Warner Bros. Will Send Entire 2021 Slate to HBO Max and Theaters | Hacker News Reader

Warner Bros. Will Send Entire 2021 Slate to HBO Max and Theaters

hollywoodreporter.com

341 pointsyurisagalov303 comments

As a parent, I'm super excited about this. I love going to see movies. My wife and I used to go every week. Until we had kids. In the last six years, I think we've seen maybe two movies in the theater.

I have however watched every day-of streaming release that's come out, even the ones that cost $30, just to support the idea.

I would gladly pay $20 to see new movies in my home. My TV and sound are good enough.

I'd still like to see the big action flicks in the theater, and if I were a teen, I'd still prefer dates in a theater rather than at home, and I'm sure a lot of people feel safer having a date at a theater than at someone's house.

When the VCR came out, everyone said it would kill moviegoing. To prevent it, they usually waited 4+ years to release a movie on VHS. It turned out, when they shrunk that window to 4 months, it didn't really affect moviegoing.

I hope they find the same is true here -- that there isn't a lot of overlap between people who want to watch at home and people who will go to a theater.

> I'd still like to see the big action flicks in the theater, and if I were a teen, I'd still prefer dates in a theater rather than at home, and I'm sure a lot of people feel safer having a date at a theater than at someone's house.

I never understood why going to the movies is a common thing to do on a date, don't you want to get to know the other person and be able to talk to them?

Getting to know someone is a process -- talking before and after the movie gets that going. The shared experience of watching the movie gives you something to talk about and reflect on. One need not know everything about a person before beginning to enjoy spending time with them.

If someone is so interesting in pre-movie conversation that you mutually decide that the conversation is better than whatever the movie has to offer, the movie will be there tomorrow.

Also, movie theaters are dark rooms in a fairly safe public space, which is relatively unique. It is a safe place to, say, hold someone's hand for the first time without immediate societal visibility.

If movies don't seem like a great date venue, there are other people out there who feel the same way.

Somehow one of my friends manages to almost always get sexual during the viewing of the movie.

I guess some people are just real pros at that particular date.

In general it never made much sense to me.

It's possible that what happens and what you are told happens don't match up.

It's also possible that they do.

Didn't need to go there.

As a reasonably well-adjusted adult living in a city with plenty of interesting stuff to do, sure, there are a million better date options. Drinks, a museum, a walk in the park, almost anything beats a movie.

But as a nervous 16-year old kid who probably couldn’t fill a whole dinner with engaging conversation if his life depended on it, an opportunity to sit next to a girl for two hours in a dark room was a godsend.

Best explanation ever! I think I need to steal these two paragraphs.

Movie then dinner after gives you something to talk about. It used to work better before movies got so crazy long but it's the same concept of any activity paired with a date something to do/talk about when you have a pause in conversation.

That makes a lot more sense. I always pictured it as dinner first, then the movie, or just the movie itself, which never made sense.

Still, how long could a conversation after the movie about the movie even last? "Yeah I liked it, it was funny when that side character said X, and it was cool when plot twist Y happened." 5 minutes later you're back where you were unless you're both film buffs and do a whole critique of it.

I prefer date activities where you can talk about them as you do them. Even bowling sounds more fun than a movie date, to me. But maybe that's just me.

"Wasn't it funny when charter X did Y?"

"Yeah! That reminds me of a time I did Y! Let me tell you how that happened"

Movies are a great shared cultural experience that can be a good jumping off point for a conversation.

I feel like movie&dinner is low effort and more for married and longer term couples looking for an excuse to get out of the house or that have a large interest in the actual movie being shown rather than in the first 3 or so dates.

I 100% agree around actual activities something to really do while it happens. Bowling is honestly pretty good as you can go as fast as you want or as slow as you want. Good conversation going on just keep talking. Conversation slows throw a few while you think of a new topic or one comes up organically. Bonus points as no one expect you to be any good.

I think you're correct, but also it's a great "training date" when you're first starting off in your dating career. You don't have to interact much, and just being by someone you like holding hands can be enough when you're 16 years old.

I wouldn't make a movie my go-to first or third date in my 20's though, as it's not really accomplishing the goal of getting to know someone and finding a mate.

Now that I'm married? Dinner and a movie sounds pretty awesome...

I think it's a holdover from when movies were 1) cheap, and 2) a warm place to make out in the dark for singles who lived at home or in small rented rooms that didn't allow guests. People do it now because they're told it is a thing that is done.

They're also good as a lead-in to a dinner date, or drinks. Gives you conversation material.

Movies are as cheap as they have been for the past 20+ years, in real dollars. But many other things have gotten cheaper over time.

This isn't really true. Movie tickets (in the US) are a classic example of a cost that is rising faster than inflation (although as noted, movie popcorn is rising even more)

https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/02/pf/expenses-inflation/index...

It's a terrible date for someone you've just met. Though it's fantastic if you're already past the interviewing each other phase. It's a short shared experience that requires zero effort. The act of just sitting next to someone for that long can be very intimate.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, you learn if they're capable of sitting quietly for 2 hours. Some people just can't do it, and I've learned that it is a big red flag.

Right. And I would hate to be looking forward to 2+ hours of being with someone after I figure out that I'm no longer interested in the person within the first 5 minutes of a first date.

Dinner following the movie gives you all sorts of opportunities to screw up and then you still have the task of finishing the meal. Bad table manners, getting messy food all over your face, making odd eating noises and the list goes on. Leave all that until after your date is already much into you.

Best date? Coffee. Explicitly tell your date that you're going to be out after one cup or 15 minutes, which ever comes first. If the date goes bad, then either party only needs to wait 15 minutes or drain the coffee and run. It's only 15 minutes of conversation to fill. Memorize a list of questions if you have to. Then try to improv on the questions and the following conversation. Don't have anything to say? Let the date answer the questions. Date is answering quickly? Then make sure you create lots of questions. Or maybe the conversation just isn't that interesting and you should drain your coffee.

Repeat for date #2

Then you can start getting more creative after that.

Date doesn't like that the meeting was so quick? There's plenty of fish in the sea.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not a dating advice guy. Sorry about that. I don't know where this came from. I guess the point is to make those first couple of dates quick and also easy to bail on.

Yeah, that would never fly for me. Nobody is going to become more interested in me as experienced in only a 15 minute sitting, while conversely I can maintain interest in ANYBODY for 15 minutes. That's just a recipe for me getting in my head about people that I would realize are not right for me within another 30 minutes, who will never call me again.

1st date is more about maintaining the level of interest, not raising it. They were interested enough in you to go on a date with maybe just remote correspondence. A quick date is just an extension of that. Maintaining enough interest in a first date will lead to a second. The first two are just like job interviews. You get a ton more information seeing someone face to face than you do with remote correspondence. I can find out more about a person in 5 minutes of meeting than I can in 5 weeks of chatting on a messaging app. It's the in-person 1st impression. That impression can't be erased with another hour of time with the person.

I'm looking at limiting downside of a meeting while not necessarily raising the ceiling. The downside is more important to me. If I don't pass the first impression, then I don't want for the person to be stuck with me for an hour following. Just break it off right there, but we'll finish our coffee first.

>It's the in-person 1st impression. That impression can't be erased with another hour of time with the person.

I honestly don't think that I show any personality within the first 15 minutes of meeting someone. I am polite and interested, sure, but 15 minutes is about the minimum to organically hit on conversation that moves past that level.

Right, but my focus is more about making the date tolerable if you don't click right away. There's nothing worse than being on a long date with someone when you know within the first 5 minutes that you aren't interested. And again, you showed enough to get the person to meet you in the first place and that was likely through the exchange of remote messages. Maybe I miss out by not giving the date more time to work, but there's an abundance of options. There will always be more dates as long as you are putting in the right effort. That first date is like a quick interview which screens people for a more extensive meeting.

I'm one hundred percent with you on the long date thing. I do believe first dates shouldn't be in a locked-in setting. My first date probably look exactly like yours, except that my goal is to keep things going as long as is enjoyable.

Going to a movie with someone tells you a lot about them in a low-key setting (can they share snacks? Do they eat a ton? Are they somewhat capable of managing money? Do they talk during movies? Are they inappropriately handsy when you don't want them to?).

If afterwards it turns out you did not like it both of you at least had a good time due to the environment, so it is pretty unlikely to end as a huge disaster (and stick inside your head as such). Especially when you prefer low-stress personal interaction, it's easy to see the appeal.

It's shared experience that gives you a lot to talk about. But more importantly, it has a social contract of just sitting idly by and not actively interacting, which can be very helpful for feelings of anxiety, unease and responsibility to keep talking and doing something interesting when you're next to this new person. Instead of worrying about all that, you can just sit, be quiet and don't even worry that much about how you look — it's dark anyway, and they're probably looking at the screen, not you.

There’s a comfort with someone that comes only with spending time near them. The conversation I’m going to have, the answers to the exact same questions, is going to be different if I’ve just met someone compared to if I’ve just met someone and then spent an hour and a half sitting next to them, maybe with some hand on knee or around shoulder action.

This goes doubly so for online dating. Where when we first meet we might be at acquaintance level of information about each other while still at complete strangers level of comfort.

Actually talking too much can ruin dates.

If you talking ruins your dates, you may consider that it is instead what you choose to talk about. If conversely you prefer your date speaks little (or not at all), I don't know what to tell you.

Going to a concert or a movie has worked exceptionally well for me.

You have a joint experience to reflect on and something to look forward to beforehand.

This probably depends more on what the topics are, and how they're talked about.

Stage one is feeling comfortable around the other person.

Besides, conversation is generally held during the "dinner" part of the canonical "dinner and a movie".

Makes no sense to me.

> I would gladly pay $20 to see new movies in my home

I'm not sure many people would. $20 seems astronomically expensive to me to see a single movie. I don't think I could ever justify that.

Eh... yes and no. There is the convenience and comfort of one's own home. Plus, of course, for a single $20 payment you could have several family members and friends participate in the viewing experience.

On top of that, of course, you get the benefits of home-movie watching generally, such as being able to pause or reverse the movie back or forward if you wish, cheap snacks and candy (since you're not paying movie theater prices), and so on.

$20 is definitely not a terrible deal, especially if more than one person might be watching.

Agreed. We've gotten used to a few models of digital downloads it seems:

1. Pay to "own"[0]: ~$10

2. Pay to rent for 24h or so: ~$5

3. Unlimited streaming of all titles: ~$15/mo

It'd be a bit weird to pay $20 for #2, even for a first-run movie. I get that the price we pay doesn't always reflect just the seller's cost (sometimes we pay more just for the perception of a premium product), but it's hard to justify paying an extra $15 for the costs of running a theater when you aren't actually going to that theater.

I get that there are certainly people who would value that (like the OP who has kids and can't get out with his wife to go to the theater), but I expect most people of average means would balk at $20 for home viewing, and just wait for a normal rental price or for it to appear on whichever AYCE streaming service the subscribe to.

[0] Scare-quotes because of course the download you get is still DRMed, which means you don't really truly own the copy.

People do this all the time for pay-per-view fights and the like, where they cost $50 and up. Have a bunch of friends over, throw a party.

I regularly pay $4-5 to watch streaming 4k movies, even ones where I know I own the DVD and hence have a copy on my NAS that I could watch for free.

It depends... I went to see "New Mutants" and after the covid period, I think the ticket was something like $14, and the consession (popcorn and a soda) were another $20 and that was just for me alone... a date would be closer to $60-80 and a family close to $100...

Vs: $20-30 at home, where you can pause etc and microwave your own popcorn for under $2

Are those American or Canadian dollars? Or like HK dollars? Although concession prices are high, I've definitely never seen them that high. Or was $20 the price of ticket and popcorn+drink?

USD, Phoenix, Harkins after Pandemic lockdown relaxed...

I remember the ticket being around $14 and the popcorn and drink being around $20, just for myself... It's been a few months, so I may be off by $2-3 on each portion, but the sticker shock was real... I'd be more open to $20-30 and staying home.

Right, I guess I haven't tried (nor wanted to try) to go to the theatre since roughly January. Missed that part of your original post.

They have no way of knowing how many people are in the room with you. That $20 could be split ten ways.

Yes, it could be seen that way, but in practice, are people really going to collect a few dollars from everyone who's watching a movie in their house with them?

There are ways to justify a $20 movie rental, but it feels different to go spend that at a theater vs paying it at home. I will wager that it's a much harder decision to make as the value proposition is different.

> are people really going to collect a few dollars from everyone who's watching

Eh, not really, and that's not really the point. The gist 8is split amongst everybody (all your friends getting value out of the same $20) even if you're still paying the whole amount.

Plus when this happens usually they'll bring food and drinks, or they'll do similar when at their house, or cover you when the next time you go out, etc. So it all evens out.

It's the same concept as having a BBQ. You're not the only person eating the bbq but you likely bought it and ate doing the cooking lol

> are people really going to collect a few dollars from everyone

If they are poor, yes. If they are rich, no one cares.

> 20 movie rental, but it feels different to go spend that at a theater

It costs a lot more than $20 for 4 people to go to the theater.

I guess it could. Are a lot of people watching movies with ten people round at their house? I really doubt that.

Definitely in undergrad. And also now that I have kids and kids have friends. Invite one other family over and we’re pretty close...

Based on the prices at a local theater, $20/viewing is about par for one ticket + snacks, and $30 is generally better than two people + snacks:

  n=1: $13+food
  n=2: $26+food
  n=4 (2 kids): $46 + food

When you factor in being able to have cheaper food, not to mention intermissions whenever you want (bathroom break, making popcorn, etc), I feel like streaming is still better than theater, price-wise, even at $30/movie.

Unfortunately, it doesn't _feel_ that way. We still haven't seen Mulan yet, though, and I'm not sure if price is a factor in that. I suspect it's a small factor -- we subscribed to Disney+ to see Hamilton, for example -- but it just hasn't come up in months. I forgot about it until writing this comment.

It's hard to convince myself that I should pay $20 or $30 for a screening, when a year from now I can likely rent it on Prime for $10 or less.

I just checked and IMAX tickets here are $21.31 per person. Even $50 is a bargain if you want the luxury of a few handfuls of popcorn. Watch with another couple and it’s downright cheap. Obviously doesn’t apply everywhere, but for cities it is perfectly priced IMO.

There is a huge difference between going to the movie and watching the same movie on a 4:3 20-32 inch standard def, CRT TV that was prevalent when VHS tapes were popular and watching a movie on a 65 inch 4K, HDR flat screen TV.

Currently you can buy a good enough 4K/HDR 65 inch Roku TV for less than $500. That’s less than the first TV I bought with my own money - a 27 inch Sony CRT Trinitron.

I'm excited about this too for the same reason. I too have been paying the high prices to support the idea of on demand new releases that skipped the theatre. I wouldn't be surprised if this means a price hike on the HBO subscription price, and I'd be willing to pay more for that in this case.

Before covid, we still got to the theaters once in a while, but this will be awesome. Hopefully you can find a good babysitter and get back to the theater more too (when it's safe of course).

> Hopefully you can find a good babysitter and get back to the theater more too (when it's safe of course).

Ugh. We actually found the most amazing babysitter ever. She is a high school student and watched the kids during the day for us in summer until school started. We were so excited that we could finally go to movies again.

And then the pandemic kicked in. Sadly, by the time it's safe to go to movies again, she'll have graduated and left. :(

Sound is the issue for me. Totally happy with the visuals: TV big and close enough to fill my vision. But the sound over streaming is compressed shite. Even when they say "Dolby Atmos", it's a thin Atmos layer over the compressed signal DD+, not Atmos over True HD lossless audio. I suppose, from their perspective, it makes sure I also buy the 4K disk after paying for the movie on streaming.

As you'll have noticed, Atmos isn't really an audio quality indicator (the way the Dolby Digital trademark was used). Atmos is really just a metadata stream for multidimensional audio panning so a single set of audio streams can be interpreted across many different surround setups.

Hypothetically you'll get a more accurate spatial response, but again as you noted, they tend to just do a surround background bed with a few Atmos objects for voices and explicit sources.

True. But the amount of people who care about that is tiny compared with the masses. For music for example, I'm a happy Qobuz customer because I appreciate hi-res quality and I have the gear to enjoy it, but I know plenty of folks who are just fine with Pandora or Spotify. Same with this. I'd be willing to bet a huge percentage of folks will watch these movies in their mobile.

Yeah. I have lossless Tidal. Pay more for it. Would pay more for lossless movie audio.

The lossless + Atmos tracks are often 3 gigabytes or more by themselves. I'm not sure if you can replicate this in AAC tracks.

Sure. 18Mbit/s for True HD 7.1. Buy I've had at least 50Mbit/s downstream for over five years now.

Same here. No matter what I do my sound won't be as good as a theater, and then there is the source data issue too. That's why I want to see loud movies in theaters.

But for most movies, the sound doesn't matter that much, it's more about the story and characters and visuals.

It'll be interesting to see how this effects a culture/mindset shift among large movie producers and directors. Putting aside their artistic concerns that their films are best experienced on the massive widescreen, having a big box office haul seems to be a key part of Hollywood braqfests.

If simultaneous theater+streaming becomes the norm, it would seem the days of multi-hundred-million box office gross will be past. In 2020, the highest grossing film (domestically) so far is the Bad Boys sequel, which released in January and got $204M. The only other 2020 release to break $100M is the Sonic the Hedgehog movie. And many of 2020's top grossing movies were released in late 2019, e.g. "1917" and Star Wars. Even worse, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" – released in September by Warner Bros – basically bombed at under $60M [0].

Given the huge movies that WB is planning to put on HBO (Matrix 4, Wonder Woman, Dune), I wonder if that'll spur Disney to throw Black Widow onto streaming. Apparently its Mulan release (which required a premium subscription) didn't do so well, but seems risky for Disney to sit on its hands while WB goes all in.

[0] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2020/?grossesOption=calen...

I'm interested in how this impacts the actual movies. I expect them to get much longer. I also expect this will free directors to cover topics and material that might not be appropriate for theatres. What people are willing to watch when in public is different than what people may be willing to watch in their own homes. I expect that Disney will have to run parallel focus groups, possible resulting in slightly different versioning between the streaming and in-theatre content.

Dune is a good example. Dune has for decades been viewed as the quintessential impossible story to ever put on screen. It was done best as a miniseries, and even then it wasn't complete. But an open-ended streaming option not subject to theatre/TV time or content constraints? There is potential for very interesting content.

What you're talking about is already happening, but we still call them "tv shows." A great recent example is The Queen's Gambit. It's adapted from a novel, which "normally" would become a movie. But instead it became a 7 episode miniseries, which allowed for much more character development than a 2-hour movie. Game of Thrones is the obvious example of something that also could have instead been several movies.

I think what we're discovering is that movies, as a medium, are for narratives that can be told in under 3 hours. If your narrative requires longer, or you just want to be able to have more time to develop characters or worlds, it's better to create a show.

I guess it's another form of the medium is the message.

Another effect we seem to be seeing is that streaming seems less inclined to grind out endless seasons of a show until even most of its fans just can't bring themselves to watch any longer. I expect the economics of streaming favor freshness rather than milking a cash cow through a decline when it's got little chance of bringing in fresh viewers.

(Which I think is mostly a good thing while recognizing there have been good series that took a season or more to really find their rhythm and voice.)

> Another effect we seem to be seeing is that streaming seems less inclined to grind out endless seasons of a show until even most of its fans just can't bring themselves to watch any longer. I expect the economics of streaming favor freshness rather than milking a cash cow through a decline when it's got little chance of bringing in fresh viewers.

it's an interesting reversal of the trend. back in the '00s, it seemed like even the best tv shows had a pretty scrappy first season: obviously low budget, little chemistry in the talent. if a show managed to get enough viewers in the first season, it would get a larger budget and hit its stride in the second one. nowadays it seems to be the opposite; most shows seem to give it all they have in a strong first season, then start phoning it in for the next couple, then getting culled without remorse when the viewership drops. I'm curious whether there's an economic reason for this, or if it's all in my head.

I don't claim this is a complete answer but contrast broadcast and streaming.

BROADCAST: Pay for pilots. Pick up some of them. You know a good chunk of shows won't make it past S1. Some won't make it that far. But, especially pre-reality show, you still have a schedule to fill with scripted TV. So you throw a bunch of mostly economical stuff at the wall and see what sticks. The stuff that does, you pick up and groom it.

STREAMING: Same deal with pilots. But now your main objective is to find that hit which will net you a bunch of new subscribers. Yeah, you need filler too but that's not as big a deal. So you're probably incentivized to do more swinging at the fences. And you probably don't care about having as many slow burn series because it's all about how many new subscribers you can sign on and, especially with serialized TV (which streaming/internet has also helped enable), if you don't grab people up-front, it's probably a waste.

I'm generally a fan of miniseries, but I wonder what pressure the producers are putting on creators to lengthen them. I loved the Chernobyl miniseries for example, but I also think it was maybe 1-2 episodes longer than it needed to be. The first and last couple were amazing, but it kind of lagged in the middle.

I'm reading Dune now (no spoilers please!) and I'm really surprised they're making a movie rather than a miniseries.

The upcoming movie only covers the first half of Dune; they're hoping to make a second movie but AFAIK it's not locked in yet.

Publicity seems to be keeping rather quiet about this, for obvious reasons.

Watch the first movie, the one with Sting and Patrick Stewart. Don't worry about spoilers. The book and that movie are not close relations.

Planning to watch it as soon as I finish the book.

I loathe the new format where there’s an extra hour or two of fluff to pad Netflix’s statistics about how much content they have. Although I guess it existed with old style TV too to enable them to sell more ad time.

There’s character development, and then gratuitous time wastage. At least we can skip past it nowadays, or just opt out of watching it.

Pendulums swing from one extreme to the other, as always.

"fluff" padding is much worse than "can we get an extra season or three out of this show", IMO.

[ EDIT: d'oh, I meant to write this in reverse, as "fluff padding is much less bad than .... oh well. ]

I prefer stories to be told that already have a beginning, middle and end at their outset, not just some fingers-crossed "we might get 5 seasons, we can decide how it unfolds once we get to season 3" stuff that has dominated way too much TV.

Granted, the purely episodic shows (e.g. Star Trek, LA Law and the like) are immune to this, mostly.

But give me more True Detective, where the story ending is known before they even start filming, and the only question is "do we get to try another story?"

>"fluff" padding is much worse than "can we get an extra season or three out of this show", IMO.

You're kind of close. They would fluff the seasons to get the episode count to 100 as soon as possible. 100 episodes was the magic number to qualifying for syndication. Syndication is where the money used to be made on content. Ask Jerry Seinfeild or the cast from Friends. Syndication is no longer the holy grail. You are making your content for the syndication platforms from the beginning now. This has allowed for the freedom to use enough episodes to tell your story correctly, and then getting out of the way. No more bottle episodes.

I think you're discounting the in-season requirements that the networks had. They would usually require on the order of 23 episodes for a season, and sell advertiser time during those episodes months in advance. Hence the prevalence of "clip shows": we promised the network x episodes, we only really have been able to make x-1 full episodes, so let's create an episode that is mostly clips from other episodes.

Definitely, I like to know the writers have the whole story mapped out prior to even starting the show before investing time into it.

I got burned once by Lost when I was much younger, and hope to not make that mistake again.

Lost was a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the traditional network-tv system. And it’s a shame, because some of the storytelling was remarkable.

I miss episodic TV shows.

The fly episode of breaking bad comes to mind.

You can think of these streaming tv shows as the Movie medium finally being liberated from having to fit between bathroom breaks.

>> 7 episode miniseries

That is still a holdover from television: predictable equally-time episodes. Why should each episode be of identical length? Why not free the production to tell each episode in a different time. An even more free form would be, for example, 16-hour non-episodic movie where the viewer is left to decide when to take breaks.

Well, as a watcher from series is much better to already know how long an episode already take, which is usually around one hour.

And if you release something all together in 16 hours it became harder to go back to where you stopped, in case the software glitches, harder to comment with friends, which maybe would create less hype, and maybe even create a mental barrier, like, "omg, this is 16 hours long in one go!"

And how are you even supposed to know when you should take a break while watching it for the first time?

Despite the freedom not to, many authors still break down their novels into roughly equal length chapters.

I’ve wanted this approach for the Harry Potter Series. Trying to do it in theatrical film was a mistake I think.

I prefer miniseries. Netflix had the extended version of "The Hateful Eight" broken into a four episode miniseries.

I loved it! Now that I can only watch adult movies after the kids go to bed, I had to watch the original "The Hateful Eight" over two nights.

The miniseries was much easier to watch, and didn't require compromises for running length.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/27/quentin-taranti...

> Now that I can only watch adult movies after the kids go to bed

Just invite them in telling them that it's educational, and they will run away and not go near your TV room.

I don't know if Dune would be the best example. Have the producers said that they plan on using the year delay to continue making real changes to the movie? My impression was that Dune was essentially ready to go this year, and doing a re-edit to take advantage of TV's lack of time constraint isn't necessarily ideal or feasible. I agree that Dune as a book has enough content for a TV miniseries. But if they barely finished shooting before covid shut things down, it's not as if they can in early 2021 attempt expand the scope of the story they hoped to tell.

I would argue the "Snyder cut" of Justice League might be a better example, but that's also an extremely weird and bespoke situation. That is actually being released as a 4-episode mini-series. Even though HBO has budgeted $70M for additional shooting and production, presumably most of the cut will use what Snyder shot back in 2017. I'm unclear how much he shot back then was then cut when Joss Whedon took over. Snyder being who he is probably had wanted to do a 3+ hour movie for the original release, and may have actually shot most of those scenes.

Disney already announced that Pixar's Soul will release to Disney+ the same week as WW1984 and will not be a "premium" release like Mulan. That does seem to indicate that Disney is feeling the same pressure, though I believe they still haven't announced plans for any of the Marvel properties yet.

> Even worse, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" – released in September by Warner Bros – basically bombed at under $60M

This is so sad, it's such an incredible movie! Were it not for covid it surely would have been the blockbuster of the year in typical Nolan fashion.

From what I heard from people who saw it in theaters, the sound mixing was terrible so you could only understand half the dialogue, and it was overall very confusing. It was basically made for multiple viewings.

I would like to confirm, it was just truly awful mixing — the only way the theater was able to get you to vaguely hear the dialog was to have volume loud enough the music physically hurt to listen to; the difference between the preceding trailers and the movie itself was so clear I can only assume someone important got hit in the head sometime during development.

International friends have mentioned it wasn’t an issue, because they had subtitles and could keep the film at reasonable volume, and they overall enjoyed the movie.

Maybe it was intentionally designed to eliminate the English speaking audience. But multiple viewings won’t help you.

I do wonder if I got some sort of hearing damage from seeing it in person. It was incredibly loud. I’ve been to many loud movies and several obnoxiously loud concerts, and Tenet was easily the loudest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Frankly, it was an irresponsible choice by its creators. If it physically hurts, viewers can’t engage with the movie at all. They’re distracted by pain. I can’t even call it an artistic choice because it goes so far beyond that. I would never see it in a theatre again, even without COVID.

I can’t wait to watch it at home so that I can properly digest and enjoy the movie.

I don't understand how this happens, and it's not just a Nolan issue. It's like the movie in its entirety has never been watched by the creators before it being released.

From my understanding, this is a Nolan problem. The Dark Knight rises had similar issues with sound mixing, especially with Bane's voice in certain scenes. I remember Interstellar having issues as well. Funny enough, Googling his last few movies (ex: "Dunkirk sound mixing problems") all lead to articles around the time of the movie's release and the audience complaining about sound problems.

Slightly off topic, but I personally use subtitles for everything I watch now because I got tired of missing dialogue for different reasons. More movies being on demand is a blessing for me in this regard.

I moved to subtitles on always years ago for that reason! Poor mixing and it made it harder to multitask. Sometimes I have to look at my phone watching TV or something and I might not totally comprehend a line, but then I can quickly glance up and read it. At this point it's subconscious. This also enables me to enjoy foreign films and shows a lot more, since I'm so used to reading subtitles already. I watched "To the Lake" on Netflix a few weeks ago and enjoyed it more than I thought I would after seeing it was all in Russian. That experience opened me up to watching more foreign live-action TV and I'm getting back into anime again. Come to think of it, I've watched subs anime for most of my life. There are only a few series that I think the English VAs are better than the original Japanese ones.

The only genre I do not turn subtitles on for, is stand-up comedy, for obvious reasons.

The audio mix for Interstellar was awful when I saw it in at the cinema too. I spoke to the manager, thinking it was a problem with the sound setup at that venue, and he said it was being widely reported around the world.

Devil's advocate, much of the first (and second...) times you watch the movie, your main job is to figure out the forward/backward time stuff. The sound mixing makes it less clear that the backwards speech is backwards. This a) sucks, but b) makes it more rewarding when you eventually figure it out.

But overall, I'd rather Christopher Nolan sit in a normal theater and listen to it before he signs off on the final sound product.

The sound mixing was very deliberate artistic expression that is somewhat controversial. See https://www.indiewire.com/2020/11/christopher-nolan-director...

This is all Nolan movies. You've got to go in expecting not to be able to understand what they're saying.

Saw it in theatre a few days ago, and agree that the sound mixing was bad, making the dialogue difficult to follow. Didn't he learn anything from Interstellar in regards to this?

Excellent movie otherwise, and I look forward to watching it again with subtitles. (Although it's possible I already have.)

Even better, this is a problem that is nearly 100% solved by watching with subtitles (esp at home). I mean, it may sound bad but at least you can understand it by reading.

People praise Solaris all the time. I've tried several times to watch it, but it's just unbearably dull.

The original is a crappy attempt at outdoing 2001. The remake isn't bad and Viola Davis's performance is worth seeing along with the twist added to the story.

Sorry, I meant the original.

Tenet was incredible. It’s one of the few movies lately that I spent a lot of time reading about and watching breakdowns and explanations after the movie.

Eh it may have been good but from the trailers my thinking was, “oh look another condescending Chris Nolan movie,” which is a shame since I loved his stuff up to inception.

Interstellar was condescending!?

"Interstellar" was an excellent film, physicists who haven't learned to suspend disbelief may have trouble enjoying it.

A friend of mine who is a physicist said he literally got up halfway through the movie, yelled "Fuck this" and walked out.

EDIT: Another physicist friend sat through it, but he said in his defense he was drunk and fell asleep.

I don't work as a physicist (but I got my degree in Engineering Physics @ CU-Boulder, 2009) and I went to see Interstellar in IMAX on opening night. I really enjoyed it overall, and the scenes involving the realistically-rendered black hole were worth it alone.

I'm relatively easy to please when it comes to movies, but to each their own of course.

I'd probably be more inclined to use a word like pretentious. I actually liked Inception quite a bit but didn't much care for Interstellar.

That’s the word I was looking for

Ah damn I thought that was before Inception. Although, yeah, it kinda was.

Opinions vary. We walked out of the cinema when cars starting traveling in reverse. Simply unwatchable, utter crap. For reference, I liked Interstellar very much.

I'm almost sure it would have bombed in any year, in fact, because everyone is postponing releases and freezing production until Covid-19 passes, it probably got an even higher box office than what it would have got in a competitive environment.

Yeah, every single person I know who started to watch it, gave up in the first 30 minutes - excepting me. I mean the final movie twist was obvious and my wife called it before getting up from the living room and leaving to browse her phone in bed.

The editing was rough and it wasn't fully explained what was happening. What other team members, that weren't the team members betraying him and not the guy in the chair "who lasted 18 seconds"? What?

I didn't like it that much 6/10 from multiple perspectives.

Mulan had a lot worse things going for it than your average blockbuster though.

Mulan being the first live-action Disney to not have songs, and axing Mushu, were controversial decisions at least amongst US audiences from the get-go. On top of that there was cultural controversy as well, with the actress supporting the HK police and the film credits thanking the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau.

As much as I cannot believe I am saying this, Kimetsu no Yaiba got $280 mil at the Japanese box office.

It is absolutely impossible to overstate the success of Kimetsu no Yaiba. In October its 22 volumes were the top 22 selling manga in Japan. It was more than a quarter of the entire manga industry this year.

https://twitter.com/Josu_ke/status/1333457420547452930

And yeah, despite being released only in a single medium-sized country only in the local language, it is the 6th highest grossing film of the year.

I think it is important to note how well the animated series set this up and how they adapted an actual story, not an utterly unrelated side story (like the norm for properties like Dragonball). Considering the quality of TV in general, this might be a model that will be adopted.

Oh, and unlike the vast majority of Anime serieses produced today, Kimetsu no Yaiba somehow manages to appeal to the mainstream.

(This article, while old, really hit the nail on the head about how the non-mainstream was the only game in town for the longest time; http://neojaponisme.com/2011/11/30/the-great-shift-in-japane...)

-edit- I meant to link to this; http://neojaponisme.com/2011/12/01/the-great-shift-in-japane...

It's not just about bragfests. The box office revenue generated is a key input variable in downstream licensing prices (that is, for premium Pay TV, cable channels, syndication, etc.) So, the bigger the box office, the more the movie generates "automatically" during the rest of its lifecycle. In some cases, you can think of the massive investments in marketing around the time of the theatrical opening as a loss leader for greater lifetime revenue.

I'm pretty skeptical that big budget superhero style movies can make a profit this way. It either means a shift in the types of movies that get made (not a bad thing), or studios eating cost for a couple of years until the theater market rebounds. I can see non-Disney studios losing a lot of money on this model and mergers and acquisitions would not be surprising to me.

That's when you just go animated because they're better off that way anyway. We're probably less than 20 years off from being able to show fully virtual films that are close to being virtually indistinguishable from live action anyway.

When you see one of those "behind the scenes" comparisons of a modern superhero movie with what's shot "live" and what's composited in later, you realize how much of it really is a fancy "cartoon". So much of what you see is animated in some fashion that the main difference between that and something billed as "animation" is the art style and toolset.

Some quick googling and it appears that animated is roughly 25% cheaper, is that enough to make the direct route profitable?

> Apparently its Mulan release (which required a premium subscription) didn't do so well, but seems risky for Disney to sit on its hands while WB goes all in.

Part of that might have been that the Mulan movie just wasn't good and didn't look that good even from the jump in the trailers. Word got out pretty fast before the release about it having no songs, no Mushu, etc which was so much of the charm of the original.

I think Marvel and Disney would be very disappointed if this trend continues across the board. At least if we go by Marvel’s last decade results.

With the debt that Disney has, I think that's an understatement.

> their films are best experienced on the massive widescreen

Now that giant 70" TVs are cheap, the difference between home and theater is less and less.

I still love the theater, and drive-ins, and am looking forward to being able to go see a movie with my kids once we get our vaccines!

It's still so vastly different. In a movie theater you are forced to not play with your phone, etc while watching. Even though you are just sitting you are getting "out" of normal life for a while. You get better immersion and there is a shared experience that you simply can't get at home. I fear that movie theatres are soon going to be a "luxury" as small theaters are killed and they try to turn them all into the "dinner and a movie" thing for higher margins, which to me completely defeats the entire purpose. There is something awesome about walking out of a great movie, the lighting outside is so different than when you came in and it's a great surreal experience in and of itself.

Early in the pandemic I realized that movie theaters were gonna be a no go, so I purchased a 100" drop down screen, 4k ust laser projector and a surround sound system. I even replaced the couch. It's been a great investment for us during these times. I'm sure I will occasionally go to the theater, but it will not nearly be as often as before.

If I could get a fanless 4K projector, I think I'd go for that nowadays. My walls are already white, and the concept of "hiding" my TV is increasingly appealing.

I'd imagine if you were going to invest in a 4K projector you'd still want a drop down screen unless your walls are perfectly flat white and non-textured.

Definitely agree it would be nice to have a hidden TV though :)

Or just have a huge TV that's flat enough to act as art. I think most TV manufacturers include some sort of "art" mode where it just shows a photo or slideshow. Heck, all of the streaming boxes do it.

You really need a screen for a projector, even the flattest white walls have some kind of texture that is prominent enough to degrade the image. Luckily screens can be had for quite cheap, at least in comparison to the cost of the projector itself.

But also, if you want high-quality surround sound, then the center speaker needs to be at ear height in front of you. The way home cinema owners arrange that is by putting the speaker behind a screen that has tiny perforations to let the sound through.

What was your UST projector of choice? I have one of the LG ones, and in my experience, the focus isn't sharp across the whole image.

I'm using the vava.

This is sad as it appears to be the beginning of the end of moviegoing as a mainstream pastime. Watching a movie at home simply isn't an equivalent replacement and it has nothing to do with the size of the screen. Going to the theater is a social experience. You simply can't replicate the experience of seeing Captain American catch Thor's hammer in a sold out crowd on opening weekend. Also going to a theater is a purpose driven choice in a way watching a movie at home is not. It allows you to focus all your attention on a movie that simply can't easily be replicated at home.

> Going to the theater is a social experience.

It's a social experience of frustration for me.. lol.

- "Why the hell does that person think that's acceptable?"

- "Do they have to talk?"

- "Could they eat loud plastic packages anymore?"

- "Why are little kids allowed in this movie?"

- "I guess this person isn't familiar with basic hygiene"

and so on. I'd love to watch movies on the big screen if it wasn't for the social experience i'm used to. Watching movies like A Quiet Place were especially awful.

I stopped going to theaters after visiting Alamo Drafthouse and literally every person around me was carrying on entire conversations during the movie. My wife asked after the movie was over, "Why didn't you fill out the card and turn those people in?" I replied, "You think they're going to believe me that every person around me was talking? When it's one person, they're the asshole. When it's everybody but me, I'm the asshole."

If a theater chain that prides themselves on throwing people out who talk[1] can't keep people from shutting up then I have no hope it'll ever change. What was once considered extremely rude is now considered commonplace, apparently.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs

Alamo Drafthouse doesn't pride itself on throwing people out who talk. Their entire model of shared food, wine, beer, large distances between seats, and waiters moving around the theater naturally increases it.

They have this card system because they specifically have a massive problem with people talking in the movies.

I can tell you my experiences at Alamo Drafthouse do not match yours, but perhaps you just don't like Alamo Drafthouse?

My complaint isn't with Alamo Drafthouse, it's the modern moviegoer. In fact, I was surprised at how well the Alamo Drafthouse staff handled a ticketing problem prior to that.

It's amazing how different humans can be.

Your grievances aren't a big deal to me, whereas lack of a huge screen and sound system are painful.

I used to see everything in theaters and almost never used Netflix except for their original content.

A Quiet Place was fantastic in theatres. The audience responded to it. Audience noises added to the tension, and we all felt it. People tried to be quiet.

I can't wait for theaters to be back. I just worry that they'll be bought up by the tech giants and studios for a bargain and turned into some stupid membership scheme that only plays a given studio's films. (This is my nightmare scenario, because I can't even conceive of a world without theaters. That's like a world without sports or restaurants.)

I've started going to the local drive in theater and it's actually an amazing experience. It's not the same sound system or crystal clear image, but the bigness is there and movies feel epic again. Tenet was really fun.

Yeah, I agree that the sound system in the theater is painful (do they think we are all deaf?).

I'm right there with you. Granted, most of my experiences in the cinema have been fine, but there are a handful of awful experiences caused by vast differences in mine and others' cinema-going norms. For me, the cinema is simply a tolerable risk/nuisance in order to get the best possible audiovisual experience. I really don't need to hear crowds laugh or gasp—that can be interesting to experience, but I find it entirely separate from my primary enjoyment of film.

Don't forget:

"It's just popped corn, why is it so expensive?"

"why does my seat smell so weird?"

"couldn't the tall guy sit one seat over?"

Me and my friends used to go regularly into a cinema. Every week once. Than it became expensive so we went more rarely at some point the choice became narrower and narrower so we stopped because it just wasn't worth the money. I have been 5 times there in the last ~10 years.

> You simply can't replicate the experience of seeing Captain American catch Thor's hammer in a sold out crowd on opening weekend

My enjoyment of this scene had nothing to do with the people sitting in the same room as me

Then you and I are different kinds of people. Don't get me wrong, that moment would have been enjoyable if I watched it for the first time on my phone by myself. However there is a heightening when you get to share some experience with a crowd of people who feel the same way you do. That applies to movie theaters, concerts, sporting events, and numerous other communal events.

But for every moment like that, there are dozens of times I've been in a theater and people have applauded scenes that don't really deserve it or are totally unnecessary. It gets old. Or it's the same people who have seen the movie in theaters three times already and know the lines and jokes by heart.

99% of the time I just want to watch these films at home. I'm glad it's going to happen.

>99% of the time I just want to watch these films at home. I'm glad it's going to happen.

Fair enough. However the difference is that this has already been an option for people like you for roughly the last 50 years. This decision is the first solid indication that going to theater might not be an option for people like me in the future.

>However the difference is that this has already been an option for people like you for roughly the last 50 years.

You're correct, but for most of the past 50 years, those people have had to wait for months beyond its initial release date in order to legally access it in their homes. That means months of avoiding chatter about it at work or in public that could spoil the movie for them.

>This decision is the first solid indication that going to theater might not be an option for people like me in the future.

I mean, maybe? Perhaps that would depend more on where you live. There will always be a certain portion of the populace that prefers a theater experience, so there will always be that option available. I'd just imagine that there won't be as many theaters operating a decade from now as there currently are.

My speculation: the movie theater, like the non-movie theater (for distinction I'll use "play house"), will always exist.

However, the density of movie theaters will decrease. Previously most small towns had a movie theater but not a play house. Similarly, movie theaters will likely only exist in the downtown or perhaps a large mall of a densely populated location.

Movie theaters will likely continue their trend to become more expensive, i.e. alcoholic drinks, food, etc. basically become a decent restaurant/bar with an amazing AV experience.

Huh? This seems like the exact opposite of that. For one of the first times in history, people who would rather watch new movies at home will have that option. And it has only been in the last 5 years or so that accessible home video technology has arguably been somewhat competitive with the cinema (I'm thinking mostly of UHD and HDR displays and content).

That simply means more people value watching at home over the theater experience and are choosing to vote with their wallets this way.

While I get what you’re saying and agree with you overall, it’s still not worth it to me. I’ll never forget when I went to see Deadpool. During the open credits (which has smart ass titles for the people like “An Evil British Bad Guy”), the lady next to me made sure to read every title aloud followed by a “AH HA HA AH HA HA AH HA HA.” It was obnoxious and kind of ruined the beginning portion of the movie as I waited for her next annoying action.

The last movie I saw in a theater – in March, just days before the U.S. took covid-19 seriously – was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I had never seen before. It was pretty fantastic to see it big screen a 70mm print (not that I can really tell, heh), especially with a packed theater full of longtime fans and fellow latecomers. But I honestly don't know if I could've sat through its long stretches of weirdness if I had Netflixed it in my living room; I was not at all prepared for how long the opening apes scene would go on for, having only previously experienced it as parody in The Simpsons.

Heh, funny you mention this. I saw 2001 in a theater in the 90s, and that may have been the first time I saw it.

I sat down to watch it again on HBOMax recently, and found myself wearing out the skip-10-seconds button on the remote. I even thought to myself, "this movie would never fly today". I then even thought about how I could probably edit it down to about 40 minutes and have the same storytelling, albeit with much less visual candy.

> You simply can't replicate the experience of seeing Captain American catch Thor's hammer in a sold out crowd on opening weekend. Also going to a theater is a purpose driven choice in a way watching a movie at home is not. It allows you to focus all your attention on a movie that simply can't easily be replicated at home.

I can easily focus all my attention on a movie at home, precisely because I also can't easily replicate the experience of crying children, iPhone flashes going off, inconsiderate moviegoers talking and commenting loudly, etc etc. The perfect theater experience is great, but unless you can afford paying to go to a premium theater (where in my experience, issues are less frequent) or at some odd time of day, it's often a gamble whether you'll get fantasy movie experience, or the real-world movie experience. At home, every aspect of the experience is under my control, so I'll never have to worry about the issues I encounter in the theaters, with most of the enjoyment. Despite being a huge fan of moviegoing, there are few experiences I couldn't have enjoyed as much at home. Those ideal experiences can be hard to come by

> Watching a movie at home simply isn't an equivalent replacement and it has nothing to do with the size of the screen.

And thank goodness for that. My own couch, no crying children nor people playing with their phones. I can eat and drink what I want and not overpay for it.

> You simply can't replicate the experience of seeing Captain American catch Thor's hammer

Funny that you use that as an example - I agree 100%. This exact scene was one of the most insane experiences of my movie-going life. The theater went WILD.

I understand that it might actually be annoying to a lot of people, but for me, it was really part of the experience.

I did feel a little corny using a comic book movie as an example because there are plenty of others movies that come to mind that I could point to and earn some film nerd cred. However there is nothing that symbolizes what the loss of theaters would do to populist filmmaking better than that moment. It was the zenith of a series of over 20 blockbuster movies that spanned a decade. It was truly an unprecedented moment in the history of cinema. Watching it a theater full of people who feel the same way is electric.

> an unprecedented moment in the history of cinema.

I really disagree with calling it cinema. It's on the big screen and it's entertaining, in the same way a boxing or football match would be. People would cheer and enjoy those too. But is it cinema? I don't think so, I would say that it's a completely different form of visual entertainment that just so happens to share the medium and venue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-m...

I really don't see any benefit in having this debate about semantics. You can call it whatever you want. It was an unprecedented moment in the history of theatergoing.

never upvoted somebody so many times in a single thread before. praise be to slg!

Haha, thanks.

really well put

It's cinema.

I just like the theatre's speaker system. Unlike some of the others that replied to you, I don't mind the social aspect but only in an apathy and indifference. Until someone's phone comes out and affects my field of view, but I've mostly seen good etiquette there in recent years (last 5).

I prefer spontaneously going to a theatre by myself with no planning, getting a good seat (or lately they've been reserved seats, in the same apps I used to check the movie times), on time, and enjoying the experience uninterrupted. For me, it is a privilege because in suburbs and rural America such spontaneity is not an option, whereas living in a prime area of a city allows for 3-5 or more movie theatres to choose from, multiple simultaneous showing at each one, different sound system and seating and viewing types, etc. A stroll at 11:30pm to a fun bar or club afterwards, or spontaneously leaving an evening social setting I no longer prefer to be in and decompressing in a theatre!

I don't enjoy planning that with other people, and tolerating their movie going routine. But whether I put up with that or am with one or more people that aren't late or picking bad seats, I don't find it a social experience because we are watching the movie, not making jokes the whole time.

Yes, I do enjoy other people's reactions and how that can add to the energy. But it isn't that interesting for me to miss it.

I think the social experience comes from the sorta lead up, and after the movie. I've never only done a movie and then went my separate ways with a person. Dinner before or after, or going to a park to sit and talk about the movie are normal activities. If you're only doing the movie, yeah who really cares if you have other people there or not.

That said, you can do the same thing at home.

> Dinner before or after, or going to a park to sit and talk about the movie are normal activities.

I remember I only did something like that in high school and maybe the beginning of college, due to limited options, especially for awkward intimacy.

At home I don't consider the experience recreational. I've got a pretty decent sound system and I keep the screen at 100 inches or so.

The void will be filled, it always is. Vintage and boutique neighborhood theaters have already sprouted up and begun to take their place. Drive ins have returned. Perhaps Theater proper will experience a resurgence, outside of NYC.

I personally never liked movie going, it was worse than video games. At least with those you can still talk to your friends but with movies you have to sit in complete silence with just about zero interaction for over an hour. Honestly the whole thing felt like an almost complete waste of time.

Yeah you get a shared experience out of it but I'm not sure that's any better than just independently watching the movie

The same thing was said about home video, then video rental, then pay-per-view, then streaming, and now streaming during a pandemic. If there's one thing I've learned in my time on this earth, it's that there are plenty of people like you and I who love the social experience of going to a movie theater.

As an anecdote, my favorite moviegoing experience was when I was watching the Dark Knight during the first showing, at the point where Commissioner Gordon pulls of his mask, a guy in front of me jumped out of his seat and yelled "YEAH!! GORDON!!" The whole audience got a laugh, and it was just a really fun moment that only the thirty or so people who happened to be there got to experience.

Also, no matter how good your living room "home theater" is, it will never replicate a real auditorium that has had actual audio engineers work on setting up.

I agree with this assessment. I believe home streaming new releases will compete with theaters, but I don't think it will completely replace them. Anecdotally, my wife and her friends all love going to the theater to see movies and I expect they will resume doing so post-pandemic. I am a homebody, but my wife is not; so given the option she would prefer to get out of our house and go to the theater.

What I'm curious about is how this will impact distribution arrangements once theaters do re-open. I could see it going one of two ways:

1. If studios start streaming new releases, they can't offer theaters the same kind of exclusive distribution that they could in the past, allowing theaters to demand more favorable terms

2. Since studios now have alternative distribution channels, they don't necessarily need theaters to distribute their new releases, so studios can demand more favorable terms.

I actually think movie theater going is about to become a more social experience. Sure, the Regals and the AMCs might suffer, but the living room theaters? I suspect those will continue to do just fine.

My wife and I saw two or three movies a month in a theater (pre-Covid, obviously). I think I've seen one movie without a waiter in the last decade.

Movie-going as a mall pastime, as an activity to kill time, will probably die. Movie-going at discount theaters available to the working class will probably die.

But theaters will remain. There'll be fewer, and they'll be more expensive, but they will continue to exist.

I was in the college film group undergrad and have stayed in pretty close touch with a bunch of other people of the same era. There's definitely a split between

1.) Those of us (like me) who might go see something in IMAX once a year but are mostly very content to watch at home and

2.) Those who just can't understand not watching films in the theater if at all possible. (Said film group is still around but a bare shadow of its former self. And a number of my friends simply don't understand how today's students could not want to go see the movies on the big screen.)

Movie theaters aren't going away. Once people feel comfortable densely sharing an indoor space again they'll spool back up offering that experience. You only need to taste it again.

The market will likely be much smaller given people have invested more into their home viewing experience, consequently theaters will need to stand out more.

There's no need for theaters to be mainstream. They can be a niche offering and you can still enjoy those things.

That isn't necessarily true. Sure, there will probably always be movie theaters in large markets, but there might not be one in every town. It might end up being like seeing live bands in concerts. You might have to live in a top X market or spend hours traveling to one of those markets to see your favorite band play. That makes it an inherently more expensive and rarer experience even if it is still possible.

It also isn't clear what the ramifications of this will be on the movies that actually get made. While I did mention the MCU in that last comment, I am a big fan of the idea of a standalone 90-180 minute movie as an artform. Those standalone movies make even less sense in a streaming world in which retention is the goal. I would be worried that movies become even more and more like TV than the franchise IP wave of the last decade has already caused.

Small Stand-alone movies make more sense in streaming focused worlds, not less. It’s easier to take a risk on a small movie when the effort needed to watch it is less.

I didn't say "small". Streaming can certainly allow a movie with a $1m-10m budget to turn a profit. I am mostly worried about the mid-budget standalone movies that are targeted at adults. Movies like Arrival or Knives out are recent examples. I'm not sure streaming works to the same extent for a $30m-60m movies like that.

Why not? Adults stream movies.

It doesn't make sense financially. Arrival had a budget of $47m. The general rule is that marketing budget for a movie is 50% of the production budget. That leaves us at $70.5m to break even. At $15 per month, you need that movie to generate 4.7m new subscriber-months to be worth it. Is releasing Arrival on HBO Max going to be the deciding factor for 4% of US households to subscribe for a month? I doubt it.

Then they will have to switch to a pay per stream model.

But they will not go back to theaters only.

There is if someone lives in a smaller community where being non-mainstream reduces offerings or closes the theater entirely.

If streaming does indeed come to overtake theaters as the primary distribution method of new releases going forward, I'm curious about how significantly this will upend the industry due to direct competition from classic films.

For example, the way I purchase and consume a book is identical whether it is a classic or a new release. And my reading habits skew heavily toward classics.

Same for the way I consume music, and I listen to releases from the 60's - 2000's just as much as new stuff.

This is a very interesting perspective.

Though, I think technology is the big differentiating factor between movies and books. The quality of CGI, special effects, resolution, cameras, etc. are constantly improving and I think a significant portion of the younger demographic fails to appreciate older movies due to the obvious age of the films. There just isn't much evolution in how books are consumed or written. Digital books make them more accessible, but are not exclusive to new releases.

Other than technology, I think marketing and name recognition are the primary factors for selecting both movies and books because of a popularity bias. New media is heavily marketed and will likely still receive a lot more consumption.

> The quality of CGI, special effects, resolution, cameras, etc. are constantly improving

Aren't we already at a diminishing returns point though? In fact I think most people would agree there's lots of movies from 10 years ago with better CGI than many movies from last year. Better tools don't make up for rushing CGI through during post-production.

At some point we certainly get to completely photo realistic CGI where things don't become dated unless the viewing experience significantly changes in an incompatible way. Like the majority of movies becoming VR experiences but I wouldn't bet on a shift like that anytime in the next decade or two.

>I'm curious about how significantly this will upend the industry due to direct competition from classic films.

My guess, not much. If they started having to compete with classics and were losing, I imagine the classics would just vanish from those services.

There's not a lot of evidence that there's a big market for a premium streaming classics service. I would probably subscribe to one but the film buff market is probably not a huge one.

(I know there's Criterion but that tends towards arthouse fare rather than mainstream classics.)

Or you’d have to pay a premium to access x+ years old movies. Which would be a smarter move.

I think you have it backwards, the old movies would be the draw, the new releases would be the premium. You have to keep people subscribed to the service, well curated old movies would be one way to do this.

You know what?

Let’s A/B test! ^^

With this seemingly becoming the new norm, I hope streaming services can find a way to make the quality of streams better or offer a way to temporarily download a new movie at a higher quality. Streams still lag behind Blu-ray by quite a margin. Maybe if we could get something between Blu-ray and the DCP files theaters get. Or even just Blu-ray quality would be a greatly appreciated upgrade.

100% agreed. I'd even pay extra to get 60Mbps or higher bitrate streams to match blu-rays. The compression artifacts on the all of the major streaming services right now are quite noticeable when watching on a projector.

Gotta expand broadband and get rid of datacaps first.

I agree, as I write this from a 25mbps connection with a 1tb datacap. For me personally, I wouldn't mind waiting a day or two for a multi-hundred gig file to download, but my datacap sure would.

HBOMax has such a horrible branding strategy, discovery features, and rollout that I wonder how much this will matter longer term to their subscribers.

Like HBOMax already has perhaps the largest deepest catalog of movies, yet have struggled to find adopters dues to confusion about all the HBO* and confusion about what even is included in the app due to terrible organization and discovery features.

It's truly moronic. I cannot imagine what the discussion was like in those meetings, but it sure seems like it fits the "guy gets thrown out of the window" meme format where you can imagine all the HBO streaming leaders sitting around the roundtable and one dude's like "What if we just had... one app?".

Boom. Out the window.

It made sense when I listened to the “How I built it” podcast with Steve Case and AOL which discusses how truly terrible Time Warner is. So many fiefdoms. Rife Design by committee...

Hands down the best movie experience I've had was this old refurbished theater in my hometown in the 90's and early 00's. Two weekends each month they showed an old movie. Classics from Casablanca, Laurence of Arabia, Fiddler on the Roof, to The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet and War of The Worlds.

Tickets were $4-5, boxes of popcorn and soda's of reasonable size were a $1-2 each, all movies lead with a cartoon and had an intermission.

Best of all the ushers. They would kick you out if you made too much noise and wouldn't let you take your seat if you got up too often.

It's a real shame that movie studios have cut the theaters margin on movies so thin that the theaters can't bring their snack prices down, nor offer a better experience (like kicking people out who can't shut up).

This is exactly the reason I love Alamo Drafthouse. Zero tolerance policy on noise and cellphone screens (which they've actually enforced when I've been there).

Food prices are comparable to other theater chains, but the _quality_ is much higher. Real food (not concession stand quality), adult milkshakes, etc. Seats are lazy boy quality recliners.

Plus the ushers shimmy around on the floors to come take your order and bring it to your seat. You get these little menu cards you can fill out during the movie. The ushers look for folks who have a card ready and come grab it.

I'd actually like Alamo Drafthouse more if they skipped the whole dinner thing.

I mean the dinner thing is great, but I do find the extra movement distracting. The drafthouse I typically go to doesn't have stadium seating so it is noticeable.

>> the ushers shimmy around on the floors to come take your order and bring it to your seat.

Transpose "usher" with "waiter" and it has become literal dinner theater.

Film rental has actually gone down a lot since the studios forced all the chains to go digital from 35mm film.

It wasn't uncommon for 80-90 per cent of ticket sales to go to the studios in the first week of a blockbuster's release, which would drop down to about 50 per cent in the fourth week or so. It was around 35 per cent for second run.

The average rental since the switch to digital has been about 50 per cent, although it's been a few years now since I was last running projectors in a real cinema.

I always hated ushers. A little bit of power can go to your head. Why do we want this back? If someone is making too much noise let them know.

You are a little too understanding of the general population. What percentage of people will quietly apologize and change their behavior instead of becoming combative for being confronted for their assholery? In my anecdotal experience it’s probably like 75% of people in general become combative and you need staff to deal with them.

> Why do we want this back?

Because people can't behave.

It's not too much to ask for people to act appropriately in certain situations. During a movie, or stage production, it is not too much to ask for people to shut up and stay off their damned phones. If you can't be relatively quiet for a few hours, maybe going to a theater is not for you.

I always hated ushers. A little bit of power can go to your head.

I think we've found the talker/cell-phone-using cinema-goer.

If someone is making too much noise let them know.

I suspect that you've not tried this more than once, or maybe not even at all.

I have. You start with a half turn, then the full turn, then say something. People are much more afraid of confrontation than they use to be.

The one time I can recall where I was annoyed enough with a fellow theater goer to engage them at all, it resulted in the obviously drunk wife berating me in the lobby for ruining her "date night" with her obviously embarrassed husband.

More generally, I have approximately a 0% success rate getting people to change their bothersome behavior. Loud neighbors are far more common and know they're being loud and don't give a shit in every single experience I've ever had.

I'm not afraid of confrontation, I just don't see the point when it literally never works in my experience.

In which case I retract my last statement. Decades of experience say your technique rarely works, though.

Because you don't have power and they don't give a damn about you complaining. It may even get them motivated to piss everybody off even more.

Makes you wonder why you _hate_ them...

I would see films in cinemas if I could be guaranteed a calm uninterrupted experience. A big problem for me is people talking, using phones etc. I don’t want to spoil their evening either by making a scene I think it’s just I’m no longer a cinema person - and yes I’ve tried art house places too!

In addition, my big reason for preferring movies at home is the "Pause" button. I can sit through an entire movie, but my life is better if I can just pause things for whatever needs come along.

(It's funny, I mentioned this to a coworker from the EU and he asked why the intermission wasn't enough for this. I'm still not sure it wasn't part of a joke that I didn't get, but I think at least US movies when shown in theaters around him always have an intermission.)

The pause button is great. One thing that I find as more theaters have a bar out front where you can order a cocktail or a big 20oz draft beer is that I can't enjoy such things because I'll inevitably have to get up to hit the bathroom at some point during the movie.

At home, we can pause for bathroom breaks, snacks, etc. once or twice during a movie without too much interruption but with zero missing of scenes or annoying people as you squeeze back and forth down the rows when you need to get up.

Way back when, longer "epic" films in the US would sometimes have intermissions. I don't go to movie theaters much but I haven't seen such a thing in decades. (With plays, of course it's normal unless it's only 90 minutes or so long.)

I saw a film in Malta around 2005, high end super crisp projection which half way thorough surprised me when it suddenly cut to a (presumably telecined?) battered old 70s intermission title+music reel.

Some theatres like Alamo have strict rules and enforcement around it. I stick to theatres that I know are rather quiet and enjoyable.

Same for me! I don't know if I just got grumpier as I got older, or the smartphone era happened to occur in the same time, but I literally dread going to a theater. Instead of focusing on the movie, I just realize how self entitled society has become.

It wasn't any better before cell phones. People still talked during the movie, kids ran up and down the aisles, people would get up in the middle of the movie to go to the bathroom.

What changed was big home televisions got cheaper, and those of us who value decorum during movies can get it at home, with cheap snacks and the ability to pause the movie.

if you don't mind me asking, what do you actually like about the cinema experience that you can't get at home? I get that the image quality is better than the average consumer tv, but it's not prohibitively expensive to get a good home theater setup, especially if you weigh the cost against eight years worth of movie tickets + the residual value of the equipment at the end.

Speaking for myself, I live in an apartment with thin walls and can't blast my sound as loudly as it would be in a theater.

If you had good headphones/earphones, would you no longer prefer a theater?

No, I don't particularly enjoy wearing them and avoid them to prevent causing hearing damage.

For me it's the scale. As in proper big screen.

There's only three theaters in town I really enjoy visiting and then only their main auditoriums (~700-900 seats). My favorite has (or at least until recently had) the largest THX certified auditorium[1].

If I can't get the proper big screen then indeed it's better to just watch at home.

That said, it helps that the audience here is for the most part quiet and sitting still.

[1]: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/23154

For me, it's the fact that I'm going "out". It's somewhat of a special occasion.

Similar to the difference between going to a restaurant to eat versus just getting takeout from the same place.

A good home theater setup alone won't give you the same experience as the quality of the content delivered to cinemas is way better. It's only scantly compressed compared to what is sent over the network via streams. A single movie sent to theaters via mail can take up hundreds of gigabytes, if not more.

>>The studio's 2021 slate includes projects such as The Suicide Squad, The Matrix 4, Dune, Godzilla vs. Kong and Space Jam: A New Legacy. Other films include Little Things, Judas and the Black Messiah, Tom & Jerry, Mortal Kombat, Those Who Wish Me Dead, The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, In The Heights, Reminiscence, Malignant, The Many Saints of Newark, King Richard and Cry Macho.

well this is an impressive line up! i usually take a pass of $20 or go on Tuesdays for movies that are worth $6-$7 , but with $15 for new movies and HBO shows this is a no brainer (YMMV)

But i do miss the big screen experience , may be cheap home theater ideas will rise up and grant a % of that experience

An important note: this only affects those in the USA - unless HBO Max expands internationally in 2021 - because:

“HBO Max is currently only supported in the U.S. and supported territories” [1]

HBO Max has not announced any plans to expand outside of the USA at this stage.

[1] https://www.hbomax.com/geo-availability

I just read[1] that HBO Max is coming to Norway at the end of 2021.

Google translation: "A spokesperson for HBO Nordic confirms to Dagbladet that HBO Max is scheduled to roll out in Europe in the second half of 2021 and that it will replace HBO's European services."

Dagbladet is one of the larger newspapers here.

[1]: https://www.dinside.no/mobil/hbo-max-kommer-til-norge/731414...

As someone outside the USA, I would love to support movie production by paying for a HBO Max subscription.

But since they refuse to take my money, I will have to put the funds towards a seedbox so that I, too can enjoy the latest movies on demand.

Idiots.

International distribution rights for all these movies have already been sold.

Torrents everywhere screaming with joy

Tangential question: how do rippers handle streaming-exclusive content these days? Just run a screen-capture program while streaming the video? I was thinking some fidelity would be lost, at least compared to ripping from the source Blu-Ray.

(though obviously better than secret cam footage in the theater, if people still do that these days)

the release groups don't publish much detail on their methods, lest they get patched. I doubt they use screen-capture, as this would involve reencoding an already bandwidth-starved video stream. my best guess is they have exploits for each service to extract and decrypt the stream, then remux into an mkv for distribution.

I would have guessed that it's more likely that these rips are easily available precisely because there are some old devices out there with a breakable DRM that streaming services can't disable from their end because the devices are too important to their customer base.

Like, there's probably some old smart TV or set-top box platform that Netflix has to support because they have half a million subscribers using it, but it won't receive firmware updates and can only support some old DRM that has been broken.

Streaming in 4K is definitely lower quality than a 4K Blu-Ray.

It would be unbearable to watch Bad Boys for Life in low quality streaming 4K. You need the fidelity of 4K Blu-Ray to really appreciate the fine nuances of the cinematography and acting.

That's true. UHD Blu-rays tend to be around 50-75 Mb/s, while 4K streams/VOD from Netflix tend to be around 15-20 Mb/s. In my experience though, the difference is less noticeable (on my pretty good 4K OLED) than I would expect.

Screen captures aren't too common since they would incur an additional re-encoding step (losing a minor bit of fidelity), so for the more "professional" rippers it isn't a proper option. Instead they use the raw data stream from the streaming platform, strip the DRM and reassemble the video file. Of course the DRM stripping is the hard part with not much public knowledge being available.

As you mentioned, the quality of those rips is a bit worse than a blu-ray rip, but if the blu-ray isn't available there's not much you can do. People will just enjoy a slightly worse quality version (just like they did with shaky cam rips).

You get certain hdmi splitters off Amazon. They will strip the hdcp off and then you can capture what you want.

There are even specialized devices that you plug a dvi/hdmi/vga signal into and it will turn the signal into IP packets over Ethernet. I’m sure you could get away with a number of things in places you shouldn’t be with one of these.

I am super excited about this trend of releasing movies to online services at the same time as theaters.

I guess I am selfish, but even before the pandemic, I much preferred to watching a movie with my spouse at home on our big screen TV, in our comfortable chairs, with our preferred snacks, with the kids asleep in their bedroom, than having to go through the hassle of finding a babysitter, driving somewhere, paying crazy prices for food and drink, watching a ton of pre-roll ads, and being distracted by the jerk making running commentary next to you.

Sure the giant screen and sound system are really nice, and worth paying for once in a while. But I am happy that decision is separate from, when do I want to watch the movie.

So a long time ago, my wife broke her leg badly enough to need surgery. After she was up to it, I took her out to a movie. Got her out of the van, into a wheelchair, into the theater. We sat through the trailers, and were just about to get to the movie that we actually wanted to see...

... when our oldest called, saying that our youngest was throwing up, and we needed to come home now. All that work (way more work than usual), and we never got to see the movie. If we had been watching it at home, we would have just paused it.

On the other hand, if we had been watching it at home, we would have been watching it with the kids, not just with each other. That's fine, if that's what you want. But if you want some time together as adults, it doesn't work.

We stared counting interruptions during a movie. This is with kids have a separate floor To themselves; with clear instructions to give us 2 hours peace.

20+ interruptions was normal. Not including Loud crashes coming from gymnastics activities.

As someone with two toddlers I look forward to the day i only get 10 interupts per hour.

You'll get there. In five years, your life is going to look quite different.

But on the way, don't focus so much on what's bad that you miss enjoying what's good. You're not going to get this time back.

What is the point of releasing so many good movies on HBO Max if it is only available is US? Wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce it in more countries and then use these movies to incentivise more subscriptions?

They probably have existing long term contracts in other countries with other distributors.

That's pretty awesome and now Im regretting my Roku TV mounted to my wall.

I want HBO Max, but thus far only if available on said TV. Yet now with this I might get a Fire stick or a Chromecast.

Roku recently released a software update that added AirPlay support [0].

If you have iOS, you can beam HBO Max content from iPhone to TV. Not as ideal as having the HBO app on the Roku OS itself, but better than having to buy extra hardware.

[0] https://blog.roku.com/apple-airplay-homekit

Apple TV has the best experience IMO and supports all major streaming services.

I've been waiting for Apple to update the AppleTV (I gave mine to a deserving friend), so I replaced my aging Roku with a FireTV (for HBO Max). Works great.

It has been a long time since the Apple TV was updated, but it performs well for 4k content so I’m not sure what the average user would want from an upgrade. Personally the only item on my wish list is very niche - allow it to concurrently connect to more than 3 Bluetooth devices, so I can use more sensors with Zwift.

> I’m not sure what the average user would want from an upgrade

I'd like to see a new revision with an HDMI 2.1 port -- support for 8K60 game streaming (the nVidia 3090s support running at that resolution) and 4K120 support.

Except for the bonkers remote control I agree. I have a few Roku's and one Apple TV HD. I love the picture quality on the AppleTV but the remote is too weird for my wife's liking.

You can program any remote to work with AppleTV.

https://support.apple.com/guide/tv/use-other-remotes-atvb041...

I've seen a lot of people mentioning the lack of Roku support. I have no idea how HBO hasn't developed an app for it yet; it seems like an easy market to support. But like you mentioned, Firesticks and Chromecasts are stupid cheap. It sucks having to get a new device for a single app, but it's either that or don't use the service I guess.

There are thousands of Roku apps; creating one is not a high-tech challenge. This is just HBO [edit, thanks sibling comment by 'whatok [0]:] refusing to pay Roku's toll.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25294181

Not having a roku app is a deliberate choice. It's not like this is some engineering failure. Hbo and roku got in some sort of fight, I assume hbo wants to be paid by roku.

HBO isn't paying WB, HBO is WB.

Whoops, that's a good point. I guess the accounting works a bit differently in that case?

it doesn’t have anything to do with developing an app and everything to do with HBO insisting on how their content is distributed. they recently reached a deal with amazon and i believe part of the deal was pulling the legacy HBO Now app and only allowing HBO Max. they want Max to be the front facing brand

https://www.vox.com/recode/21686514/hbo-max-roku-amazon-peac...

A movie and tv app by HBO that came out 6 months ago has no 4k, HDR, Dolby digital or anything of the sort. It’s ridiculous.

They’ve only in the last day or so announced some movies will be available in quality formats soon.

Lack of an app is not the problem. They haven't been able to come to terms on rev share yet. I suspect this news will break the impasse.

It's a Roku problem, not an HBO problem.

no HBO Max for LG TVs either. I can watch HBO (on Amazon), along most of the rest of the usual suspects, but not HBO Max, without additional hardware. Luckily my wife has a Kindle Fire that I think will do the trick.

I don't really care what the equation is as long they reap profits enough the keep the wheel going full speed and produce more awesome products. I love the cinema for its grandeur and DB levels and nothing out there can replicate that. True - the frustrations with some trash people is a factor, but so far nothing that extreme to make me even consider ditching the big screen. But i'd settle for anything as longs as there will be more. MORE!

People seem to be missing the "data" portion of this move. This will boost subscriptions to hbo max which will increase revenue but also bring in data - capturing what,where,when,etc you and your children watch. AMC tried to capture this with their A-list movie pass, but I'm guessing the studios decide to step in front of the movie theater chains with this move. Disney and everyone else with a streaming services are bound to follow warner.

I'm going to bet this will lead to people upgrading their home theater setup and I'm going to bet TV manufacturers are going to implement more data capturing features. Cameras to watch you watching TV. Where the eyeballs go. Mic to record what people say. Etc.

The studios are all in trying to be netflix now. And netflix will try to be a studio. And the fracturing of the streaming continues. Until disney buys up everyone...

Warner Brothers were pioneers in the implementation of motion picture sound technology in the 1920s with Don Juan and The Jazz Singer, among others [0]. Which is to say the experience of going and seeing movies was shaped by Warner’s risky investments in those technologies when they were new. There are actually allusions to this in Singin’ in the Rain [1].

[0] https://www.britannica.com/art/history-of-the-motion-picture...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singin'_in_the_Rain

What I've wanted most that I haven't seen yet is different versions of movies for different age-groups.

Like, you could have a Deadpool movie on Netflix that played either a PG-13 or NC-17 version depending on your account settings.

Basically make clearplay.com obsolete.

I wonder if the content was shipped to Netflix, Hulu and Apple.

This seems to be most tenuous with theater chains, who could seek to punish WB as AMC threatened Universal over the release of Trolls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/business/amc-universal-tr...

Might as well. Now the streaming offering will benefit from the same marketing push as the big ticket cinemas, maximizing total revenue.

Agreed. I believe a huge portion of the budgets for movies also revolves around marketing in general. Maybe those budgets can be reduced substantially if the movies are all being placed directly on streaming services. For instance, does it really matter in a streaming only world if your movie does huge numbers on the first weekend it comes out? I'd imagine success will be measured more in retention and possibly new subscriptions corresponding with a specific movie release.

It's so funny watching a dysfunctional industry take 10 years to catch up with the obvious.

The next interesting point will be the obvious consolidation and licensing wars when customers get tired of maintaining 4 or 5 streaming licenses.

> The next interesting point will be the obvious consolidation and licensing wars when customers get tired of maintaining 4 or 5 streaming licenses.

I'd say that is already happening. I was surprised at first when I saw "The Simpsons" on Disney+ but I remembered that Disney purchased Fox entertainment last year. Disney already owns "Star Wars", "Marvel", "ESPN", "Pixar", and their own back catalog. There are other big players out there but Disney has a huge catalog.

> Disney already owns ...

And yet paradoxically there's still very little to watch on Disney+, because only a fraction of their huge catalog is actually accessible and what _is_ available, it's just the same old material, watched and re-watched a million times already.

At least that's how it is here, in Europe, not sure about the US. I ended up dropping Disney+ subscription in exactly 1 month because there was nothing interesting left to watch. It was a rather strange experience TBH.

The service only launched this time last year, and I get the impression they are still processing the backlog as well as waiting for previous licenses to expire.

and whatever is there, their need to be child-friendly tends to block or worse, make them edit movies. There was a scene in the 1984 Splash where a naked butt is seen, the re-edited scene went fairly viral where they tired to extend the long hair of the female so it covered her butt. (Horribly done btw)

that scene was a highlight of my childhood (I was 11 at the time) and tbh I wouldn't really want my kids to see a censored version of it.

They made billions of dollars in the interim and a global pandemic destroying theater demand is the reason why this has accelrated. As much as I liked to mock Disney for being late to the game with Disney Plus, I'm not sure it mattered, and possibly they did everything right.

Not everyone has room or space for amazing AV for movies. So I feel sad this will hurt movie theaters. I would much rather be watching Dune safely in a theater than watching in OKish AV at home.

The article leaves out the significant detail that Warner Bros. and HBO Max are both owned by WarnerMedia, the media and entertainment arm of AT&T.

So when is HBO Max going to start streaming in 4k and HDR?

I found the answer: Dec 25 (for WW 84) https://twitter.com/PattyJenks/status/1333861228695875584

Nice.

Well. That's sad.

Time to invest in the home cinemas market!

Have you seen the content on HBO Max? There's nothing there. It looks like WB is trying to prop up Max.

I find it better than Netflix for my needs, but I also just like watching old stuff. I also only have it since I get it includes with ATT mobile service at no extra charge.

Just hope HBO Max comes to the UK soon!

Same with Canada as well. Will be a shame if this experiment fails simply because they were unable to capture subscribers from the majority of the world outside the US. People aren't going to wait for it to come to their country, they'll likely pirate it instead...

Sky's deal with HBO makes that unlikely.

Black Friday sales on 75 inch 4k TVs and sound bars => millions of people don't need theaters.

Pirating is back baby, in a big way.

Despite word of coming vaccines, the company decided to put the entire 2021 slate on HBO Max after consulting with epidemiologists.

If you care enough about the future to pay experts for advice, you get different answers than e.g. those to which nightly news viewers are subjected. Like Dr. Michael Mina said recently on the Pivot podcast, "Since May, the vaccine has been a month away."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com