Warner Bros. to Debut Entire 2021 Film Slate, Including ‘Dune’ and ‘Matrix 4,’ Both on HBO Max and In Theaters (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

I mean, look, I’m not going to apologize for being happy that a movie studio that produces work I enjoy has decided to make that work accessible to me at home at a time when it’s not feasible for me to travel outside the home for entertainment.

Some of the industry people interviewed these various articles have stated that the theatrical window is the thing that makes movies special. I will take a contrasting view and say that if having to wait 90 days before you can watch something at home is the thing that makes it special, then perhaps it’s not as special as you think.

 

[Sam Favate]

Josh, I agree that it makes life easier for me too, but in the long run, it doesn't really help the industry.

First of all, if this holds, Warner can forget booking major talent going forward. If they contracted with Director Jones for a percentage of the box office gross for Movie A and then go and make a move that will severely limit the box office, Jones is going to be pissed and never work with Warner again (and will probably sue). Likewise for Directors Smith, Johnson and Williams, not to mention Actors X, Y and Z, and so on.

Second, they're conditioning people to see movies at home, rather than in a theater, such that in January 2022, if and when Warner decides to instill a 30-day theatrical window (the 90 day window is never coming back), most people will wait. So, future box office grosses are limited as well, which pisses off the actors and directors. Now, of course, going forward, Warner or any other studio can simply make different kinds of deals with talent - instead of box office grosses, they will use another metric of the film's success, or they will simply write a bigger check.

But we've all heard reports over the years about Jack Nicholson or Robert Downey Jr making $50 million from a picture due to the deal they made. Those days are over, and you might say, who cares? Obviously, overpaid actors don't get much sympathy. But they only get that kind of money when a movie makes an insane amount of money, like $1 billion. Without a robust theatrical box office, I don't see any way a movie makes a billion dollars again. That of course, affects future films studios make, and so on.

 

[jcroy]

First of all, if this holds, Warner can forget booking major talent going forward. If they contracted with Director Jones for a percentage of the box office gross for Movie A and then go and make a move that will severely limit the box office, Jones is going to be pissed and never work with Warner again (and will probably sue). Likewise for Directors Smith, Johnson and Williams, not to mention Actors X, Y and Z, and so on.

Even if directors Jones, Smith, Johnson and Williams sue Warner, AT&T has extremely deep pockets. The latter can drag the litigation on for so long that Jones, Smith, Johnson and Williams eventually run out of money to pay their lawyers.

 

[Wayne_j]

The more likely scenario is that the DGA bans directors from working for Warners. Warner's would have been much better off instituting a 30 day theatrical window that way films do get an exclusive time at theaters and consumers who won't leave their house won't have to wait too long to see the movies.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Talent will just take more money up front, as they already do when they work on projects for streaming today. A-list talent is already working on streaming. People will go where the work is. I do not believe that directors or actors will decline to work with Warner when Warner is agreeing to pay them and finance the project they wish to make.

As for the window - I genuinely believe it was becoming untenable for most pictures anyway, and that the industry was going to have to move in this direction no matter what; the pandemic just made it happen. There’s a huge audience out there that either doesn’t go to theaters at all or only goes once or twice a year. Far more people watch at home than go to theaters, and the overlap between the two groups continues to shrink. It’s probably past time to treat them as separate constituencies. Studios also spend fortunes to promote films in theaters (often equal to or greater than the cost of the film itself), and then do so again months later when it becomes available for home viewing. Condensing that to one release with one ad campaign could save a ridiculous amount of money.

And yes, the days of billion dollar grosses could be numbered, but I think they were anyway - that was always unsustainable. For a movie to make that much, it has to have wide appeal and spectacle and probably be part of a series with prior audience investment and come along quick so that the audience feels an urgency to see it. So you’re spending at least $200 million to make the film, at least $200 million to market it, you’re hurting your theatrical partners because the audience all comes in the first two weeks when the theaters get to keep almost none of that, and you’re sort of annoying a good portion of the audience that doesn’t love the pressure of seeing it right away or any of the negatives that come with theatrical exhibition. That was never going to go on forever.

I think that’s why Disney and other studios have invested so much in their streaming businesses; they know that kind of theatrical boom is finite and want to be positioned for what’s next when the bottom falls out.

I think in the future, theaters will have to scale back and going to the movies in many cases will be similar to going to a sports game in person vs watching it at home. People who like going will still go and they’ll be asked to pay more but with fewer customers, theaters can focus on providing better quality to fewer people instead of minimal quality to more people. And I think you’ll also see things where studios have franchises that jump back and forth between TV and theatrical so that they get the audience invested at home and then have a big movie to cash in on that investment. We’re already seeing the beginnings of that with Marvel’s new show set to lead into their next movies, or with Dune beginning in theaters and then having additional parts of the story told in a show.

I know there is a lot of disagreement on my last point here, but I think this is ultimately being driven by audiences and consumer preferences. Audiences are saying again and again, based on how they spend their time and money, that they like this shift. They’re driving it when they turn subscription streaming into an $18 billion a year and growing industry in less than ten years. All parts of this industry need to come to terms with the simple fact that going to a location outside the home at a specific time of someone else’s choosing is no longer many people’s preference for how they want to watch stuff. Everyone involved can either scream at the sky and try to fight gravity and be left behind when the audience moves on, or they can try to get ahead of it and be a part of making this new paradigm work for everyone.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The more likely scenario is that the DGA bans directors from working for Warners. Warner's would have been much better off instituting a 30 day theatrical window that way films do get an exclusive time at theaters and consumers who won't leave their house won't have to wait too long to see the movies.

Could be, but I don’t see that as being practical. Warner has what, 17 pictures going theatrical in 2021? They produce far more when it comes to television content that they make for their own broadcast, cable and streaming services, as well as for other networks and services. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours of content each year. Will the DGA cut off its nose to spite its face here, and take away hundreds of directing gigs a year to send a message about roughly a dozen of those gigs premiering in one place instead of another?

 

[TravisR]

I'd love to see the entire industry blackball Warners over this but I know Warners would just start offering big enough paychecks and budgets to get people to leave the DGA so a ban probably wouldn't accomplish much.

 

[Traveling Matt]

I think Warner is ahead of the curve here and I think the general public will be on their side. I think filmmakers, agents, etc are risking appearing seriously out of touch and alienating their audience if they continue with this public campaign against a concept that the general public is in favor of. All of this stuff about contract payments and gross percentages is insider baseball. Remind me how much sympathy MLB players got when they went on strike?

It was reported in one of these trades that Warner intends to pay $10 million or more to profit participants on films being released in this fashion, depending on the title and the details of the contract.

What sounds like a lot of upfront money is relative. Larger upfront payments ("day rates") are sometimes made to non-union (non A-list) talent in the form of what is essentially a buyout, which saves producers in the long run because the accumulation of residuals would cost them much more. $10 million may sound like a lot, and it might be a lot depending on the talent and what they command, but it is again relative. Especially since streaming gleefully refuses to provide viewership numbers, which makes value harder to assess. Not to mention straight up profit totals. This is consistent with the nondisclosure, race-to-the-bottom nature of the streaming era which, when combined with corporate mergers that create tiered behemoths (i.e. HBO > Warner > AT&T), present the acceleration of a darker future for those but the biggest corporate investors. And at the expense of all those below them including, eventually, the audience. Even if they don't recognize it at first, or ever.

I know there is a lot of disagreement on my last point here, but I think this is ultimately being driven by audiences and consumer preferences. Audiences are saying again and again, based on how they spend their time and money, that they like this shift. They’re driving it when they turn subscription streaming into an $18 billion a year and growing industry in less than ten years. All parts of this industry need to come to terms with the simple fact that going to a location outside the home at a specific time of someone else’s choosing is no longer many people’s preference for how they want to watch stuff. Everyone involved can either scream at the sky and try to fight gravity and be left behind when the audience moves on, or they can try to get ahead of it and be a part of making this new paradigm work for everyone.

I remember you saying this before the pandemic, and I think there is likely some truth to it for at least some people. It might be that some of this transition would have happened gradually and in smaller amounts, but it was not happening at all until the pandemic. Where I take issue is conflating streaming growth with exhibition preference rather than home video. Audiences spoke with their money, yes, but they only spoke to a preference for streaming over DVDs. Not for streaming over theatrical releases. There's a difference between audiences discovering preferences on their own and a studio manipulating them in a certain direction to raise one big boat instead of all boats.

 

[Wayne_j]

From:

John Lee Hancock On A 30-Year Odyssey Making ‘The Little Things’ With Denzel Washington, Rami Malek & Jared Leto, And The Abrupt HBO Max Pandemic Pivot: The Deadline Q&A

John Lee Hancock On A 30 Year Odyssey Making 'The Little Things' With Denzel Washington, Rami Malek & Jared Leto, And An Abrupt HBO Max Pivot

deadline.com

"Legendary is in a big fight that might result in lawsuits after it financed 75% of tent poles Dune and Godzilla vs. Kong and was completely blindsided. Rumors have the solution to that breach being to preserve Dune as a traditional theatrical to preserve its franchise potential and since its October 1 release date falls well after the estimated late spring date when Covid vaccines should achieve herd immunity. Godzilla vs. Kong might stay an HBO Max hybrid in its May 21 slot, but only if Warner Bros makes a deal with Legendary that uses as a base the $250 million value established when the film was shopped earlier to Netflix. There is also King Richard, the Will Smith-starrer that nearly went to Netflix and Barack and Michelle Obama’s Higher Ground. Smith’s deal expressly calls for a theatrical only release, sources say, and while he became the first big star to sign one of those $30 million Netflix salary + pre-negotiated back end deals several years ago on Bright, Warner Bros only won the vigorous King Richard auction because its makers and the family of Venus and Serena Williams wanted to see the underdog story of their father Richard play on the big screen."

 

[Robert Crawford]

By the way, you can't stream "WW84" until 12:00 p.m. ET on Christmas Day.

That is what the HBO Max app. is saying tonight so it looks like I'll be watching another movie tomorrow morning.

 

[Malcolm R]

Hope their servers are prepared to handle the onslaught.