Press Release WHV Press Release: Juror #2 (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

Is Warner Bros. trying to recoup its outlay by charging a fortune and hoping this will sell millions?

Of course not.

WB has said that they consider this to be a Max Original title. It opens with the Max Original logo when streamed there. They clearly view this film as something that is primarily intended to drive audiences to the streaming service, and it has done that. I streamed it because it did not play at my local theater, which is exactly what WB wanted me to do.

I don't think there was ever any reason to anticipate bells and whistles with this disc. The Blu-ray release is probably viewed as a courtesy to Eastwood in the same way that the nominal theatrical release was. I'm by no means thrilled with their strategy either, but at least they are putting out a Blu-ray. Other companies who make films primarily for streaming often don't bother to do that at all. There are other streaming films that I'd love to be able to buy even if they were barebones. So WB does deserve some credit for putting it out, since they very easily could have chosen not to do so. I'll probably end up getting this at some point. $38 is a big ask though.

 

[haineshisway]

Warner Bros. owes Eastwood a lot more than courtesy. They shafted his film. Then tried to walk back the damage once it began getting great reviews. It is up for zero Oscars because Warner Bros. did NOTHING.

 

[titch]

WB has said that they consider this to be a Max Original title. It opens with the Max Original logo when streamed there. They clearly view this film as something that is primarily intended to drive audiences to the streaming service, and it has done that. I streamed it because it did not play at my local theater, which is exactly what WB wanted me to do.

I'm sure a junior Warner Bros. executive sat down with Mr Eastwood before greenlighting the film ("Sorry Clint, David Zaslav is too busy selling his stock holdings today, to be able to meet you in person") and told him that he could make a TV movie as a fitting end of their 45 films and 50 years relationship.

And no, I have not streamed the film on Max. I will be purchasing the blu-ray, to put on the shelf, with all the Clint Eastwood films I have. I have a section of my library reserved for auteurs (Hitchcock, Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen et al) and the Clint Eastwood section currently has 49 titles.

After 50 Years, Clint Eastwood's Relationship With Warner Bros. Has Slowly Unraveled

That explains the odd release of 'Juror #2.'

movieweb.com

 

[Jake Lipson]

Warner Bros. owes Eastwood a lot more than courtesy.

I'm not defending the strategy. I would absolutely have gone to see the film if it had received a traditional wide release, and I think WB left money on the table.

But because WB views this as a streaming film -- whether Eastwood views it the same way or not -- however much money they make on the Blu-ray is largely irrelevant to them. They just don't seem to care about people seeing it in other ways.

Why WB would greenlight a film that they don't appear to believe in is another matter. I know that they have a long history with Eastwood, but it seems to me that they could have simply declined to make the movie if it wasn't something the new regime wanted. Some other studio would almost certainly have stepped in and made the film if Eastwood had shopped the project elsewhere instead of doing it for Warner Bros.

 

[titch]

I'm not defending the strategy. I would absolutely have gone to see the film if it had received a traditional wide release, and I think WB left money on the table.

But because WB views this as a streaming film -- whether Eastwood views it the same way or not -- however much money they make on the Blu-ray is largely irrelevant to them. They just don't seem to care about people seeing it in other ways.

Why WB would greenlight a film that they don't appear to believe in is another matter. I know that they have a long history with Eastwood, but it seems to me that they could have simply declined to make the movie if it wasn't something the new regime wanted. Some other studio would almost certainly have stepped in and made the film if Eastwood had shopped the project elsewhere instead of doing it for Warner Bros.

“Some of our industry’s biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service.”

At least Christopher Nolan told Warner Bros. where they could shove their streaming service, after nearly twenty years of working for them.

Christopher Nolan Rips HBO Max as “Worst Streaming Service,” Denounces Warner Bros.’ Plan

Christopher Nolan: “Warner Bros. had an incredible machine for getting a filmmaker’s work out everywhere, both in theaters and in the home, and they are dismantling it as we speak."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Keith Cobby]

Tarantino and Nolan are right and it's something I commented on recently in the AA's thread. The studios and streaming are killing the movie business. Most films now seem to be made for television. Eastwood can at least have the comfort of knowing he was in the business when filmmaking meant something other than just money.