was an executive at Murdoch’s News Corp. for two decades. Under Murdoch, Chernin was regarded as one of the most powerful executives in Hollywood. When he ran Fox Broadcasting, he took it to No. 1 in the 18-49 demographic, and when he ran 20th Century Fox Television it became the top supplier of shows to all networks.

As head of Fox Filmed Entertainment, he oversaw production of Titanic and Avatar, which remain the top two films in history in terms of worldwide box office, combining for nearly $5 billion.

Ugh, success of Titanic and Avatar is because of James Cameron, not some Fox CEO, though they could be credited for supporting his vision.
 
Yeah but politicians say a lot of things and don't follow through. Also, would the President have the power to veto a merger like this?

Nope, the FTC and probably SEC (as ATT is a public company) have that call

The President can certainly voice concern about it, but thats really it
 
Won't the president appoint a new FTC and SEC president? I'm guessing it will come up before deciding who gets the job.

Also, Tim Kaine, the Clinton VP candidate, said he also had concerns about this deal. Some other Senators and House members have made statements against this as well, we'll see what happens but I wouldn't call it a done deal yet.
 
Ugh, success of Titanic and Avatar is because of James Cameron, not some Fox CEO, though they could be credited for supporting his vision.

Warner's whole movie division has been limping through the woods for years. Even if you want to put aside the divisive reception to BVS and Suicide Squad (which still did well at the box office despite negative reviews), they've had a high profile string of bombs and disappointments like Tarzan. They need someone who can actually do a good job overseeing the movie divisions, and its clear Kevin Tsujihara isn't that guy.
 
Won't the president appoint a new FTC and SEC president? I'm guessing it will come up before deciding who gets the job.

Also, Tim Kaine, the Clinton VP candidate, said he also had concerns about this deal. Some other Senators and House members have made statements against this as well, we'll see what happens but I wouldn't call it a done deal yet.
Yeah but unless they are spearheading some bill or law to prevent the sale or a part of some SEC or FTC committee, not sure how hey can prevent it.
 
Yeah but unless they are spearheading some bill or law to prevent the sale or a part of some SEC or FTC committee, not sure how hey can prevent it.

FTC can block it under Anti-Trust, the Justice department has to approve it as well. The American Cable Association has already come out against it, lobbying for/against has already begun. Not saying it can't get approved, but it won't be easy.
 
FTC can block it under Anti-Trust, the Justice department has to approve it as well. The American Cable Association has already come out against it, lobbying for/against has already begun. Not saying it can't get approved, but it won't be easy.

My point is, the president doesn't have the power to keep it from happening, right? Only the FTC or DOJ have the power to block it.

It is a monopoly issue. At the same time, the federal government gives organizations like NFL, NBA, MLB etc monopoly exemptions.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/u-s-moves-to-block-att-merger-with-t-mobile/

I guess if the president appoints the Attorney General and he follows the president's order, I guess he indirectly can?

Even the Disney/Marvel merger had to go through an approval process. It didn't happen right after it was announced. And it was in the works i think going back to 2008.
 
Last edited:
President doesn't have direct power, but his/her indirect power is basically the same as direct power. He/she is gonna appoint someone at the DOJ and FTC that share his/her views, they won't go against his/her view on the merger.

If the next president doesn't want this deal to happen, it won't happen one way or the other.
 
Yeah but I don't expect Hillary Clinton to appoint someone who would block this deal unless there is overwhelming negative pressure from the public or political pressure against doing so.

Then again, who says it would be a bad deal to have them merge either? Eh, who knows.
 
Yeah but I don't expect Hillary Clinton to appoint someone who would block this deal unless there is overwhelming negative pressure from the public or political pressure against doing so.

Then again, who says it would be a bad deal to have them merge either? Eh, who knows.

This is what I found about Clinton's limited views about this deal:

Democrats added a commitment to toughen antitrust enforcement in their party platform this year for the first time since 1988, while Clinton in campaign literature calls for “reinvigorating” antitrust enforcement. Clinton, who applauded recent challenges to two health-insurer mergers, called for robustly enforcing antitrust laws to prevent “excessive, harmful economic power.” She also promised more resources and staffing at antitrust agencies.

Clinton’s running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press’ that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”


“Market place competition is a good and healthy thing for consumers. And so there are a number of questions and concerns that rise in that vein about this announced deal,” Fallon, the Clinton campaign spokesman, said in a statement.

Trump has made it clear, he won't let this deal happen. I'd say 60/40 Clinton let's it happen. But you never know.
 
Well...should the deal happen? Is the deal anti-trust or a monopoly? I'm not sure what the vibe is.

On the surface, it does seem like a deal that could risk a monopoly.

But then again, ultimately Comcast was allowed to buy NBC Universal. So how can you allow that type of deal, but not allow AT&T to buy Time Warner?
 
It's a good question, tough one too. Comcast had to through the ringer to get that deal approved, and in hindsight it hasn't been a popular decision.

So far the buzz on this deal has been negative, from both sides of the isle. I could see a narrative taking shape that kills this deal, because it's true that it's way too much power and content under one roof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,344
Messages
22,088,167
Members
45,887
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"