I'm assuming that Netflix will keep HBO around as a separate premium service. We'll likely see lots of new releases on HBO initially and then after 6-12 months, they'll appear on Netflix?
Last week's 40% off annual Crave subscription doesn't seem like such a good deal now.
It will probably be at least a year before this clears all the legal hurdles and anything officially changes anyway.
Also, they would still have to honour any existing contracts for Canadian distribution, similar to how the FX show Archer always aired on Cartoon Network in Canada even long after FX Canada launched.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The directing team of Cattet and Forzani keep improving. I've enjoyed their previous movies Amer, The Strange Color of Your Body’s Tears, and Let the Corpses Tan, but this is their best combo of style and substance so far.
Like a Giallo inspired 70s James Bond.
The Following User Says Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
No matter who wins we lose. I feel like Netflix will have zero interest in older WB titles that will disappear and not be able to be seen. Netflix also has zero interest in physical media so don't expect any WB titles to be released in the future on disk. They also have zero interest in theatrical releases, so much terrible with this deal.
We'll see, but to me some of the door and gloom seems extra weird.
First of all, the studios were being sold off anyway, meaning less movies would have been released to theater anyway. There is also nothing stopping film makers from just going to other studios if they want a different thing.
Second, to me the movie library is an obvious attraction to Netflix, because it's the type of content they're missing, and the audience for those movies (older people) are a demographic that's an obvious direction for expansion.
Netflix has specifically said that a thing they're looking from this deal is permanent rights to movies and TV. Currently a lot of non-Netflix movies on Netflix are only there for a limited time, which means they don't lock in audiences and creates a turnover which is expensive as they need to keep buying new rights.
As I said earlier, Netflix strategy is based a lot more on wide variety of content that it's competitors. To me, buying up a legacy studio and adding all that content into their platform looks like an obvious continuation of their current strategy.
Plus, and correct if I'm wrong here, but I'm not aware of Netflix being in the habit of burying content they own, while most other studios and streamers are. So I don't understand why people see Netflix being more likely to bury it than some other buyer.
I mean, WB just let Batgirl go completely unreleased. They already were a really terrible company in that specific way.
If I was to bet which streamer was actually the most likely to put cult hits, classics and even obscure, previously unavailable content on their platform, it would definitely be Netflix.
Physical media releases are a more valid issue, but they are ultimately an issue for a relatively feinge audience these days.
To me Netflix places no value in the theatre and views it as competition. They will probably phase out theatrical releases and if one of the biggest studios like WB stops producing theatrical movies how long will theatres last? Plus Netflix doesn't care about older movies, they only care about views and clicks. Random 50s movies probably don't generate clicks. The oldest movie on Netflix in the States is The Sting from the 70s. If Netflix isn't streaming older titles and doesn't release movies on disk, what's going to happen to all the WB titles before the 70s?
Paramount at least values theatres and has a focus on releases movies in theatres. The CEO recently said theatrical releases are better than streaming while the Netflix CEO recently said theatrical model is outdated.
In an ideal world WB would remain independent, and both are terrible options with limited upside.
Netflix has locked WB into a due diligence and anti trust cycle for the next 2 years which effectively eliminates them as a Netflix competitor that could strategically shift and threaten them as you can’t do much when in a DD cycle for an acquisition.
It also takes away the possibility of Google buying them
When the sale is ruled anti competitive in a few years Netflix will have accomplished exactly what they wanted.
And if somehow the sale actually goes through Netflix gets to consultation prize of a bigger library
To me Netflix places no value in the theatre and views it as competition. They will probably phase out theatrical releases and if one of the biggest studios like WB stops producing theatrical movies how long will theatres last? Plus Netflix doesn't care about older movies, they only care about views and clicks. Random 50s movies probably don't generate clicks. The oldest movie on Netflix in the States is The Sting from the 70s. If Netflix isn't streaming older titles and doesn't release movies on disk, what's going to happen to all the WB titles before the 70s?
Paramount at least values theatres and has a focus on releases movies in theatres. The CEO recently said theatrical releases are better than streaming while the Netflix CEO recently said theatrical model is outdated.
In an ideal world WB would remain independent, and both are terrible options with limited upside.
Netflix put out their two most recent movies (the new Knives out and Frankenstein) in theatres and are showing Stranger Things in theaters as well.
To me Netflix places no value in the theatre and views it as competition. They will probably phase out theatrical releases and if one of the biggest studios like WB stops producing theatrical movies how long will theatres last? Plus Netflix doesn't care about older movies, they only care about views and clicks. Random 50s movies probably don't generate clicks. The oldest movie on Netflix in the States is The Sting from the 70s. If Netflix isn't streaming older titles and doesn't release movies on disk, what's going to happen to all the WB titles before the 70s?
Paramount at least values theatres and has a focus on releases movies in theatres. The CEO recently said theatrical releases are better than streaming while the Netflix CEO recently said theatrical model is outdated.
In an ideal world WB would remain independent, and both are terrible options with limited upside.
WB has made it abundantly clear that they cannot handle nor be trusted with their own independence.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Netflix put out their two most recent movies (the new Knives out and Frankenstein) in theatres and are showing Stranger Things in theaters as well.
Knives Out 2 was in theaters for a week and Knives Out 3 isn't much better in that regard. And while I'm not sure what Frankenstein's run was like, it brought in $480K at the box office domestically, so I'm assuming it was in some small theaters for a week or something like that.
And I would assume the only reason they even did that was to be eligible for Academy Awards which have a minimum theatrical run requirement.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
To me Netflix places no value in the theatre and views it as competition. They will probably phase out theatrical releases and if one of the biggest studios like WB stops producing theatrical movies how long will theatres last? Plus Netflix doesn't care about older movies, they only care about views and clicks. Random 50s movies probably don't generate clicks. The oldest movie on Netflix in the States is The Sting from the 70s. If Netflix isn't streaming older titles and doesn't release movies on disk, what's going to happen to all the WB titles before the 70s?
Paramount at least values theatres and has a focus on releases movies in theatres. The CEO recently said theatrical releases are better than streaming while the Netflix CEO recently said theatrical model is outdated.
In an ideal world WB would remain independent, and both are terrible options with limited upside.
Are there any examples of Netflix previously buying rights to older movies and then burying them?
Older movies are in general really poorly available on any streaming service, and it's mostly the legacy studios who have been sitting on them, not Netflix.
My guess is they bought all those movies so they could put a whole bunch of older movies and classics on Netflix, because their goal is to become the only monthly streaming service anyone needs.
What will hurt theaters is franchises like DC movies getting fewer and shorter theatre runs. Batman puts butts in seats like few other properties.
Other than that stuff, a big reason WB is being sold is because there were more attempts to put blockbusters in theaters than there's been audience. While Netflix will likely hold on to IP they got in this purchase, having fewer studios means there's less competition for other studios, and it might actually help them survive in the theater movie business.
In the long run it's the size of the audience that defines the number of theater releases, not the number of studios making them.
Knives Out 2 was in theaters for a week and Knives Out 3 isn't much better in that regard. And while I'm not sure what Frankenstein's run was like, it brought in $480K at the box office domestically, so I'm assuming it was in some small theaters for a week or something like that.
And I would assume the only reason they even did that was to be eligible for Academy Awards which have a minimum theatrical run requirement.
So, Netflix is paying film makers to make movies, and it's bad because they aren't doing it for theaters? Is that the argument, or is the argument that it's bad that Netflix makes movies that are actually good? That direct-to-streaming movies being good is somehow unfair to movie theaters?
Frankenstein for example was a project started by Universal as part of their Dark Universe project, but they pulled out all because Tom Cruises Mummy bombed at the box office. Del Toro has been trying to get that movie made ever since. Any studio that wanted the movie could have taken it, but they didn't.
Netflix picked it up, and that's why the movie exists. I think that's good for cinema, actually.
I'm not even sure what you would call an "independent" WB at this point. They've gone through so many mergers and acquisitions over the years that everything changes every few years.
There was the merger with Time-Life in the late-80s to form Time-Warner; then the merger with AOL in the early 2000s to become AOL Time Warner; then there was the AT&T ownership; followed by the current arrangement with Discovery, which itself was scheduled to be split into separate "linear television" and "studio/streaming" companies (which apparently will still happen with Netflix only acquiring the "studio/streaming" side of things).
Considering that a sale was going to happen no matter what, and the other options were Paramount/Ellison or Comcast, Netflix might be the best option for us the entertainment consumers.
Also, even though Sarandos has spoken negatively about legacy media in the past, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. He wouldn't be the first CEO to speak poorly about something his competitors do that his company doesn't do only to change his tune a few months/years later when his company decides to start doing that same thing.
It will be interesting to see what they do with the studio and theatrical releases, as well as the HBO cable networks, and even DC Comics.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
So, Netflix is paying film makers to make movies, and it's bad because they aren't doing it for theaters? Is that the argument, or is the argument that it's bad that Netflix makes movies that are actually good? That direct-to-streaming movies being good is somehow unfair to movie theaters?
Frankenstein for example was a project started by Universal as part of their Dark Universe project, but they pulled out all because Tom Cruises Mummy bombed at the box office. Del Toro has been trying to get that movie made ever since. Any studio that wanted the movie could have taken it, but they didn't.
Netflix picked it up, and that's why the movie exists. I think that's good for cinema, actually.
I think movies should stay in theaters only for at least 90 days before getting released on streaming. Watching a film in theatres is superior to streaming in everyway except 1; convenience, and unfortunately people will choose convenience every time. Theatres have better sound, better picture, better popcorn than any home theater, and you get to experience the film in an audience with other human beings. Most direct to streaming movies are mid and forgettable because there is no incentive for them to be good, they just have to exist as content. A movie is bad on Netflix who cares no one will unsubscribe from it, but if WB puts out a bad movie they would lose millions at the box office. So studios would put in alot of effort to put out a good movie because there was an immediate impact if they didn't.
It is impossible for any film, no matter how good it is, to have the cultural impact that a film like Jaws or Titanic or Batman 89 had without being first released in a theater.
Streaming is clearly here to stay (no matter how much I complain) , I just worry about a time in the near future where it's the only game in town.
I think movies should stay in theaters only for at least 90 days before getting released on streaming. Watching a film in theatres is superior to streaming in everyway except 1; convenience, and unfortunately people will choose convenience every time. Theatres have better sound, better picture, better popcorn than any home theater, and you get to experience the film in an audience with other human beings. Most direct to streaming movies are mid and forgettable because there is no incentive for them to be good, they just have to exist as content. A movie is bad on Netflix who cares no one will unsubscribe from it, but if WB puts out a bad movie they would lose millions at the box office. So studios would put in alot of effort to put out a good movie because there was an immediate impact if they didn't.
It is impossible for any film, no matter how good it is, to have the cultural impact that a film like Jaws or Titanic or Batman 89 had without being first released in a theater.
Streaming is clearly here to stay (no matter how much I complain) , I just worry about a time in the near future where it's the only game in town.
Price is a huge factor. Movies have become extraordinarily expensive, particularly the concession prices. Going to a movie and wanting some snacks for the experience will cost as much as a full dinner out. You can argue you can make the choice to not consume those things, but you are either forgoing a part of the experience, or making yourself liable to be kicked out by sneaking in your own food.
There's often a reaction to lower business and it is to increase prices to make up for less sales, but this largely gets a company or industry into a tail spin as it drives away a large section of it's consumers. What happens is they get more selective with when they consume that thing. So instead of seeing movies every weekend or so like I remember doing as teenagers, people literally can't afford to do that so they only go see big spectacle films because it's the only thing that makes the big screen/sound/special effects worth the price. And then the industry harps that people don't support non-IP movies, but they've made it an actual risk to watch a movie when before the worst thing you wasted was your time.
The streamers are running a risk of this too now. The appeal of them originally was the price was right to avoid people stealing content. Now it's pushing back up against costing the same as cable to have 2-3 ad-free subscriptions. people will start to steal it again. And stop paying for it. And then they'll make it more expensive. And then less people will pay for it. Etc...
tl:dr - make going to the movies cheaper and maybe more people will go.
…and you get to experience the film in an audience with other human beings…
This is not a good thing. Humans only job in the theatre is to turn off their phones, shut their pie holes and not kick the seat in front of them, and they fail miserably. If it weren’t for VIP theatres, we’d never step foot in one again. Given how expensive those are, we only see a couple movies in the theatre each year, usually with scene points.
Biggest concern I have with all this is lack of physical media will force me back to the high seas.
Last edited by Brendone; 12-07-2025 at 10:21 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Brendone For This Useful Post:
I think movies should stay in theaters only for at least 90 days before getting released on streaming. Watching a film in theatres is superior to streaming in everyway except 1; convenience, and unfortunately people will choose convenience every time. Theatres have better sound, better picture, better popcorn than any home theater, and you get to experience the film in an audience with other human beings. Most direct to streaming movies are mid and forgettable because there is no incentive for them to be good, they just have to exist as content. A movie is bad on Netflix who cares no one will unsubscribe from it, but if WB puts out a bad movie they would lose millions at the box office. So studios would put in alot of effort to put out a good movie because there was an immediate impact if they didn't.
It is impossible for any film, no matter how good it is, to have the cultural impact that a film like Jaws or Titanic or Batman 89 had without being first released in a theater.
Streaming is clearly here to stay (no matter how much I complain) , I just worry about a time in the near future where it's the only game in town.
It's just completely unrealistic to release all movies in theaters.
I wouldn't be opposed to a system where studios would be required to make their films available to theaters if theaters want to show them, but you can't ban a streamer from making their own content and showing it on their platform.
I also think it should be illegal to own a movies rights without making it available for distribution, but that too us unfortunately unrealistic.
Watching a film in theatres is superior to streaming in everyway except 1; convenience...and you get to experience the film in an audience with other human beings
You just nailed the downside to the experience of watching a film in theatres. We've definitely lost that cultural significance of a shared experience when a transformative movie comes along. But that's because many theatre goers are not people I want to share any kind of experience with.
The shared cultural experiences have left the movie theatre behind for the sports stadiums and music festivals.
Last edited by Finger Cookin; 12-09-2025 at 01:48 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Finger Cookin For This Useful Post:
