As long as Ted ACTUALLY does what he says here, I can see this whole plan working out in both Netflix and WB’s favor. Hopefully? Maybe?
ROBtimusPrime1995 on
I’ve been watching everything about this merger story, and I keep telling people here that Netflix isn’t planning to kill theaters because the instant they saw WB’s financials, they changed their tune so fucking quick.
Netflix, for some reason, is scared to release its own films in theaters (maybe they know most of them suck & would bomb), but WB has 100 years of hits, so that’s why they’re promising to keep WB in theaters.
VampireHunterAlex on
I don’t believe him for a second: Maybe thru-2029 they’ll keep to whatever theatrical contracts that are valid, but after that they‘ll pull the plug on theaters the moment they can.
riegspsych325 on
he’s saying things that are promising, but let’s hope he would actually stick to his word and do more than a year long grace period
But goddamn, I hate that I’m making myself try to feel okay about this just because netflix is the lesser of 2 evils
homecinemad on
Execs make promises they know they’ll break later.
roodootootootoo on
Does anyone care about anything media execs say?
inkyblinkypinkysue on
I simply do not believe this.
braumbles on
So the same thing WBD already currently does?
No_Cauliflower_81 on
Maybe in the beginning. In practice though, Warner Brothers will increasingly be making fewer films, eventually limited to a couple of superhero movies or blockbusters per year. We’re not getting anything like Sinners or One Battle After Another or Wuthering Heights in cinemas from Warner Bros again.
SonOfElroy on
Oh, he promised!? Oh ok
__the__person__ on
We’re forced to “root” for this greedy man due to the Ellisons. Goddamn Zaslav and his golden parachute, what a terrible man.
JessBaesic7901 on
Well that means very little. Things can change very quickly. They’re gonna do whatever serves them best.
elmatador12 on
How many “promises” from tech companies have been broken over the years? Yeah that’s why people don’t believe you Ted. Not to mention your own quote that the theater model is outdated.
Vince_Clortho042 on
I wish just one of these interviews would include a follow up question pressing him about committing to these exclusivity windows beyond 2029, which is when Warner’s current exhibition contract expires (and coincidentally, is almost exactly what Sarandos is describing here already). I’d be a little less uneasy about this if there was some sort of assurance that they were in it for the long haul.
BubbaMcCheese on
Well a billionaire promised so I’m sure it’s fine…
leoleo678 on
There’s no incentive for Netflix to not do theatrical releases really. It’s an additional revenue stream and helps the cultural capital that Sarantos loves about Netflix. It was always gonna be major blockbusters get theatrical releases and mid budget likely go straight to Netflix, with exceptions like a Sinners, of course. I don’t understand the constant hammering that Netflix is somehow lying about this.
Algae_Mission on
Sure, Ted. Sure.
longjumpingtote on
It pains me to write this out, but…
1. First of all, many analysts believe the most valuable asset that WB has is HBO.
2. Second is the IP. DC Universe, Harry Potter, and the Wizarding World, etc.
3. Third is the back catalog (second and third might flip). *Obviously, Warner Brothers has hundreds and hundreds of movies, many of them classics. If Netflix wants to, it can make those exclusive to its service. This will drive subscriptions and keep people subscribing. If it doesn’t want to do that, if the numbers work out better this way, they will release to their platform some movies part of the year and then license them for a massive profit to other streaming services for a few months. This is already happening. If they decide they want to be the only place that you can watch any Stanley Kubrick movies, then you’ll need a subscription.*
4. Production muscle and infrastructure.
5. Licensing ($10 billion/yr).
6. Back-end savings of $2 to $3 billion a year.
7. Theatrical.
– – –
> So why would Netflix want less money by taking away WB films from theaters?
It’s not necessarily less money. I worked with several streamers on theatrical releases and the operating cost of theatrical didn’t make sense. “How is it different than for a studio?” It’s not their business model. They have to hire (or keep) and pay a head of distribution, a staff of people to manage the theatrical business. There all sorts of costs having to do with getting the films out there. For post, making the DCP for theatrical is time-consuming and expensive process, you can’t just take the file you send to the platform (both color and sound have to be redone). And the studio doesn’t even get that box office. They might get half of ticket sales for the first week or two, then it goes down, so why hire people and create departments and systems that cost money and take up other resources, for a few films for a few weeks?
Plus, since we no longer go to movies, attendance drops off 40% (good) to 60% (bad) every week. And their share of the profit goes down as a percentage. So if the film grosses $1 million the first week, the studio gets $500k, then $125k (!) then $31k by the third week (the commonly accepted math).
I hate that this is reality. I LOVE LOVE LOVE going to theaters, but it’s not a profit center.
dmisfit21 on
He’s assuming the orange man won’t interfere and let his buddy David get his way.
JennyInFlint on
NEed more movies from the 1970-30s… and not just classics, and not just English speaking.
20 Comments
In a way, it makes sense I guess
As long as Ted ACTUALLY does what he says here, I can see this whole plan working out in both Netflix and WB’s favor. Hopefully? Maybe?
I’ve been watching everything about this merger story, and I keep telling people here that Netflix isn’t planning to kill theaters because the instant they saw WB’s financials, they changed their tune so fucking quick.
Netflix, for some reason, is scared to release its own films in theaters (maybe they know most of them suck & would bomb), but WB has 100 years of hits, so that’s why they’re promising to keep WB in theaters.
I don’t believe him for a second: Maybe thru-2029 they’ll keep to whatever theatrical contracts that are valid, but after that they‘ll pull the plug on theaters the moment they can.
he’s saying things that are promising, but let’s hope he would actually stick to his word and do more than a year long grace period
But goddamn, I hate that I’m making myself try to feel okay about this just because netflix is the lesser of 2 evils
Execs make promises they know they’ll break later.
Does anyone care about anything media execs say?
I simply do not believe this.
So the same thing WBD already currently does?
Maybe in the beginning. In practice though, Warner Brothers will increasingly be making fewer films, eventually limited to a couple of superhero movies or blockbusters per year. We’re not getting anything like Sinners or One Battle After Another or Wuthering Heights in cinemas from Warner Bros again.
Oh, he promised!? Oh ok
We’re forced to “root” for this greedy man due to the Ellisons. Goddamn Zaslav and his golden parachute, what a terrible man.
Well that means very little. Things can change very quickly. They’re gonna do whatever serves them best.
How many “promises” from tech companies have been broken over the years? Yeah that’s why people don’t believe you Ted. Not to mention your own quote that the theater model is outdated.
I wish just one of these interviews would include a follow up question pressing him about committing to these exclusivity windows beyond 2029, which is when Warner’s current exhibition contract expires (and coincidentally, is almost exactly what Sarandos is describing here already). I’d be a little less uneasy about this if there was some sort of assurance that they were in it for the long haul.
Well a billionaire promised so I’m sure it’s fine…
There’s no incentive for Netflix to not do theatrical releases really. It’s an additional revenue stream and helps the cultural capital that Sarantos loves about Netflix. It was always gonna be major blockbusters get theatrical releases and mid budget likely go straight to Netflix, with exceptions like a Sinners, of course. I don’t understand the constant hammering that Netflix is somehow lying about this.
Sure, Ted. Sure.
It pains me to write this out, but…
1. First of all, many analysts believe the most valuable asset that WB has is HBO.
2. Second is the IP. DC Universe, Harry Potter, and the Wizarding World, etc.
3. Third is the back catalog (second and third might flip). *Obviously, Warner Brothers has hundreds and hundreds of movies, many of them classics. If Netflix wants to, it can make those exclusive to its service. This will drive subscriptions and keep people subscribing. If it doesn’t want to do that, if the numbers work out better this way, they will release to their platform some movies part of the year and then license them for a massive profit to other streaming services for a few months. This is already happening. If they decide they want to be the only place that you can watch any Stanley Kubrick movies, then you’ll need a subscription.*
4. Production muscle and infrastructure.
5. Licensing ($10 billion/yr).
6. Back-end savings of $2 to $3 billion a year.
7. Theatrical.
– – –
> So why would Netflix want less money by taking away WB films from theaters?
It’s not necessarily less money. I worked with several streamers on theatrical releases and the operating cost of theatrical didn’t make sense. “How is it different than for a studio?” It’s not their business model. They have to hire (or keep) and pay a head of distribution, a staff of people to manage the theatrical business. There all sorts of costs having to do with getting the films out there. For post, making the DCP for theatrical is time-consuming and expensive process, you can’t just take the file you send to the platform (both color and sound have to be redone). And the studio doesn’t even get that box office. They might get half of ticket sales for the first week or two, then it goes down, so why hire people and create departments and systems that cost money and take up other resources, for a few films for a few weeks?
Plus, since we no longer go to movies, attendance drops off 40% (good) to 60% (bad) every week. And their share of the profit goes down as a percentage. So if the film grosses $1 million the first week, the studio gets $500k, then $125k (!) then $31k by the third week (the commonly accepted math).
I hate that this is reality. I LOVE LOVE LOVE going to theaters, but it’s not a profit center.
He’s assuming the orange man won’t interfere and let his buddy David get his way.
NEed more movies from the 1970-30s… and not just classics, and not just English speaking.