Batgirl movie shelved despite near-completion.

[bilateralrope]

Isn't there some other source for credit information that would be good enough for potential employers ?
It's not like HBO have tried to purge anything from Wikipedia or IMDB. Yet.

Everything about this sounds like a terrible business decision. How are parents with children going to justify paying for an HBO subscription over a streaming service that has content for the whole family ?

But, if the idiots get replaced, reversing this decision will require convincing anyone who remembers this to come back. That's going to take some effort.

Also, since I posted this link elsewhere: Batgirl received similar test audience scores as Black Adam. But only one got canceled. So any statements about it being so terrible that it can't be released were clearly a lie.

[LadyTevar]

Also, since I posted this link elsewhere: Batgirl received similar test audience scores as Black Adam. But only one got canceled. So any statements about it being so terrible that it can't be released were clearly a lie.

One has The Rock.
One has a black woman.

That's one reason I'm sure

[Batman]

As somebody has pointed out somewhere on this board, the Rock is TECHNICALLY also not white. But he is a very prominent figure who is by many people regarded to be white.

[bilateralrope]

Also, since I posted this link elsewhere: Batgirl received similar test audience scores as Black Adam. But only one got canceled. So any statements about it being so terrible that it can't be released were clearly a lie.

One has The Rock.
One has a black woman.

That's one reason I'm sure

I'm not sure about the racism. But I could easily see Batgirl being perceived as "female skew", and HBO has no room for scripted "female skew" content according to that slide I posted earlier. So the sexism is obvious.

[Crazedwraith]

Saw this on the tvtropes forum: Basement Life Podcast did an episode on the animated side of it. They're an anime geek and not an expert but there is some interesting stuff there in between the ranting.

Apparently the residuals are a fixed fee that go down so long as the show remains on the platform. Starting high and going down to next to nothing over a few years. So if they change their minds and bring it back they have to start from scratch paying top dollar (relatively speaking). They're of the opinion this is all in order to get some very short term profits to keep the share holders happy after the merge and not a long term strategy for viability.

[bilateralrope]

Warner Bros. Discovery Lost $20 Billion in Market Cap Trying to Cut $3 Billion in Costs

The more WBD cuts, the more the stock price goes down
Wren Graves
August 24, 2022 | 8:07am ET

Since completing its April 8th merger, Warner Bros. Discovery has been on a cost-cutting frenzy, with an announced goal of finding $3 billion in savings. The process began when WBD axed CNN+ on April 21st, and since then the company has shelved Batgirl, removed over 200 classic episodes of Sesame Street, and iced dozens of upcoming projects — with a result that WBD has lost a total of $20 billion in market cap and counting.

Importantly, this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. WBD is trying to save $3 billion in cash, while market cap is the stock market’s estimate of a company’s total value, found by taking the amount of stock in circulation and multiplying that by the stock’s price. And there are several other factors dragging down the stock, especially WBD’s $55 billion in debt, which has concerned analysts since the merger. But the debt has been stable, and the fact remains that no matter which project WBD puts out to pasture, the stock is only going in one direction: down.

On April 22nd, the day after WBD subtracted CNN+, the company had a market cap of approximately $49.51 billion according to CompaniesMarketCap.com, which uses data from Reuters, NASDAQ, Yahoo Finance, and more. Today, August 22nd, the same company is estimated to be worth $31 billion. If the market’s estimate is accurate — and that’s a big if — WBD is worth about $20 billion less than when they started cutting costs. You can’t even blame market volatility for the plunge; the Dow Jones has barely budged since April, and the S&P 500 is down about 4% on the year, even as WBD has been unable to stop the bleeding. In the eyes of investors, the company has done nothing but hurt its brand for four months running.

Much of the blame will be laid at the feet of CEO David Zaslav, who was paid $246 million ahead of the merger. His plan to combine HBO Max and Discovery+ has been widely derided, and everyone from Kevin Smith to John Oliver has criticized his decision to kill content for tax write-offs. Fortune named him one of the 10 most overpaid CEOs in the Fortune 500, and it’s not hard to understand why. Even if you think he’s a genius, surely any Vice President at WBD could do at least 80% as good of a job for 10% of the cost.

For now, expect the cuts to keep coming. Just today, WBD pulled the plug on an animated Batman series from Matt Reeves and J.J. Abrams. As a spoonful of sugar to help the bleach go down, HBO Max is offering 30% discounts on annual subscriptions.

I don't think the shareholders are happy.

[Tribble]

At this rate Disney may end up buying them

I wonder what’s in it for the CEO, apart from his massive salary? He has the know the hits that WB is taking over this.

[Crazedwraith]

Makes sense, it's an entertainment company that has less to offer, why would it's shares go up?

They've also delayed Aquaman 2 and Shazam 2 to next year. The meme is because they've only got enough money to release 2 films, but it also could be about the competition from Wakanada Forever and Avatar 2 stealing all the IMAX screens.


eta: Wait, they killed Caped Crusader entirely? Not just refused to put it on HBO MAX?

[bilateralrope]

I wonder what’s in it for the CEO, apart from his massive salary? He has the know the hits that WB is taking over this.

Maybe he shorted the stock before tanking the price.

But I'm not willing to assume competence just because he's being paid a shitload of money.

[Darth Yan]

Zaslav is a man who believes in cheap low quality entertainment. He's the guy responsible for Honey Boo Boo and the Duggars after all and is scornful of scripted content. He likes cheap stuff where he doesn't have to pay money.

He's also an out of touch old man who doesn't really get that people LIKE diversity. And also a centrist (hence his desire to make CNN appeal to right wingers even though they want fake news)

[Solauren]

Zaslav is a man who believes in cheap low quality entertainment. He's the guy responsible for Honey Boo Boo and the Duggars after all and is scornful of scripted content.

With those on his resume, I'm surprise he can get a job flipping burgers.

[Gandalf]

Zaslav is a man who believes in cheap low quality entertainment. He's the guy responsible for Honey Boo Boo and the Duggars after all and is scornful of scripted content.

With those on his resume, I'm surprise he can get a job flipping burgers.

Why? They were both pretty profitable shows from what I understand.

[Solauren]

Zaslav is a man who believes in cheap low quality entertainment. He's the guy responsible for Honey Boo Boo and the Duggars after all and is scornful of scripted content.

With those on his resume, I'm surprise he can get a job flipping burgers.

Why? They were both pretty profitable shows from what I understand.

Profitable, probably.
Quality? They were not critical hits. However, low production costs kept profits up. He's a reality show booster, nothing more.

[Batman]

'profit' is what companies are all about. As long as people keep watching cheap reality shit, and that's cheaper and more profitable than quality TV, companies will concentrate on the cheap reality shit.

[Gandalf]

Profitable, probably.
Quality? They were not critical hits. However, low production costs kept profits up. He's a reality show booster, nothing more.

That's all that matters in the capitalistic entertainment environment. Enough people like it and will watch reliably to make it profitable.

[ray245]

'profit' is what companies are all about. As long as people keep watching cheap reality shit, and that's cheaper and more profitable than quality TV, companies will concentrate on the cheap reality shit.

That was what Syfy channel was doing, until they realised fantasy and sci-fi could be even more of a massive money-maker.

And also Netflix showing people quality shows have good shelf-life and streaming was about to replace traditional cable tv.

Although I must add there are many people that do enjoy reality-tv shows. There is simply a different demographic for different kinds of entertainment.

Profitable, probably.
Quality? They were not critical hits. However, low production costs kept profits up. He's a reality show booster, nothing more.

That's all that matters in the capitalistic entertainment environment. Enough people like it and will watch reliably to make it profitable.

That's the same for "quality" entertainment too. Winning awards is merely a way to market the shows to an even wider audience. Or do people think "quality" shows have no interest in making a ton of money?

There's clearly a demand for different kinds of entertainment, the mistake is when Studios execs failed to understand that. Channels like Syfy gave up on that market before they realised HBO tapped into this huge under-exploited market with GOT.

Suddenly every studio wants their own GoT, hence we enter the age we live in today. Now perhaps, studios are realising the market for this GoT demographic is becoming oversaturated and there are many people that do want to watch reality tv.

We should avoid using our own personal taste to define what is "quality" in the eyes of different audiences. As a sci-fi/fantasy heavily-male -geek forum we are of course prone to certain bias in what we define as entertainment.

[bilateralrope]

Suddenly every studio wants their own GoT, hence we enter the age we live in today. Now perhaps, studios are realising the market for this GoT demographic is becoming oversaturated and there are many people that do want to watch reality tv.

I don't think the studios ever forgot that there are people who want to watch reality TV. Especially not the streaming platforms or anyone with access to their viewership data. My guess is that it reliably exceeds whatever viewer targets the platform expects based on the budget they give it. Probably a good way to keep a significant number of people on a streaming platform.

I just don't remember any reality TV being a big draw for a streaming platform the way something like GoT or Star Wars can be. But I don't pay much attention to it, so I could easily be wrong.

[ray245]

Suddenly every studio wants their own GoT, hence we enter the age we live in today. Now perhaps, studios are realising the market for this GoT demographic is becoming oversaturated and there are many people that do want to watch reality tv.

I don't think the studios ever forgot that there are people who want to watch reality TV. Especially not the streaming platforms or anyone with access to their viewership data. My guess is that it reliably exceeds whatever viewer targets the platform expects based on the budget they give it. Probably a good way to keep a significant number of people on a streaming platform.

I just don't remember any reality TV being a big draw for a streaming platform the way something like GoT or Star Wars can be. But I don't pay much attention to it, so I could easily be wrong.

Reality tv tends to be watched once, but not a lot of rewatch value. The point of shows like GoT or Star Wars is once you have a decent sized library, people will pay money to rewatch those stuff again and again.

And that's where streaming platform really makes money.

[Darth Yan]

The other issue is that there's a pattern; all the stuff that's getting cancelled and pulled is either created by POC or has a strong presence of POC. Same thing with women. At the same time he's firing most PoC board members......and replacing them with white men. Likewise all the stuff he's championing are white male led, and he was willing to ignore Ezra Miller's criminal actions (which are far more likely to hurt the brand.) He hates things that are POC and Women led

[bilateralrope]

Suddenly every studio wants their own GoT, hence we enter the age we live in today. Now perhaps, studios are realising the market for this GoT demographic is becoming oversaturated and there are many people that do want to watch reality tv.

I don't think the studios ever forgot that there are people who want to watch reality TV. Especially not the streaming platforms or anyone with access to their viewership data. My guess is that it reliably exceeds whatever viewer targets the platform expects based on the budget they give it. Probably a good way to keep a significant number of people on a streaming platform.

I just don't remember any reality TV being a big draw for a streaming platform the way something like GoT or Star Wars can be. But I don't pay much attention to it, so I could easily be wrong.

Reality tv tends to be watched once, but not a lot of rewatch value. The point of shows like GoT or Star Wars is once you have a decent sized library, people will pay money to rewatch those stuff again and again.

And that's where streaming platform really makes money.

Most of my Netflix viewing is new shows that wouldn't be interesting enough to get me to start a new subscription, but are interesting enough to justify keeping the subscription running. If I was only watching the shows that interested me enough to start a subscription, I'd be one of those people who subscribe for a month for one thing, then unsubscribe.

Which then turns to drop it completely once those shows end. Which is why we dropped Amazon.

Disney has enough Star Wars content that it's both a big reason why I subscribed, and a big reason why I stay subscribed. My brother would say the same about Marvel.

It seems to me that keeping people subscribed is where the money is. Which requires a variety of new shows. Rewatching older stuff wouldn't be enough for me.

[ray245]

Most of my Netflix viewing is new shows that wouldn't be interesting enough to get me to start a new subscription, but are interesting enough to justify keeping the subscription running. If I was only watching the shows that interested me enough to start a subscription, I'd be one of those people who subscribe for a month for one thing, then unsubscribe.

Which then turns to drop it completely once those shows end. Which is why we dropped Amazon.

Disney has enough Star Wars content that it's both a big reason why I subscribed, and a big reason why I stay subscribed. My brother would say the same about Marvel.

It seems to me that keeping people subscribed is where the money is. Which requires a variety of new shows. Rewatching older stuff wouldn't be enough for me.

No, but that's where they make most of the money. New shows are expensive, and no streaming platform can survive on just new content alone. They still need a huge library of older stuff, because those stuff are cheaper and easier to make money off it.

Basically streaming loses money with the production of new stuff, but earns money via a back catalogue of cheaper older stuff.

Netflix's plan is to slow down the production of new shows once they themselves have a large enough library that they don't need to pump out as many new stuff as possible.

Same for most streaming rivals. We are currently in the age of growth for these companies, as they are all trying to produce a ton of expensive new shows in order to attract subscribers. Once they reached the limit of growth, the amount of content they will produce will all dry up.

For consumers, this is still a good time for the amount of stuff we are given. But don't expect this trend to last for long. Eventually even venture capitalist will run out of money and demand more money back.

[bilateralrope]

Fair enough.

Though that makes the decision to purge existing shows from HBO's catalog even stupider.

[Solauren]

Netflix's plan is to slow down the production of new shows once they themselves have a large enough library that they don't need to pump out as many new stuff as possible.

Partially correct -
Netflix is also looking to bring in already produced non-Western productions and libraries (as those carry less financial risk and be liscenced for payment by # of views), hoping to find the next 'Squid Game', or 'All of Use are Dead', to pull in what is effectively new content to Western Audiences.

They're also looking at stuff others have produced, but haven't been able to find a venue for. i.e vanity projects, and the like.

[bilateralrope]

Not sure if this should go in a separate thread or go here with the rest of HBO's questionable decisions:

WB wants more Harry Potter movies — but what does that really mean?

And can WB get far enough away from J.K. Rowling for it to even matter?

By Austen Goslin@AustenG Nov 4, 2022, 3:15pm EDT

The folks running Warner Bros. Pictures are having an existential moment. From Discovery’s purchase of its parent company, WarnerMedia, to the budget cuts that followed, and the losses reported ahead of an earnings call on Thursday, the studio’s future looks fuzzy. Any kind of cultural revival, according to Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav, starts with franchises — and involves making a whole lot more of them.

During that earnings call, Zaslav explained his plans for the company to prioritize its biggest franchises:

Focus on the big movies that are loved, that are tentpoles, that people are going to leave early from dinner to go to see — and we have a lot of them. Batman, Superman, Aquaman, if we can do something with J.K. [Rowling] on Harry Potter going forward, Lord of the Rings, what are we doing with Game of Thrones? What are we doing with a lot of the big franchises that we have? We’re focused on franchises.

“Do something with J.K.” could mean that Zaslav wants to remove Rowling from the series’ theatrical future, or that WB simply has ambition to broker a new deal with the Harry Potter writer. But as it stands, it’s a potentially troubling statement, considering the once-beloved author’s consistent remarks that many have deemed transphobic. Zaslav did not specify what, creatively, Rowling has to offer the Harry Potter series other than to say that the franchise is ripe for a continuation.

Curiously, the CEO also said to investors that the studio hasn’t “done a Harry Potter movie in 15 years.” That isn’t exactly true. WB is technically in the middle of a new Harry Potter franchise right now with the Fantastic Beasts series, which is being written and overseen by Rowling herself. But no one, not even Zaslav, seems to care about Fantastic Beasts. (Ouch?)

While the first Fantastic Beasts movie — which, of the three released so far, happens to be the one that’s least directly connected to the original Potter story — made a killing at the box office, the other two have struggled to amass American viewership. The Crimes of Grindelwald couldn’t match its predecessor’s highs in 2018, and The Secrets of Dumbledore was a bomb earlier this year, failing to even reach $100 million at the domestic box office. So if that’s what attaching Rowling (and her constant transphobia) to the franchise gets you, what’s the point?

The short answer is that Warner Bros. retains the rights to the Harry Potter universe in conjunction with Rowling herself. Any future Potter projects would have to go through her, and her company, as well as the studio. But beyond agreeing to let WB produce more movies, it doesn’t seem that Rowling adds too much value to this series — because right now, it’s unclear what the “Harry Potter franchise” ultimately is. Do Zaslav and Warner Bros. hope to bring back the original cast as adults, or recast them with older actors to tell a story of the next time the Wizarding World is in peril? With Fantastic Beasts bombing and the focus back on Harry himself, it also seems like WB might not be so keen on the Marauders prequel — which would follow the generation ahead of Harry’s during their time at Hogwarts — that fans have spent years clamoring for.

Perhaps the best answer for Zaslav and Warner Bros. is the most obvious one: Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. The stage play, which was overseen by Rowling but written by Jack Thorne (who adapted His Dark Materials for WarnerMedia’s HBO), is a sequel to the original Harry Potter story and follows the children of the series’ main characters. The show has been wildly successful since it premiered in 2016, and thanks to a recent reconstruction from a two-night Broadway event into a one-night show, continues to sell out wherever it’s playing. While a movie version of the story might undercut ticket sales, a sequel to the play, with the kids a little further into their Hogwarts experience, could give fans the perfect mix of nostalgia for old characters and a new story to dig into.

It’s no surprise that Warner Bros. wants to use franchises to dig itself out of its current hole. As Zaslav himself said, the company has a lot of them and they’re pretty popular. House of the Dragon has just finished a massive first season, the return of Henry Cavill’s Superman has the whole internet excited, and it’s hard to ignore the fact that Amazon Studios’ biggest show of the year came from a franchise that Warner Bros. still holds the movie rights to.

Going back to the Harry Potter well seems like the obvious next step for Warner Bros., and despite everything, the franchise remains one of the most popular brands in the world. But finding a way to bring that success back to movie theaters won’t be easy.

I never got into Harry Potter, so I'm in not position to guess if this will go well for Zaslav or not.

[LadyTevar]

Not sure if this should go in a separate thread or go here with the rest of HBO's questionable decisions:

WB wants more Harry Potter movies — but what does that really mean?

(SNIP)

I never got into Harry Potter, so I'm in not position to guess if this will go well for Zaslav or not.

Oh, that's going to backfire spectacularly.
FIRST -- where can they go with Potter? From what I understand, the last movie didn't do as well as hoped.
SECOND - Rowling herself is opening her mouth and causing publicity problems due to TERF-ness. There was also a tweet where she stated the sound of money in her bank was louder than people griping about her. Not a good look for a "children's author".