• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

To me, the most interesting thing here is how this is all going against what everyone else is doing. Everyone else is desperate for content, and embracing the idea of mid budget streaming projects, especially post covid. And then these guys come in and kill everything with a plan to go in the opposite direction. Nothing but limited, high budget, projects - (Film and HBO wise).

Everything about this, from the slide about what women like and what men like, to the composition of the decision makers bing uniformly white old men, to this, seems backwards as hell. A throwback.

It will be interesting to see what things look like in three years.
 
wayoung said:
To me, the most interesting thing here is how this is all going against what everyone else is doing. Everyone else is desperate for content, and embracing the idea of mid budget streaming projects, especially post covid. And then these guys come in and kill everything with a plan to go in the opposite direction. Nothing but limited, high budget, projects - (Film and HBO wise).

Everything about this, from the slide about what women like and what men like, to the composition of the decision makers bing uniformly white old men, to this, seems backwards as hell. A throwback.

It will be interesting to see what things look like in three years.
Click to expand...

And here comes trek_god to tell us that this is all completely normal...
 
crookeddy said:
And here comes trek_god to tell us that this is all completely normal...
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with @TREK_GOD_1 's posts. He's discussing the cost cutting as normal, not the streaming business strategy. And he's right, in general. In another post I mentioned it being like mercurial take overs of newspaper companies, not a film company merger. We just haven't seen this kind of thing with multi billion dollar international film and TV conglomerates with 120 years of history and some of the biggest franchises on the world. Even the shit that went on with Disney and Fox doesn't approach this. It's unique for what we've seen at this level in this industry, but not unique in the general corporate world.
 
wayoung said:
Nothing but limited, high budget, projects - (Film and HBO wise).
Click to expand...

Its logical to focus on higher end productions. Every content provider does not need to flood the market, as it often leads to more garbage than quality work produced (Netflix had this problem, and the more to the point, the Berlanti CW/DC series were textbook examples of this, save for one series).
 
Aww man, I just realized that Brendan Fraser is set to headline a Q & A panel at the Emerald City Comic Con here in Seattle in a couple of weeks.

It's probably gonna feel more like a wake than a celebration.
 
wayoung said:
I don't disagree with @TREK_GOD_1 's posts. He's discussing the cost cutting as normal, not the streaming business strategy. And he's right, in general. In another post I mentioned it being like mercurial take overs of newspaper companies, not a film company merger. We just haven't seen this kind of thing with multi billion dollar international film and TV conglomerates with 120 years of history and some of the biggest franchises on the world. Even the shit that went on with Disney and Fox doesn't approach this. It's unique for what we've seen at this level in this industry, but not unique in the general corporate world.
Click to expand...

If we're used to art being treated at least slightly differently than regular business, then whats happening at WB is jarring, and probably game changing. Far from normal. Hollywood Twitter wouldn't be in a full panic if this was normal in any way.
 
DarrenTR1970 said:
Aww man, I just realized that Brendan Fraser is set to headline a Q & A panel at the Emerald City Comic Con here in Seattle in a couple of weeks.

It's probably gonna feel more like a wake than a celebration.
Click to expand...
He has other things going on, and I'm sure he'd like to pivot the discussion in that direction.
 
crookeddy said:
If we're used to art being treated at least slightly differently than regular business, then whats happening at WB is jarring, and probably game changing. Far from normal. Hollywood Twitter wouldn't be in a full panic if this was normal in any way.
Click to expand...

Like I said in my post, it is jarring and unique because it's happening to Warner Bros. But it's not jarring and unique from a regular corporate takeover perspective. Both positions are correct. One is just from the narrower film angle, the other is from the wider capitalistic angle.

crookeddy said:
The only question is whether this will turn out to be GOOD business.
Click to expand...

That is the question and we won't find out the answer to it for another few years. Personally, I, like most people here, am hoping they're dead wrong and have to pivot fast.
 
Last edited:
wayoung said:
To me, the most interesting thing here is how this is all going against what everyone else is doing. Everyone else is desperate for content, and embracing the idea of mid budget streaming projects, especially post covid. And then these guys come in and kill everything with a plan to go in the opposite direction. Nothing but limited, high budget, projects - (Film and HBO wise).

Everything about this, from the slide about what women like and what men like, to the composition of the decision makers bing uniformly white old men, to this, seems backwards as hell. A throwback.

It will be interesting to see what things look like in three years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does seem strange, usually when a company is trying to cut back they focus on smaller projects, not just big ones. There are plenty of successful mid-budget movies out there, so it's not like the only way to make money is with massive blockbusters.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Its logical to focus on higher end productions. Every content provider does not need to flood the market, as it often leads to more garbage than quality work produced (Netflix had this problem, and the more to the point, the Berlanti CW/DC series were textbook examples of this, save for one series).
Click to expand...

The few times its been tried it's failed. For a streaming service to entice subscribers, and to retain existing subscribers, they need to constantly add new content. Only doing a limited number of high budget productions can carve you out a little niche but you won't be a player. A big chunk of people will sub for one month, watch what they want, and leave. It ends up being more profitable not to run your own service at all and license your productions out, Sony style.
 
One thing seems to be missing from all the Film Studio talk of diminished profits, only a few films have had full runs at the theaters for the past 2 and a half years. Of course they have not made as much money.

Why blame their associated streaming channels though? They helped them make something otherwise lost.
 
wayoung said:
It's unique for what we've seen at this level in this industry, but not unique in the general corporate world.
Click to expand...

Which does not mean it's a good thing. Rather, it's unfortunate that this toxic practice in the general corporate world has now spread to Warner Bros.

And history shows that entertainment execs who base all their decisions purely on numbers and the bottom line tend to make very bad choices from a creative or entertainment standpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top