My question is how movie theaters will somehow be saved if Paramount gets Warner Bros. I am on the side of not wanting that IP to end up in the hands of the Ellisons, and I'm not sure of the evidence that the Ellisons aren't going to do the exact same thing as Netflix regarding theatrical releases. Considering the way the Ellisons talk about a bringing in a technological revolution, I would think artists like Cameron would be more worried about Paramount getting it and pumping out AI slop based on all that IP.
Society is just moving past spending hours commuting to and from the theater, watching trailers, and then sitting through a movie. And that's not to mention that theaters are also bifurcating into the old cheap poorly maintained theaters versus the super comfortable luxury seating restaurant style facilities that cost way more than a struggling family can afford.
I'm definitely not a super fan of Cameron's work, but I like some of it. (Has anyone suggested to him that remaking the same movie with water, fire, etc., is a little reductive?) And God help me, I so hate unobtanium. And we all know what he did with the title font. IT'S JUST PAPYRUS!
But still, the larger question remains. Would Netflix necessarily be more damaging to theatrical releases and the overall art of movies than Paramount or Comcast?
As a follow-up question, does CNN matter at all to any of these companies? I heard Kara Swisher say that's a dead asset for all the bidders, which sounded pretty depressing.
The cable net question is an interesting one, because what Zaslav wanted to do was split the streaming entities and studio off from the cable networks, which are in terminal decline but still tossing off billions in revenue for the short term. (Comcast did something similar recently.) I thought CNN should’ve been folded into HBO Max, as it’d be the only major streamer with a dedicated news channel (though the Fox streamer now has Fox News), but it’s still pretty valuable as a cable company. (Between one and two billion in affiliate fees annually, let’s say, plus ad revenue.)
Media consolidation in the hands of a few billionaires is another death knell of democracy by extreme capitalism. We the people absolutely should be pushing back against this. But Trump's "shock and awe" democracy dismantling does make it harder to harness the energy to fight this. There are ways though.
In many ways, the death of the movie theatre is one more signal loss of the public square. Once upon a now no longer relevant time, that was a sort of cultural town hall. Town halls: ritual format for people to gather, debate and take into account the ideas of others living nearby. Based on the idea of shared consensus for matters of importance. Now, though, we have the hived confines of at-home so called theater. We binge watch at the expense of more expansive and thought provoking kinds of intake. We opt for self limiting algorithms of You-tube or TikTok. Which don't expand; they minimize us.
I know we can never get back to a three-network Uncle Walter landscape, but we have gone down confined preselected warrens at an expense- to our understanding culturally, politically and socially who we really are. And this does not serve us well, as a cohesive society. The loss of the theatrical group experience is a parallel to the isolating and fragmenting effects of social media.
Movie theaters, let's face it, are probably going to be goners - they are increasingly a relic from what are apparently now 'the old days', clinging on like an engenue dangling from a cliff with nothing to hold onto but a tuft of dying grass.
But picture this, Sonny - what would streaming services want to do in the realm of public viewing? There is something about seeing a movie on the big screen; what I am thinking is that businesses of various sizes will spring up IF the streaming services offer a commercial distribution package for people who own bars and larger venues (like old movie theaters) so that the content gets viewed in a public setting, on screens ranging from small theater size to normal theater size; turn the thing into an 'event' space, where you can eat and drink and watch a great movie - and one that is not necessarily a new movie, but a classic!
The amount of material available to the 'theaters' (I've got to coin a term for this right quick, hang on - how about restauranteaters? Hmmmm). The amount of content available to the bareaters (?!?!?!) would be gigantic, the streaming services would get thier cut (if they do not do this already); you could even have viewers choice nights, where the most tickets sold would determine whichg movie played, and if you voted for a different movie you could either go to the one that won or get a refund - this would allow for some cool community building and drives to get certain movies into the venue.
The industry is going to change - I like my idea, and I am now looking for investors in the next wave of movie appreciation, the Theabarestaraunteer!
You’d have to come up with a catchy name, maybe resonant in American history for the branding. A place where movies make their last stand. I’ll keep working on this.
Yup. Lots of very human motives for why people feel the way they do about things. Cameron gets mad about Netflix scamming the Oscars with theatrical window speedruns and potentially eroding a part of the film experience he holds very dear. Rian has a soft spot for Netflix because they give him no notes and lots of cash. Makes perfect sense to me.
Media died when this country abandoned its freedom of speech and privacy laws. Without access freedom is meaningless, without freedom fighting for access is pointless. I don’t see the slow erosion and conglomeration stopping until the economy crashes hard enough to force even the people on top to realize that actions have consequences.
Not sure what you mean when you say 'abandoned its freedom of speech and privacy laws'. I'm a pretty private person, and I say basically whatever I want to.
Also, constitutional freedom of speech isn’t the same as saying whatever you want. It’s more about not saying or doing things that limit the speech of others, particularly for those in power. The ideological conflicts obscure that.
Breaking News: IRS caught sharing information with DHS illegally.
Was mostly rhetorical, exploring the tensions between your informational freedoms and media output. One must create a pool of information and distribute it without others interfering or stealing it to be effective in media.
Ayuh, I look at it differently - entertainment industries are always suffering from entropy, and the rebuilding after a collapse of the previous - and, like today, many of these moments came about through technology.
Sure, the current movie theater/classic movie production system is suffering from pre death (or at least pre-coma) system shocks because of the efficiency of streaming but there is way nmore content over all, and a lot of it is good content.
Plus, there are people now cutting their teeth not on super 8 cameras, but on cheap cameras and youtube - as big money effots stagnate, the truly creative content people will turn to alternative distribution and creation efforts, and in turn will have money funneled to them if thier efforts are good, and are notiuced by the right people.
Sure, it's messy right now for the current players, but this is what happens with the entertainment industry every 30 years. When TV came out as a thing people could just get, there was lamentations abounding about the death of the movie theater.
Don't egt me wrong, movies are great - but I can't have a bacon sandwhich and smoke weed in the thearter - at least for now, right Sonny?
OOOOO, the Dine In, based off the Drive In! (sorry, Russell, this was concerning another thread, I just wanted to stick it in hre because I am busy and I would forget about it otherwise).
Trump sucks, right? He can try to curtail free speech, and some wankers will cave, but they will be remembered, and fuck them. I got the American people kickin the ass of these cheap pricks - but it ain't gonna be quick, and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Take joy in the fact that there will always be movies made, as long as there is some dude with a camera. Or better yet, a woman with a camera!
"Now, there are obviously issues with the other bidders, primarily Paramount and its owner, David Ellison."
Minor, technical point: Paramount Skydance Corporation is publicly traded (NASDAQ: PSKY) so it has zillions of owners, but Ellison does own a controlling interest, I believe.
I'm totally in favor of Netflix acquiring Warner vs. the Ellisons. Having two large entertainment giants in the hands of the Trump-loving Ellisons is a disaster for democracy - I can only imagine the damage they'd do to the likes of HBO as they're doing to CBS.
But what happened to anti-monopoly regs? The idea was diversification meant to encourage competition and innovation. I don't want to protect the buggy whip as cars become the dominant transport but I do want to protect from market domination when an entity is purchased to make it part of an exact replica of something else, or to keep us from having an alternative or new option.
Yeah, all the consolidation just seems bad no matter who ends up buying Warner. My ideal outcome is that no one gets control of Warner Bros, which seems extremely unlikely given the current administration in charge.
My question is how movie theaters will somehow be saved if Paramount gets Warner Bros. I am on the side of not wanting that IP to end up in the hands of the Ellisons, and I'm not sure of the evidence that the Ellisons aren't going to do the exact same thing as Netflix regarding theatrical releases. Considering the way the Ellisons talk about a bringing in a technological revolution, I would think artists like Cameron would be more worried about Paramount getting it and pumping out AI slop based on all that IP.
Society is just moving past spending hours commuting to and from the theater, watching trailers, and then sitting through a movie. And that's not to mention that theaters are also bifurcating into the old cheap poorly maintained theaters versus the super comfortable luxury seating restaurant style facilities that cost way more than a struggling family can afford.
I'm definitely not a super fan of Cameron's work, but I like some of it. (Has anyone suggested to him that remaking the same movie with water, fire, etc., is a little reductive?) And God help me, I so hate unobtanium. And we all know what he did with the title font. IT'S JUST PAPYRUS!
But still, the larger question remains. Would Netflix necessarily be more damaging to theatrical releases and the overall art of movies than Paramount or Comcast?
Yes.
As a follow-up question, does CNN matter at all to any of these companies? I heard Kara Swisher say that's a dead asset for all the bidders, which sounded pretty depressing.
The cable net question is an interesting one, because what Zaslav wanted to do was split the streaming entities and studio off from the cable networks, which are in terminal decline but still tossing off billions in revenue for the short term. (Comcast did something similar recently.) I thought CNN should’ve been folded into HBO Max, as it’d be the only major streamer with a dedicated news channel (though the Fox streamer now has Fox News), but it’s still pretty valuable as a cable company. (Between one and two billion in affiliate fees annually, let’s say, plus ad revenue.)
God bless Sonny Bunch for giving my mind a rest from Donald Trump stupidity for 15 minutes!
We really enjoyed The Family Plan and I’m looking forward to this sequel.
Media consolidation in the hands of a few billionaires is another death knell of democracy by extreme capitalism. We the people absolutely should be pushing back against this. But Trump's "shock and awe" democracy dismantling does make it harder to harness the energy to fight this. There are ways though.
In many ways, the death of the movie theatre is one more signal loss of the public square. Once upon a now no longer relevant time, that was a sort of cultural town hall. Town halls: ritual format for people to gather, debate and take into account the ideas of others living nearby. Based on the idea of shared consensus for matters of importance. Now, though, we have the hived confines of at-home so called theater. We binge watch at the expense of more expansive and thought provoking kinds of intake. We opt for self limiting algorithms of You-tube or TikTok. Which don't expand; they minimize us.
I know we can never get back to a three-network Uncle Walter landscape, but we have gone down confined preselected warrens at an expense- to our understanding culturally, politically and socially who we really are. And this does not serve us well, as a cohesive society. The loss of the theatrical group experience is a parallel to the isolating and fragmenting effects of social media.
I’m old enough to remember just showing up at the theater without knowing what is playing and just picking something that looks interesting.
And in the warm summertime, we just headed to the drive in. And whatever was on offer was OK with us kids. In some ways, being 12 was so great.
Movie theaters, let's face it, are probably going to be goners - they are increasingly a relic from what are apparently now 'the old days', clinging on like an engenue dangling from a cliff with nothing to hold onto but a tuft of dying grass.
But picture this, Sonny - what would streaming services want to do in the realm of public viewing? There is something about seeing a movie on the big screen; what I am thinking is that businesses of various sizes will spring up IF the streaming services offer a commercial distribution package for people who own bars and larger venues (like old movie theaters) so that the content gets viewed in a public setting, on screens ranging from small theater size to normal theater size; turn the thing into an 'event' space, where you can eat and drink and watch a great movie - and one that is not necessarily a new movie, but a classic!
The amount of material available to the 'theaters' (I've got to coin a term for this right quick, hang on - how about restauranteaters? Hmmmm). The amount of content available to the bareaters (?!?!?!) would be gigantic, the streaming services would get thier cut (if they do not do this already); you could even have viewers choice nights, where the most tickets sold would determine whichg movie played, and if you voted for a different movie you could either go to the one that won or get a refund - this would allow for some cool community building and drives to get certain movies into the venue.
The industry is going to change - I like my idea, and I am now looking for investors in the next wave of movie appreciation, the Theabarestaraunteer!
You’d have to come up with a catchy name, maybe resonant in American history for the branding. A place where movies make their last stand. I’ll keep working on this.
This is an interesting interview that offers a bit of a counter view of Netflix. She doesn't specifically ask Rian about the merger but he clearly has warm feeling towards the company. https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-business/stories/rian-johnson-ram-bergman-paramount-rush-hour
Well they gave him nearly half a billion dollars to make two Knives Out movies, so I imagine he would.
Yup. Lots of very human motives for why people feel the way they do about things. Cameron gets mad about Netflix scamming the Oscars with theatrical window speedruns and potentially eroding a part of the film experience he holds very dear. Rian has a soft spot for Netflix because they give him no notes and lots of cash. Makes perfect sense to me.
Media died when this country abandoned its freedom of speech and privacy laws. Without access freedom is meaningless, without freedom fighting for access is pointless. I don’t see the slow erosion and conglomeration stopping until the economy crashes hard enough to force even the people on top to realize that actions have consequences.
Not sure what you mean when you say 'abandoned its freedom of speech and privacy laws'. I'm a pretty private person, and I say basically whatever I want to.
Also, constitutional freedom of speech isn’t the same as saying whatever you want. It’s more about not saying or doing things that limit the speech of others, particularly for those in power. The ideological conflicts obscure that.
Breaking News: IRS caught sharing information with DHS illegally.
Was mostly rhetorical, exploring the tensions between your informational freedoms and media output. One must create a pool of information and distribute it without others interfering or stealing it to be effective in media.
Ayuh, I look at it differently - entertainment industries are always suffering from entropy, and the rebuilding after a collapse of the previous - and, like today, many of these moments came about through technology.
Sure, the current movie theater/classic movie production system is suffering from pre death (or at least pre-coma) system shocks because of the efficiency of streaming but there is way nmore content over all, and a lot of it is good content.
Plus, there are people now cutting their teeth not on super 8 cameras, but on cheap cameras and youtube - as big money effots stagnate, the truly creative content people will turn to alternative distribution and creation efforts, and in turn will have money funneled to them if thier efforts are good, and are notiuced by the right people.
Sure, it's messy right now for the current players, but this is what happens with the entertainment industry every 30 years. When TV came out as a thing people could just get, there was lamentations abounding about the death of the movie theater.
Don't egt me wrong, movies are great - but I can't have a bacon sandwhich and smoke weed in the thearter - at least for now, right Sonny?
OOOOO, the Dine In, based off the Drive In! (sorry, Russell, this was concerning another thread, I just wanted to stick it in hre because I am busy and I would forget about it otherwise).
Trump sucks, right? He can try to curtail free speech, and some wankers will cave, but they will be remembered, and fuck them. I got the American people kickin the ass of these cheap pricks - but it ain't gonna be quick, and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Take joy in the fact that there will always be movies made, as long as there is some dude with a camera. Or better yet, a woman with a camera!
"Now, there are obviously issues with the other bidders, primarily Paramount and its owner, David Ellison."
Minor, technical point: Paramount Skydance Corporation is publicly traded (NASDAQ: PSKY) so it has zillions of owners, but Ellison does own a controlling interest, I believe.
I'm totally in favor of Netflix acquiring Warner vs. the Ellisons. Having two large entertainment giants in the hands of the Trump-loving Ellisons is a disaster for democracy - I can only imagine the damage they'd do to the likes of HBO as they're doing to CBS.
But what happened to anti-monopoly regs? The idea was diversification meant to encourage competition and innovation. I don't want to protect the buggy whip as cars become the dominant transport but I do want to protect from market domination when an entity is purchased to make it part of an exact replica of something else, or to keep us from having an alternative or new option.
Yeah, all the consolidation just seems bad no matter who ends up buying Warner. My ideal outcome is that no one gets control of Warner Bros, which seems extremely unlikely given the current administration in charge.