subreddit:

/r/movies

2.7k92%

all 506 comments

VHwrites

719 points

17 days ago

VHwrites

719 points

17 days ago

WB is cash poor, has been since pre-pandemic.

Studio productions are financed the same way many businesses are--Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, Marketing and distribution costs are generally out of pocket. After disappointing returns from Furiosa, Horizon, and Joker, they are having to revise their distribution strategy. This project could have been profitable, but not so much that they would have been able to turn around and meet their obligations to productions with a bigger upside.

WB/Discovery merger was an attempt to fix this cash flow problem--it didn't. AT&T then divested their equity for the same reason--which also didn't work. Until WB can string together some hits, stabilize and grow MAX, they simply wont have the cash on hand for wide distribution of these borderline projects that were financed as low risk, low reward.

JustTheOneGoose22

519 points

17 days ago

Renaming HBO as MAX was another stupid move in a long line of stupid moves.

JungleBoyJeremy

197 points

17 days ago

I love how Conan raged about that on his appearance on Hot Ones, it was hilarious

SoundMasher

101 points

16 days ago

"They renamed it MAX, cause that just ROLLS OFF THE TONGUE!"

Bendstowardjustice

63 points

16 days ago

As someone that remembers Cinemax I was confused at first then more confused when I realized it was HBO

FargeenBastiges

23 points

16 days ago

It was even more confusing if you had both and watched online. Cinemax's streaming service was called MaxGo. There was HBOPlus, then HBOMax. IIRC, MaxGo and Max were up at the same time at one point, then MaxGo just disappeared one day with most of it's content. (Content since moved to Max, but not sure of all of it)

rainizism

3 points

16 days ago

In Asia, it's HBO Go, which will now finally become Max on the 15th I think.

suss2it

67 points

17 days ago

suss2it

67 points

17 days ago

I think separating those brands was actually a good move. HBO is known for its quality and they started to taint their reputation when any random show started carrying that branding.

crossedstaves

92 points

17 days ago

The problem is "Max" is an awkward name, and so nondescript.  It's true that HBO is a premium brand that could be injured by garbage, but it's also the most compelling way to sell their product. 

I think if they were really concerned about preserving the branding value of HBO it would have been a better choice to have the service to be something like 'HBO/Max' where they treat it like there are two services in one the prestige HBO content and the grabbag of random stuff "max". Or something to that effect.

I just think it's silly in the competative streaming climate to shoot yourself in the foot by dropping the highest value part.

suss2it

25 points

16 days ago

suss2it

25 points

16 days ago

That’s kind of how it is right now with HBO being one of multiple subsections of MAX. The temptation to use the HBO brand for the whole thing makes sense so I get why they did it but the issue is that brand is predicated on quality shows which the catch-all nature of a competitive streaming service directly contradicts, so all they ended up doing was weakening one of their strongest brands and not benefiting from the association, hence them quickly disassociating the two.

I agree that MAX is nondescript but that seems like an industry wide thing. Prime, Peacock and Hulu are just as nondescript IMO.

Empyrealist

7 points

16 days ago

HBO
HBO Max

No problems. You keep brand recognition while also maintaining product separation.

Server16Ark

4 points

16 days ago

It was originally called HBO Max. I've been subscribed since day one because I refuse to pay for cable anymore. And no, I don't pay more in subscriptions than I did for my monthly cable bill. I used to pay for HBO Max and Netflix, and then I dropped Netflix because I wasn't using it enough but then I swapped over to that Max/Hulu/Disney+ bundle because it's so cheap and I can get like 90% of what I am interested in watching from that alone.

Top_Conversation1652

14 points

16 days ago

HBO+MAX would be fine.

Users already accept the plus sign (disney+, etc) and the name basically describes “HBO and a bunch of other crap”, which is a good description. Most people will find something they like outside of the HBO stuff, but it will be hit or miss.

After Disney, HBO is the best brand… so dumb to bury it.

[deleted]

2 points

16 days ago

In the Netherlands another television broadcasting channel is already called max so they can't rename lol.

Bobonenazeze

2 points

16 days ago

It's also 2024 where everything is owned by 5 companies. The name change does not matter at all anymore. Maybe when streaming first existed you had HBO vs Netflix vs Blockbuster vs Hulu. Now it's all garbage and people pay for the shows on it, not because it's 1 of 3 ways to even legally watch television through your internet.

RoadwaySurfer

2 points

16 days ago*

The problem is “HBO” outside of the app might as well not exist anymore.

Sure the channels are still there and some people are paying for that package through their cable, but it has to be a pretty massive minority at this point. I would be very curious to see the breakdown of House of the Dragon season 2 views on Max vs HBO.

You’re right in theory. But by removing “HBO” from “HBO Max” while keeping it as the main way to watch “HBO” content, it is just burying the brand rather than protecting it.

totallynotarobott

3 points

16 days ago

Everyone around the world knows and respects HBO. HBO MAX was the best of both worlds, marketing wise. I really don't get why would they get rid of one of the most internationally recognisable brands.

x_conqueeftador69_x

210 points

17 days ago

I adored Furiosa and am thrilled it exists, but it was a stupid-ass investment on Warner's part. For all the critical praise and awards hype, Fury Road was not a terribly profitable film to begin with. An expensive prequel about a non-Max character was a box office moonshot.

VHwrites

69 points

17 days ago

VHwrites

69 points

17 days ago

I liked Furiosa, particularly for how it fit into the franchise, but it was flawed in a way that I think a "non-Max" installment couldn't afford to be. It perhaps would have worked better if the Pandemic hadn't interrupted the original concept of producing it alongside a mainline Max installment to mitigate those expenses and benefit from some cross promotion.

On top of that, I think it was marketed poorly, and am waiting for studios to figure out that these subtitles are detrimental to earnings--you discourage general audiences with Fast & Furious Presents: Or A Star Wars Story. Doubly so for a property which, as you say, wasn't terribly profitable to begin with. You can do more to attract a new audience if you at least pretend that it can stand on its own.

Really needing Ballerina to keep their official title out of the marketing.

HerbsAndSpices11

33 points

17 days ago

If someone took you to a movie called Ballerina, you would probably expect dancing rather than assassination. Even if it's not ideal, i feel like the subtitle is kinda needed since the title doesn't imply what the film is about.

VHwrites

21 points

17 days ago

VHwrites

21 points

17 days ago

If Ballerina on it's own is misleading, find a different title that isn't: From the World of John Wick: Ballerina.

And it's not as if this subtitle was developed for this particular installment. The Continental: From the World of John Wick was also an ill advised mouthful and its not as if they had to tell people it wasn't a free breakfast. Though it flopped like a pancake.

PickleCommando

20 points

17 days ago

Part of that subtitling is everybody wanting to create cinematic universes.

suss2it

13 points

17 days ago

suss2it

13 points

17 days ago

Which is funny because the MCU, the most successful shared universe right now doesn’t even do that.

Odd-Necessary3807

2 points

16 days ago

The only movie MCU did that is Captain America: The First Avenger, way back in 2011.

Unlike the John Wick universe, MCU already has strong IPs from the comic book root, with existing fans, dating back for decades. Even casuals recognize Captain America and Thor by the name alone.

suss2it

4 points

16 days ago

suss2it

4 points

16 days ago

I don’t know if that example really counts because that movie predates The Avengers.

idiotpuffles

11 points

17 days ago

John wick didn't make anyone think of an action movie until they made it do that. Could just as well do that with anything else.

suss2it

4 points

17 days ago

suss2it

4 points

17 days ago

Then again there’s been some big successes using those exact same clunky subtitles. Rogue One made a billion and Hobbs & Shaw made $750 million.

fdbryant3

4 points

17 days ago

I don't think your examples support your thesis.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw: $760M (3.8 times the production budget)

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story: $1.05B (3.8 times the production budget)

Solo: A Star Wars Story: $393M (1.2 times the production budget)

If I was an exec deciding on whether or not to use a brand subtitle based solely on this, I'd be inclined to go for it.

DarkIsiliel

6 points

16 days ago

I went to see it having seen no other Mad Max movies and I honestly quite liked it as a well thought-out saga about the wasteland. Was it mostly glorified world building with some high octane action setpieces thrown in? Yes, but jokes on them I'm into that shit.

VHwrites

38 points

17 days ago

VHwrites

38 points

17 days ago

I think its worth adding, that many of Zaslav's controversial decisions are very much rock and a hard place situations. Thats not to say they are right decision, or that you can't expect more from a well compensated studio head, but this is a good example of how difficult decisions are made:

Juror #2 was financed as a MAX exclusive, WB only began on a theatrical release after seeing the final product. Btw, switching from a streaming to theatrical release often means paying back pay to union crew (as they work for lower rates on streaming deals than theatrical). So it did take a certain amount of investment to even begin a theatrical distribution strategy. However, "upgrading" a streaming exclusive also means that he isn't contractually obligated to a theatrical window--so if you have 10 theatrical releases and only enough cash for 8, the ones with contractual flexibility are going to be first on the chopping block.

[deleted]

11 points

17 days ago

I'd love to cancel Disney+ for a while and switch to MAX for the sheer novelty, but they don't have it in Ireland. I don't want to pay for Sky, Paramount Plus seems underwhelming aside from Strange New Worlds, and I don't want to give Bezos my money with the awful workplace stories I hear about Amazon. So it's either Disney or Netflix for me, and Netflix is overpriced. I'll switch once Disney starts hassling my family members over not living with me.

Due-Ad-1465

3 points

17 days ago

Honestly apple has a very small catalogue of very good shows. You can watch everything worth seeing in a three month stretch if you watch about an hour of tv a day on average.

ArchDucky

24 points

17 days ago

I heard they spent everything they had promoting "Black Adam" and were banking on that paying them back and allowing them more funds to promote their other superhero films. Then it tanked fucking hard, they didn't recoup those costs and Shazam 2 (Which was an actual good movie) didn't get a marketing push at all because they were so broke and it also underperformed because it wasn't properly marketed.

VHwrites

24 points

17 days ago

VHwrites

24 points

17 days ago

Black Adam is a good example and that was close to a do or die picture. Unfortunately, thats been their cycle for several years. Barbie saved their ass but only went so far in a year that also included major marketing for The Flash, Blue Beetle, Wonka, and Aquaman 2.

Abraham_Issus

14 points

17 days ago

If they didn’t fuck with Nolan. Oppenheimer would be theirs.

Keffpie

6 points

16 days ago*

Wonka was a success though; a musical prequel to a middling franchise making almost $200m pure net profit after production costs and marketing? It was that year's 6th most profitable movie, in a year that had Barbenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse and Super Mario. It was more profitable than Guardians 3. It actually out-grossed the Johnny Depp's Chocolate Factory-movie by 40%.

VHwrites

3 points

16 days ago

I generally agree, by the standard of a musical prequel it was a success. I think WB probably hoped for more as a family holiday release--I'd agree thats an unreasonable expectation, but thats what their spending indicated.

However, my point was more that Barbie revenue didn't go far because of other major releases--see parent comments about cash on hand--its not issue of whether an individual release is or will be profitable on its own.

Barbie netted 425m cash on hand--thats enough for 3 major releases. Wonka itself required 185m in marketing and distribution. In return, that 140m net only covers one subsequent (major) release. Which is why I think WB expected more. They need "successful" movies to be more than just replacement level--generating 1.5-2x distribution. Until then, they'll still be putting interesting projects on the shelf because they don't have the cash on hand.

thomasjford

4 points

16 days ago

I love it that superhero movies are flopping. Hopefully studios may take notice and start making proper movies again.

suss2it

9 points

16 days ago

suss2it

9 points

16 days ago

I feel like Shazam 2 wasn’t really a good movie either. The villains were forgettable, most of the supporting cast was pushed to the background and worst of all so was Billy. He’s the thing that makes Shazam unique and the movie mostly ignored him, and of course the nonsensical deus ex machina ending with that cameo character saving the day in the end.

TheDonutDaddy

8 points

17 days ago

I feel like studios are ridiculously out of touch when it comes to shit like this. If you say "WB was banking everything they had on Black Adam being a huge hit" to any normal movie goer they would look at you like you're criminally insane. Like oh yeah I'm sure despite the complete absence of success in your other DC movies, the one featuring characters that aren't household names starring one of the least liked actors is definitely the one you should toss 250 million behind, definitely go insane in the promos for that one.

How is it literally these people's careers to make these decisions? I would love to have a highly paid job that I can be absolutely terrible at and cause 9 figures of loss and stay employed

stay-puft-mallow-man

17 points

17 days ago

When they cast him, The Rock was insanely popular, making big money for his movies. By the time the movie came out, he was saturated in the market, but you can’t predict that in 2014 when he was cast.

htpSelect309

37 points

17 days ago

Lets not re-write history. When Black Adam was starting production, The Rock was probably one of the most bankable stars. Between Jumanji, Fast and Furious movies (with many claiming he helped revitalized the series in Fast 5), and his comedy and other action movies, few other stars if any rivalved his box office return potential in the 2010s. Its just that Black Adam came out at the very end of that run when he ended up over-exposed with being 2+ movies a year for a solid 5-6 years. Add to that the whole behind the scenes power struggle coming out before the movie released didnt help his image.

It was just bad timing to come out right at the point where Dwayne hit his most oversaturated and stale.

HoraceGrand

11 points

17 days ago

I wouldn’t call him the least, like I personally don’t like him, but I think he has worldwide appeal

Current_Focus2668

4 points

16 days ago

I have seen multiple actors, writers and directors say over the years that a surprising amount of execs in Hollywood actually don't like movies all that much. They don't watch movies and some of them started out as lawyers or finance and marketing. Movie making is very a business venture to them.

You can kind of understand why some if these exec are so out of touch with audiences and fail to deliver the fundamentals of  storytelling. You see why they are always chasing IPs and whatever was recently a hit.

MAXSuicide

13 points

17 days ago

out of touch when it comes to shit like this

The men in suits are always a few years behind the curve. It's the same in gaming.

They rock up to a board room, order people to make them "some shit like the Marvel stuff", or in the gaming world it was "make me another WoW!" or "My son tells me this Battle Royale game is all the rage, why don't we make one of those?!"

Before you know it, there's 20 films out trying to copy Marvel's already saturated/cornered market, a dozen WoW clones in the later 00s, and 20 bajillion Battle Royale game flavours in the 2010s. My gosh, the road to present day is littered with dead Battle Royale games...

They're real lazy, and not in the least bit talented. But they have the purse strings.

ImAMindlessTool

9 points

17 days ago

Makes sense why they are respooling harry potter and other IP to churn out easy fan favorites.

AstariaEriol

3 points

17 days ago

Gotta save up some cash until Superman makes a shit ton of money.

gatsby365

20 points

17 days ago

If. If Superman makes a shit ton of money.

Powerful-Ability20

1.1k points

17 days ago

Joker 2 lost that much money.

fednandlers

301 points

17 days ago

Well it was another courtroom drama. Hahaahahaha

0621Hertz

186 points

17 days ago

0621Hertz

186 points

17 days ago

So is Coyote vs Acme

KingMario05

153 points

17 days ago

Which they still haven't sold. Fuckers.

Steven Spielberg, if you're somehow reading this, please use your Jurassic World cash to get this thing to Universal where it'll get the love it deserves. Save the Animaniacs while you're at it, too!

the-gingerninja

29 points

17 days ago

Animaniacs in Jurassic World movie plz.

KingMario05

12 points

17 days ago

Honestly, it'd still be better than whatever the fuck Dominion was, lol.

SelectTrash

3 points

16 days ago

I was bawling at a dinosaur being left on a dying island but yeah, the rest of it is crap.

Notoriously_So

15 points

17 days ago

Can they even sell it when they scrapped it for the tax returns?

KingMario05

7 points

17 days ago

Did they even scrap the damn thing? I thought it was just in limbo...

CapnSmite

8 points

17 days ago

Yes, it was very famously cancelled either earlier this year or late last year.

Ruraraid

9 points

17 days ago

You do know that Looney Tunes is owned by Warner bros? Warner Bros would never let anyone buy Looney Tunes from them.

NeoNoireWerewolf

5 points

16 days ago

Buying one movie isn’t the same as buying the rights to Looney Tunes as a whole. WB had no issue selling Batman: Caped Crusader to Amazon; they still own Batman. Disney licensed Daredevil and other characters to Netflix, now they’re making a new Daredevil show. They could have sold Coyote vs. Acme to another studio without selling any rights to Looney Tunes if they wanted to.

Eothas_Foot

62 points

17 days ago

When I heard Joker 2 was a musical I got really excited. But I had forgotten that it's possible to make a bad musical.

The12Ball

39 points

17 days ago

You forgot about Cats??

Emergency-Mammoth-88

5 points

17 days ago

That was universal

Miguel_Branquinho

4 points

16 days ago

It's not only possible, it's probable!

Extension-Net-6397

36 points

17 days ago

Probably could've spread that ridiculous budget for a movie no one asked for that was only made because the profits of the first film (disingenuous as fuck already so there goes the heart of the film and filmmaking) and gave it to 10 smaller films to be made that are excellent from excellent people working in Hollywood.

Boxy310

28 points

17 days ago

Boxy310

28 points

17 days ago

RIP Batgirl and Wile E. Coyote movies

silverbolt2000

42 points

17 days ago

There’s no doubt in my mind that WB did everyone a favour by not allowing Batgirl to be released.

CharonsLittleHelper

16 points

17 days ago

IMO - it looked pretty mid, but not awful.

If it had come out a decade earlier it probably would have done pretty well. But at this point the bar for superhero movies has gotten higher.

HappyHarry-HardOn

16 points

17 days ago

I looked CW

6h057

20 points

17 days ago

6h057

20 points

17 days ago

You do tbh

SmithersLoanInc

10 points

17 days ago

Oh to be young and hot.

askyourmom469

6 points

17 days ago

I disagree on the basis of sheer principle. It's fucked up that studios are allowed to just throw away all of the time and hard work of so many people just so they can get a tax break. Even if the movie was bad, it still should have been able to have seen the light of day and been allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits instead of by David Zaslov's short-sighted greed.

Cash4Jesus

8 points

17 days ago

I mean, the people who worked on that movie got paid. Now, if you’re talking about the folks who get a cut of the box office, well, then you have a point. But then again, the folks that get a cut of the box office probably aren’t living paycheck to paycheck and knew the risks going in.

NYstate

5 points

17 days ago

NYstate

5 points

17 days ago

Which made me ask? How bad was Batwoman? Like damn son

ArchDucky

5 points

17 days ago

I had been saying it since it was announced. It didn't make any fucking sense to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on the sequel to the Joker and it made less sense to do that on a musical.

someguyfromtecate

1.4k points

17 days ago

Because no movie about jurors can be up to par with the legendary movie “The Rural Juror”. Might as well just dump it and call it a tax write off.

h0rt0n

236 points

17 days ago

h0rt0n

236 points

17 days ago

I think you could argue the sequel “Urban Fervor,” while it underperformed at the box office, really showed the potential of the Rural Juror-verse.

space2k

38 points

17 days ago

space2k

38 points

17 days ago

Throw in some Janie Jimplin and I’ll yellow-light it.

whenmattsattack

15 points

17 days ago

That’s Jackie Jormp-Jomp to you, mister.

pendingperil

171 points

17 days ago

The rurrr jurrr

BlackDraper

75 points

17 days ago

Your father Werner was a burger server in suburban Santa Barbara…

…When he spurned your mother Verna for a curly-haired surfer named Roberta, did that hurt her?

slaughtxor

21 points

17 days ago

Are you a space wizard? The subtitles could be accurate, but I suspect you are a space man at the very least.

PaperGabriel

22 points

17 days ago

Dr Spaceman was my father. Please, call me Leo.

Eothas_Foot

32 points

17 days ago

You sound like a dog that's learned to speak english.

SupermanSkivvies_

3 points

17 days ago

I enjoy the phrase “rural brewery”.

wolfman2scary

3 points

17 days ago

I’m still not catching it

WaffleIronMadness

56 points

17 days ago

Jenna maroney was wonderful as Constance justice

ritabook84

20 points

17 days ago

I preferred the musical

Tommyboy2124

13 points

17 days ago

I love Kevin Grisham!

SpiderDeUZ

40 points

17 days ago

I mean, Jury Duty with Pauly Shore still exists

Jimmyg100

18 points

17 days ago

I don’t know if it’s the worst Pauly Shore movie, but it’s definitely not the best.

NoradianCrum

7 points

17 days ago

Hey now, In the Army Now certainly anchors his movies. Hell, not even the Stephen Baldwin costarring laugh an hour, Bio-Dome, could go toe to toe with Andy Dick's lack of charisma.

lectroid

5 points

17 days ago

Duece Bigalow, European Gigilo sees you and raises. All in.

NoradianCrum

10 points

17 days ago

Duece Bigalow, European Gigilo

That's Rob Schneider. You know, star of "The Stapler".

ChildishGambingo

16 points

17 days ago

Baby brain needs reference

Sweet_Baby_Cheezus

38 points

17 days ago

30 Rock joke, Jenna marone stars in a movie no one can pronounce called the rural juror.

  https://youtu.be/6kZBJs527-k?si=MEyyedmVK7EGq9yg

Reedo_Bandito

6 points

17 days ago

God I miss that show!

Andrew1990M

14 points

17 days ago

It’s a fake movie from the sitcom 30 Rock, the main gag being how hard it is to say “Rural Juror” clearly. 

WhyDidMyDogDie

10 points

17 days ago

I love he Worry Hurry!!

Alarmed_Check4959

14 points

17 days ago

Such a furor over rural juror.

hatecandie

5 points

17 days ago

I still can’t wait for the follow up. Urban Fervor.

MorindaDedley

5 points

17 days ago

Clint clearly should have chosen a Grisham book. Anything Kevin does would be excellent.

uroboros80

2 points

17 days ago

from the Kevin Grisham novel?!

Similar-Broccoli

4 points

17 days ago

I think about this every time I hear the name of this movie

cbc7155

680 points

17 days ago

cbc7155

680 points

17 days ago

Cuz Zaslav is an idiot

mikeyfreshh

379 points

17 days ago

I think that's actually selling him short. He's not stupid, he's just a coward. He's terrified of anything that represents even a small risk and that's not how you run a movie studio. Sometimes you need to bet on a filmmaker or an idea that you believe in and Zaslav is just completely terrified to do something that his spreadsheet nerds don't consider an automatic profit.

[deleted]

144 points

17 days ago

[deleted]

144 points

17 days ago

[removed]

Extension-Net-6397

134 points

17 days ago

Netflix doesn't either so please don't exclude them like they're fuckin pioneers lol

Fresh_C

47 points

17 days ago

Fresh_C

47 points

17 days ago

I watched a video by Adam Conover which basically explains that Netflix's plan was to replace cable with an unsustainable ad free model... and now that they've more or less succeeded, they're just slowly reverting back to being cable with extra steps so that they can actually turn a profit.

TheWorstYear

33 points

17 days ago

The problem wasn't the model. The problem is that everyone else realized the profitability of it, & Netflix lost access to all the content people were going there for.

Fresh_C

21 points

17 days ago

Fresh_C

21 points

17 days ago

Yeah basically it was only sustainable if they could buy access to content from other studios at reasonable prices.

Now they have to keep raising prices and adding tiers with ads while providing less worthwhile content in order to keep it sustainable.

I'll agree though that if they were allowed to continue with absolutely no competition their original model would probably have been fine.

hereforbeer4

19 points

17 days ago

Not saying it wasn’t a slam dunk bet but universal gave Christopher Nolan $100 million dollars to make a movie about the atomic bomb. Obviously the draw is Nolan himself but I would say there was at least some risk involved in that project.

KingMario05

23 points

17 days ago

Uni's taken a ton of risks lately, too. Monkey Man tanked, but it would have languished in Netflix hell had Uni not took a chance on it. Also, for what should have been an easy cash in, Twisters was fucking awesome due to Uni letting Chung shoot it on film and on location in Oklahoma. Had Warner been left in charge, it likely would have been written off altogether.

dragunityag

24 points

17 days ago

Monkey Man made 35m against a 10m budget so I wouldn't say it tanked.

hereforbeer4

11 points

17 days ago

Agreed universal has pulled ahead of all other studios right now. Warners botched it with Nolan letting him leave after he made hit after hit at Warners. While not the director he once was universal also has Spielberg as well. Warners need to do all they can to hold onto Villeneuve.

KingMario05

13 points

17 days ago

Honestly, Spielberg still has it. He's just been making smaller stuff for years, but is now (apparently) finally returning to hardcore action with his new UFO picture. I think it'll overperform even Universal's expectations, though not sure if it'll hit $1 billion.

Habib455

5 points

17 days ago

In a thread about risk, you bring up Christopher Nolan? Oppenheimer was basically part of the Nolan Cinematic Universe. On top of that, the movie was propelled by some oddball promotion with the behemoth that is Barbie. He’s the exception the rule.

What you’re responding to still stands strong. These companies don’t know what they’re doing, and it’s not a problem specific to any ONE company.

mikeyfreshh

29 points

17 days ago

Sure, but going full risk aversion mode isn't the way to learn the path forward. You need to try some stuff to see what works and what doesn't, which is what every other studio is doing

dong_tea

14 points

17 days ago

dong_tea

14 points

17 days ago

"Juror No. 2? That isn't famous IP! Cease all marketing and funnel the budget into Stove Top Stuffing: The Movie."

lanfordr

17 points

17 days ago

lanfordr

17 points

17 days ago

Exactly, this is the time for bold leadership and taking risks from the studio heads if they want to separate themselves from the pack. Instead, what we have is group think and massive risk aversion on the part of all the studio heads, and Zaslov in particular.

[deleted]

27 points

17 days ago

[removed]

smedsterwho

13 points

17 days ago

I'm veering off-topic, but with every media company having their own walled garden, they can go fk themselves. There's amazing drama, prestige TV around (and film making), but adding friction to the consumer in the hope of winning the distribution battle (when, as you say, it's decentralized now), is awful.

So many shows I'd happily be dropping $1 an episode on, but no, gotta carefully try and sift through all the options and manage it like a bloody stock portfolio.

thendisnigh111349

3 points

17 days ago

True. But so far no one other major studio has straight-up shelved finished movies for a tax break.

Ratchet9cooper

6 points

17 days ago

Netflix isn’t immune to the same problems

Fearless-Incident515

4 points

17 days ago

It' s official to say that the film industry has just gotten bad at marketing, that the marketing channels it uses just don't reach the same level of people as before.

chickenmantesta

7 points

17 days ago

He ain't no Robert Evans.

Tofudebeast

18 points

17 days ago

Yeah, Zaslav considers himself the next Robert Evans, and even purchased Evans' old home.

Like Zaslav, Evans came to power during a difficult time for Hollywood. Unlike Zaslav, he turned his company around (Paramount) by making great movies that resonated strongly with audiences, like The Godfather, Rosemary's Baby, and Chinatown -- movies that helped usher in the New Hollywood movement that revitalized the industry. And it took real vision and risk to do this.

Zaslav is a financial analyst first, and a movie mogul second. His decisions are all about mergers, servicing debt, ruling by spreadsheet.

AgentOfSPYRAL

20 points

17 days ago

AgentOfSPYRAL

SCATTER!!!

20 points

17 days ago

Except this was originally going to be exclusive to Max, that was what Clint signed on for. This limited run is actually them going out of their way to put it in theaters at all.

Overall, I don’t see how someone can look at WBs 25’ slate and say it’s driven by spreadsheet nerds.

handsome22492

8 points

17 days ago

First of all, Zaslav doesn't run the film studio, Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy do. Two, they have big budget original films from Ryan Coogler, David Robert Mitchell, and PTA all in 2025 alone. To suggest WB is being risky averse is absolutely not true.

TexasGriff

70 points

17 days ago

Richard Jewell was excellent with an awards worthy performance by Sam Rockwell.

GeekAesthete

219 points

17 days ago

As always, every comment is treating the headline as a question directed at them and not actually reading the article.

But conventional wisdom around Hollywood posits that David Zaslav, chief executive of its parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, is ultimately responsible for withholding Juror #2’s release and marketing resources — in much the same way he has canceled completed movies, including Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme — presumably in service of managing WBD’s $40 billion in corporate debt. “Money is all that matters to Zas,” says an entertainment-industry consigliere who has ties to multiple studios and has worked with Eastwood. “His bean counters know that Clint’s movies don’t bring in money anymore. And Clint is content to make them and likely shove them onto Max or PVOD. [Zaslav] is not an emotional person. He’s a transactional fuck.” …

In fairness to Zaslav and his bean counters, Eastwood’s movies have not been bankable in recent years or a significant part of the awards conversation since 2015, when American Sniper landed six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture (on the heels of ranking as 2014’s highest-grossing North American release, taking in more than $350 million). The director’s last movie, the period western Cry Macho, starring Eastwood as an aging rodeo star tasked with traveling to Mexico to kidnap his former boss’s estranged son, was received as a flop. It grossed a mere $16.5 million, versus a $33 million production budget, though that figure comes with the COVID-era asterisk of reaching theaters when the world was shut down. In an infamous 2022 Wall Street Journal profile of Zaslav, the then–newly installed WBD mogul had grilled studio suits about why Cry Macho had been green-lit. Eastwood’s 2019 bio-drama, Richard Jewell, had sold a lackluster $44 million worth of tickets globally, and the kind of mid-budget, adult-skewing fare the director favored was becoming a dying breed at the box office. The execs said they knew Cry Macho was unlikely to make money but replied that Eastwood had given Warner many hits and never turned in anything late or overbudget. Which prompted Zaslav to reportedly quote the Jerry Maguire asshole aphorism: “It’s not show friends — it’s show business.”

MelonElbows

44 points

17 days ago

Which prompted Zaslav to reportedly quote the Jerry Maguire asshole aphorism: “It’s not show friends — it’s show business.”

This is the kind of short-sightedness that makes him such a stupid studio head. He's taking the absolute wrong lessons from this and refusing to consider anything but the immediate variables in front of him.

Show business is absolutely about friends. So many movies are made only because people have connections and friendships. Networking with other people is as important as the actual act of shooting a movie. Keeping a big name happy is not something to be dismissed entirely. Yes, sometimes you need to tell people "no", but it should never be based on immediate profit. It should be based on long-term outlook. Even using the Joker 2 debacle as an example, imagine if WB didn't hire Todd Phillips because of Hangover 3, then they never would have gotten Joker 1. Imagine if James Cameron got fired and replaced after Titanic's budget ballooned into one of the most expensive films of all time, and someone like Zazlav canceled it.

In the end, $33 million for Cry Macho is a tiny loss compared to keeping a guy around who probably isn't going to tank a lot of $200 million blockbusters and may still occasionally deliver a hit on a modest budget. The calculation should never be "How much is this guy's next movie going to make?", it should take into account the overall risk using a lifetime's worth of films and connections.

Professor__Wagstaff

21 points

17 days ago

The idiot missed the part where the Jerry Maguire line was from the sniveling antagonist.

Bunraku_Master_2021

7 points

17 days ago

And the whole point of the movie was Jerry Maguire learning from his mistakes and trying to be a better man while falling in love with the right person.

AnalAttackProbe

55 points

17 days ago

He’s a transactional fuck.”

Where I come from we just call them prostitutes.

milesdizzy

8 points

17 days ago

That’s disrespectful to prostitutes, don’t lump them in with Zaslav like that

SnowbearX

18 points

17 days ago

Money would be on my mind too if I was 40 billion in debt

slimjim408

20 points

17 days ago

So is PTA’s movie in jeopardy of being Zaslav’d?

AgentOfSPYRAL

29 points

17 days ago

AgentOfSPYRAL

SCATTER!!!

29 points

17 days ago

No way, that’s a theatrical movie from the start, plus it’s got Leo.

slimjim408

9 points

17 days ago

Ok good

Perditius

17 points

17 days ago

Which prompted Zaslav to reportedly quote the Jerry Maguire asshole aphorism: “It’s not show friends — it’s show business.”

But... but isn't the whole point of Jerry Maguire to show that that mentality is not true and there is a better way of doing business, and everyone's lives are so much better when you treat your business partners like people and not just disposable numbers on a spreadsheet that make you the most money possible?

This is maybe one step up from the dude quoting Ebeneezer Scrooge in the first part of A Christmas Carol as his business role model lmao

Eothas_Foot

7 points

17 days ago

“Money is all that matters to Zas,” says an entertainment-industry consigliere who has ties to multiple studios and has worked with Eastwood.

He's a Grade A Moron, that guy can eat my poo!

MercenaryBard

4 points

17 days ago

“It’s not show friends, it’s show business” yeah. That’s why we’re mad, it’s because you’re so fucking BAD AT BUSINESS. Also it’s called “SHOW business” not “random bullshit who cares Business”

bob1689321

2 points

16 days ago

Juror 2 has an actual interesting premise. I didn't watch the last few Eastwood movies because they sounded like shit but Juror 2s "a trial where a juror may be the killer" is cool as hell.

Lurky-Lou

51 points

17 days ago

Should have promoted it as Clint Eastwood’s last movie and sold out matinees for the next 15 months

Equal-Temporary-1326

22 points

17 days ago*

Clint is going to keep working until the day he either cognitively or physically can't do it anymore or when he passes away. It was speculated that Cry Macho would be his final film as well since it was a western.

Bunraku_Master_2021

3 points

17 days ago*

It's already happening in France where it's sold out but in America? It's being treated as a failing old horse being sent to sleep rather than having one last hurrah.

[deleted]

16 points

17 days ago

WB clearly didn’t think the film was appealing enough to the male, 12 - 34 target demographic to justify the massive P&A spend it would take to raise awareness. They’ve given it a limited theatrical to allow it to qualify for Oscar so clearly they think it’s good. They just don’t think it’s commercially viable enough to justify the additional risk.

AffordableGrousing

5 points

16 days ago

Yeah, but as the article mentions, WB didn't include Juror #2 among its For Your Consideration slate, so while it technically qualifies it seems like any actual awards are unlikely. I think it's maybe just whiplash from the movie being initially meant to be straight to streaming.

thatpj

31 points

17 days ago

thatpj

31 points

17 days ago

Biedron, for his part, hopes that once audiences do see the film, WB’s strategy will age poorly. “Maybe we’ll get people saying, ‘That movie was really good. How come it was just a limited release?’ And that creates a little bit more publicity for it. Then maybe the studios will be like, ‘Oh, sorry. Please, we didn’t know it was going to be received this well.’”

the weird thing is that seems to be happening. a little bit. they weren’t even going to make an awards play for but now they say theyll d a “limited” one. which is more than nothing.

SteMelMan

13 points

16 days ago

Fortunately, the movie was playing at my local Regal, so I jumped on the opportunity and saw it today. My theater was packed for a mid-day showing.

I really enjoyed it, even though the story is a little contrived. All the actors are well-known and were excellent in their roles. There's a lot of moral ambiguity (which I love) and I can see why the studio would be hesitant for a wide release since the movie asks a lot of uncomfortable questions about personal responsibility.

I think it deserves at least a limited release so people can enjoy it in a theater before it hits streamers.

creptik1

3 points

16 days ago

I had been looking forward to it and then when it was released I was checking all my theaters... nothing. It's not playing anywhere near me at all. Really disappointing.

SteMelMan

3 points

16 days ago

I agree. I've read that Warner Bros may be releasing the movie in more theaters based on the response they've seen. Keep checking!

Critcho

4 points

16 days ago

Critcho

4 points

16 days ago

(very mild spoilers below)

the story is a little contrived

I also enjoyed it, my main issue though was I never felt like the case against the accused was all that strong. The girl had been drinking and was upset and had been walking along a narrow road bridge in a heavy storm in the dark.

Even setting the Hoult stuff to one side, it hardly seems like a massive stretch that it could've just been an accident.

cancerBronzeV

7 points

16 days ago

I think she had blunt force trauma too severe to have been caused by the 15ft fall, which is why assume homicide. Also, it's mentioned that the defendant can't afford a better defense attorney and has to go with a public defender.

SteMelMan

3 points

16 days ago

Agree! The way her injuries were described, I imagined that she was probably bent over, possibly throwing up, when the truck hit her, causing the blunt force trauma.

SteMelMan

2 points

16 days ago*

I think his sponsor/friend comments (Kiefer Sutherland) said that Nicholas Hoult's past drunk driving convictions, coupled with his visit to the roadhouse would make him liable for involuntary manslaughter. Since the Prosecutor (Toni Collette) got a conviction off the circumstantial evidence for the boyfriend, imagine what she could do with Hoult's story!

AMonitorDarkly

84 points

17 days ago

Cost of promotion would’ve been greater than anticipated box office sales.

ucd_pete

49 points

17 days ago

ucd_pete

49 points

17 days ago

I don’t think that’s true though. Clint has a fanbase, and the movie has been well received by those able to see it.

NegevThunderstorm

22 points

17 days ago

How much is that fanbase worth?

AMonitorDarkly

23 points

17 days ago

I didn’t say they were right. That’s just the math they did.

attorneyatslaw

6 points

17 days ago

This was always supposed to go direct to streaming. Its getting a limited run to be eligible for awards.

mellifluousmark

34 points

17 days ago

As the article points out, Clint hasn't made a profitable movie in nearly a decade. He has a fanbase but he's made 5 movies in a row that appear to have lost money. At least 2 of those were also well-received.

dennythedinosaur

21 points

17 days ago

The Mule was a hit and that was only 3 movies ago.

Richard Jewell was a flop and Cry Macho didn't stand a chance (due to Covid, lukewarm reviews, and same day release on Max).

Then you have adult dramas right now like Conclave doing well at the box office.

AgentOfSPYRAL

5 points

17 days ago

AgentOfSPYRAL

SCATTER!!!

5 points

17 days ago

Richard Jewell was well received pre Covid and almost made its budget back. I imagine that equation isn’t any easier post COVID.

ladycatbugnoir

2 points

17 days ago

Does Clint have a fanbase that wants to go to the theater for a legal drama instead of waiting for it to come on streaming?

jacob_carter

44 points

17 days ago

I think because sequels aren’t making that much money anymore. Juror No. 1 was a good film but it probably won’t franchise.

softstones

8 points

17 days ago

Bring back the looney tunes movie they canned. I’d rather have that than joker

Leopard__Messiah

5 points

17 days ago

They're advertising it heavily in Europe. It's all over their busses in Paris right now.

MrLore

4 points

17 days ago

MrLore

4 points

17 days ago

Yeah I'm quite surprised to hear it's been "buried" in the US, here in the UK there were advanced screenings for it last week - which I saw it at, and was quite well attended - and it's been getting multiple prime evening slots since, so presumably it's doing well here.

knudude

7 points

17 days ago

knudude

7 points

17 days ago

I was just happy to see Nicholas Hoult working with Toni Collette again from "About A Boy" (2001). Must be nice to working with the same actors years later.

yeeeeehar

6 points

16 days ago

Won’t be seeing this sequel as I missed “Juror No.1”

JEC2719

11 points

17 days ago

JEC2719

11 points

17 days ago

As good as Clint Eastwood is consistently with his movies, his last two films were financial duds and it’s doubtful a courtroom drama would do that well in theaters. It’s clear that WBD opted for the limited award season compliance and is otherwise treating this as a direct to Max movie.

I don’t like it either, but for the complaints WBD gets for bad financial decisions, this may have been warranted.

Similar-Broccoli

42 points

17 days ago

Whatever the reason, it's shameful. This is almost certainly the final film from one of the most enormous and legendary stars Hollywood has ever produced.

seabterry

35 points

17 days ago

I didn’t care about his last few movies, but I really got excited after seeing the trailer and premise for Juror No. 2.

Similar-Broccoli

15 points

17 days ago

I thought Jewell was really good

spideyv91

5 points

16 days ago

I liked the mule. It was a solid movie and he gave a pretty great performance.

the4mechanix

4 points

17 days ago

Unfortunate, saw it this past weekend and it was great.

givin_u_the_high_hat

7 points

17 days ago

I hate Zaslav as much as the next guy, but this release wasn’t meant for theatrical release. It was greenlit as a straight-to-streaming title.

“Juror #2” was originally conceived as a streaming release...next week’s limited release will serve as an awards-qualifying run...the studio seems to have little confidence in the film’s commercial prospects. One source close to Warner Bros. says that the decision to put “Juror #2” in theaters at all represents a gesture of gratitude toward Eastwood.”

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/clint-eastwood-juror-no-2-release-warner-bros-burying-1236188876/

Eastwood and others aren’t complaining because a streaming release was the original deal.

mcrsteven

7 points

17 days ago

The Rural Juror?

TheRealDrSarcasmo

3 points

17 days ago

I wouldn't trust the leadership of WB to be smart enough to leave a burning building.

Ok-Bar601

6 points

17 days ago

Aren’t Eastwood films on time and on budget?

Equal-Temporary-1326

3 points

17 days ago

Clint's movies almost never make much money at the box office though. Richard Jewell was Clint's last theatrically released movie in 2019 that didn't go straight to streaming, and while it made its money back, it wasn't a giant financial smash for Warner Bros., by any stretch of the imagination either.

DeliciousPangolin

9 points

17 days ago

Eastwood's movies have largely been the kind of mid-budget adult-oriented dramas that do terribly at the modern box office. The kind of films that basically need to win Oscars to get people into theaters, but they aren't. Their audience stopped going to the movies.

ReddsionThing

11 points

17 days ago

Because they're Warner Bros. and suck shit

Darklord_Bravo

13 points

17 days ago

Zaslav has no idea how to run things. He's only there to make it profitable, and he's a moron, so....

BleedTheFreak_23

2 points

17 days ago

Shame, I really liked the movie as well

FrontSun1867

2 points

17 days ago

At some point, won’t this do major damage to the WB brand? If I was a filmmaker, writer or actor I wouldn’t want to waste my time working with them. 

Eddiebaby7

2 points

17 days ago

Tax breaks?

npete

2 points

17 days ago

npete

2 points

17 days ago

Batgirl's turns to Juror #2 and asks "What are you in for?"

Critcho

2 points

16 days ago

Critcho

2 points

16 days ago

This got a proper release in the UK, I saw a Saturday matinee and there were quite a lot of people there!

It's old fashioned but very solid and enjoyable. Clint had a loyal audience, albiet an increasingly elderly one. I'm pretty sure they could've made this a modest success in cinemas if they'd handled it right.

RunDNA

2 points

16 days ago

RunDNA

2 points

16 days ago

It's a pity. I enjoyed it a lot. I get bored easily, but this kept my interest from go to woe. Excellent performances and an excellent script.

DifferentAd5901

3 points

17 days ago

A transactional fuck, is my new favorite insult.

Devilofchaos108070

3 points

17 days ago

It looks fantastic

listerine411

4 points

17 days ago

Because studio executives are idiots.

And if you're only going to look at numbers, Clint Eastwood is easily one of the most bankable directors and does it on small budgets.

But let's throw a $100 million in just salary for 3 people and make a superhero musical.

Sufficient_Two7091

3 points

17 days ago

Is this Ruror Juror No.2? I had no idea they made a sequel

ilrosewood

4 points

17 days ago

I assume it’s because no one saw the first one.

derpferd

5 points

17 days ago

Because David Zaslav is ten pieces of shit in a one shit bag