Warner Bros Begins Exclusive Deal Talks With Netflix | Hacker News Reader

Warner Bros Begins Exclusive Deal Talks With Netflix

bloomberg.com

66 pointsmfiguiere159 comments

Could there be a worse news regarding where content production is headed? Netflix production is trash and all they care is about metrics like viewers who have watched at least x% of certain content. Cuz if they have, and they accumulate y minutes of viewing, they are unlikely to cancel. This is to the point that they are exclusively making dumbed-down content that can be good background noise while viewers scroll through Instagram feeds. They have little taste, or any motivation to bring good stories out.

HBO might not be perfect, but at least its development process still begins with the story and the enthusiasm of the showrunner.

I agree so much with this. And I immediately think about how I have an ongoing Netflix subscription and I have it because after having cancelled due to the complete shit trash they produce, my dad asked me about how to see the Tyson vs Jake Paul fight and it was then that I knew I was cooked.

I am a subscriber and my dad didn't like the fight but is happy to have been part of the experience of seeing it.

I want to in-principle not pay money into this trash. But "humanity" seems to like to want to witness this trash. And I and my extended family are included!

oh dear

It's so annoying that you totally _have_ to subscribe to this trash product because society is literally forcing you. I know you definitely don't like it but you feel like you have to watch it or you're wasting the money they forced you to spend.

Keep up the good fight and I hope you make it out safe.

> totally _have_ to subscribe to this trash product

For cultural context, it's enough to subscribe for one month, once or twice per year, to catch up on a few movies or episodes of popular series. If a series is good enough for longer viewing and subscription, then the product has earned its keep.

I highly recommend the website "youtube.com" there's a lot of content on there that's excellent. I am never for want of something to watch, it sort of seems like an absolute golden age of content production to me.

I'm trying to watch long form cinematic content, not a 10 minute diy video for turning my toaster into a flamethrower with three minutes of ads and "smash that like button" interspersed.

There wre a few YouTube channels I like but they are all educational where one guy talks to the camera about a thing. Is there decent fiction on YouTube? I haven't seen any.

I think that's more of an issue of discovery. If I wanted decent fiction, I would actually prefer Apple's catalogue of Sci-Fi shows over anything I can find on Netflix these days. While with Youtube, you can find hidden gems outside their algorithm. In fact, I'd recommend not abiding by the algorithm of any platform and seek outside sources for finding shows you'd enjoy. Each platform has the same goal to retain your attention.

Get adblock and sponsorblock, or just yt-dlp it and let it cut out all the cruft, watching youtube with the callouts and sponsor segements left in sucks but we have the technology to solve the problem. I would believe there's good long form fiction content, I've listened to fiction podcasts with sound effects so there's at least that. I mostly watch multiple hour long non-fiction content so there's definitely lots of long form available, but I'm not sure how much fiction there is.

The lengths vary, and the channel only recently started their own first-party content production (rather than licensed third-party content), but that being said, the sci-fi channel DUST is a longtime favorite of mine for fiction on YouTube. The quality level is consistently high, if not quite Hollywood budget.

https://www.youtube.com/@watchdust

HBO cancelled Perry Mason, one of the better done noir detective series. That was kind of the nail in the coffin for me. I still get it free because of my AT&T subscription, but I can't argue that Netflix has really come out with anything really worth watching either - Department Q and Mindhunter are only two that I think of that were decent.

I agree that the majority of stuff on streaming services is complete garbage and nothing is really "binge worthy" like it used to be. The one thing I used to love about Netlfix was going back and watching old movies like Chinatown or To Live and Die in LA. Those are all gone now, replaced with its own produced content that I just think isn't in the same league.

HBO died many years ago when ATT fired all the executives that had the taste and vision to make HBO what it was.

They probably had some half decent stuff in the pipeline, but by now, I imagine there is no influence from the HBO of yore.

Those people left for Apple.

Reportedly.

To me it died when they changed acceptable series length to 6 episodes on GoT. I really miss the days of 24 episodes, split into 12 episodes runs. I dont care that you spent the income of a small nation on the 6 episodes, I prefer you spread that money on 12 or more episodes so we can get story telling again.

Today's "TV shows" are more like TV movies that where split in into 3 1 hour runs.

Thank you for mentioning Department Q and Mindhunter — these were amazing. Netflix has a lot of content some of it is actually really good.

Mindhunter was cancelled for being too expensive.

There must be more to that story. Netflix, HBO, BBC and a bunch of others keep pumping out these kinds of crime dramas exactly because they are quite conservative bets. They are extremely cheap to produce, a handful of mid-range actors on very mundane locations. They can stay as a miniseries or expand later on as wanted. And if the writing is good some of them become incredibly popular and profitable.

I mean, the last Stranger Things series, of all things, is the single most expensive production in history. More expensive than Marvel films, than both Avatars, than all of Games of Thrones, than Rings of Power per episode… It’s mad, for a quaint small-scale mild-horror story set in the 80s.

There is no way Mindhunter was simply too expensive.

Fincher shoots for very long, does a lot of takes, lights everything like a film. Likely spends a lot of time in the editing room either himself directly or tinkering with the directors that direct the other episodes.

Notice how Mindhunter didn’t “look” like other Netflix shows. The reason for that is they lit it like a movie. And that takes time and money.

I work in the industry. The reason Netflix shows look a certain way is because they are not given the time to do it differently and are shooting almost documentary style or at least much much faster than a regular “prestige” show. Now a good director DP duo can still make this look good, even though it’s hard to do 20 set ups (low budget speed) instead of 5-10 a day (high budget). But that velocity means you shoot at twice the speed. Which is huge considering film costs are people costs. Production is often the expensive segment of a show like Mindhunter.

Fincher likely wouldn’t have agreed to drop episode count or shoot them faster, so they didn’t continue.

Mindhunter was cancelled - too expensive.

If your metric is only detective stories… i guess? But if you actually compare the quality of anything recent notable from HBO it's not even close. HBO cinematography, production quality, editing, script… its all levels above Netflix. Pick anything The White Lotus, Euphoria, The Last of Us, Peacemaker. Really anything.

Netflix feels like everything is cheap. Maybe Ripley was nice but thats it?

The last Stranger Things series, of all things, is probably the single most expensive media production in history. More expensive than Marvel films, than both Avatars, than all of Games of Thrones, than Rings of Power per episode…

It even dwarfs the budgets of the biggest games ever and is roughly on the level of the upcoming GTA 6.

It’s completely mad! For a quaint small-scale mild-horror story set in the 80s. I get that it’s popular, but it would have been just as popular with 1/10 of the budget.

Exact numbers are often unknown, so I may be wrong for some of the examples above, but it’s in that order of magnitude.

But I agree that Netflix feels cheap. The Rings of Power felt remarkably cheap too. But it’s a lot more about the writing and the artistic merit than about actual production quality.

But Stranger Things also feels kinda cheap. I am not sure what is it but there is just this "movie feel" that HBO production often achieve (Apple TV does this too) but with netflix it just isn't there. Not sure why.

I wonder if it’s a matter of the platforms optimizing for the wrong metrics, or whether people just stopped paying for quality.

It's hard to motivate high quality at high cost on subscription based platforms. We all pay the same price regardless of whether the content is barely palatable or great, and we all want new content frequently.

Better then to pump out a wide range of mediocracy to attract and keep as many subscribers as possible.

I prefer Netflix to Oracle-ied Paramount.

I don't want Ellisons to own more than they do. Netflix is boring, Ellisons are evil.

Annapurna Pictures is owned by Megan Ellison. The studio have produced Oscar nominated marquee films like Her, Zero Dark Thirty, American Hustle.

Well that settles it. Shut up and take my democracy.

Zero Dark Thirty, you say?

The 2010s Black Hawk Down

CIA propaganda to whitewash torture

That studio has produced a lot of great video games, too. But we need more variety in ownership. Not everything can be owned by conservative leaning billionaires.

> Not everything can be owned by conservative leaning billionaires.

Well, it can be, that’s the problem :-(. But it would really, really suck.

I wonder if the Ellisons win either way

- any merger they propose will be greenlit by the Trump administration, giving them an advantage. The seller prefers them because the transaction is far more likely to go through.

- Netflix is interested exclusively in the assets and the studio, not in legacy assets like CNN. So Netflix is bidding for that alone. The Ellisons see themselves as recreating the Murdoch playbook. They already control CBS. Even if Netflix succeeds in buying HBO, the Ellisons can pick up CNN later and create a right wing news empire to rival Fox News.

HBO is a nice prize, especially with the prestige and popularity of its content library. But the Ellisons win no matter what.

For viewers and voters I don’t see a win here. HBO production gets Netflix-ified. Say goodbye to quality shows like The Pitt and prepare to welcome streaming-while-scrolling shows like Emily in Paris. And simultaneously you’ll have the Ellisons telling large parts of the population what they’re supposed to think.

ARGGGHHH

Anyone that thinks Netflix buying WB would be better than the Ellisons knows nothing about the media business. Look at what James Cameron said about it last week, everyone prefers the Ellisons over Netflix because Netflix actively wants to kill the theatrical and physical media businesses

Mainstream physical media is already dead.

I wonder how much affect this has had in the Christmas trade for the entertainment industry. Back in the early 2000s it was common to buy a comedy DVD or a TV series for a family member or friend.

Now people who own DVD / Blu-ray players are a rare breed.

Gifting streaming membership

"they are evil but at least they are less into streaming." I don't know.

With tiktok, they're now in streaming.

There is no evidence that they'll remain "less into streaming" and logic suggests that they secretly are not.

Uh it's because the Ellison's bought CBS and put Bari Weiss in charge. That's why it's bad. Because they're bad people with the goal of ending American democracy.

> The streaming giant has surprised many in Hollywood by offering assurances that it would continue to allow Warner Bros films to enjoy wide cinematic releases.

At least that part of concern is not guaranteed

https://www.ft.com/content/1b51ca71-9a86-46f5-bdc4-cbd6831b7...

If you believe "assurances that they will let them to continue doing things that are against the parents core business" then you are a fool.

Assurances are worthless because they always are retracted after the sale is complete.

“Wide” is not “long.” There’s a recent Netflix theatrical release that hit the cinema for just long enough to qualify for Oscar consideration and then was pulled to stream only.

They’ll put Warner Bros. in every theater in the country, to no fanfare (no marketing budget), and pull them as soon as the qualifying duration is up.

James Cameron is not exactly someone without meat I. The game. Of course he makes self serving comments about whoever he thinks will make him the most money. Don’t be so naive as to think has anything do with art.

I’ll take my chances with Netflix rather than an empire of media moguls.

Further theres been directors that comment on how aggressively NFLX manages them to create lowest-common-denominator type format. One was talking about getting notes back saying "the show needs to be easy enough to follow that someone across the room washing the dishes understands whats going on.

It's why theres no subtext in shows anymore, and they hit you over the head repeatedly with obviousness.

So while TikTok leads the short form race to the bottom, I believe NFLX leads the long form version.

We have had 20 years of comic book movies and endless sequels from the major studios.

Let's not pretend that James "Avatar" Cameron is deep.

> Let's not pretend that James "Avatar" Cameron is deep.

It’s not, but it’s also now 3 films in 16 years. That’s not a lot.

I mean compare: Dune, The Last of Us, Industry, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Succession, Silicon Valley, Westworld, Eastbound & Down, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Oz, etc.. to any NFLX original programming.

I don't disagree broadly (other than to fault you for not including The Wire!), but the counterpoint is: House of Cards, Queen's Gambit, Stranger Things, Dark, Ozark, Orange is the New Black, Mindhunter, Squid Game, Adolescence, Narcos, The Crown, Godless, Dept Q, etc.

netflix buying warner would mean essentially the death of the theater business.

The theater business is already dead, it just doesn’t realize it yet.

In my opinion, here in the UK, the cinema/theatre business killed itself. Cinemas are horrible places to visit:

- they smell bad (stale junk food)

- they have oppressive lighting (mostly extremely dark but with garish turquoise and pink dazzle, accentuating the most confusing aspects of their architecture)

- the sound systems are thunderously loud (I'll be taking earplugs the next time I go to one)

- most of them are expensive

- most of them only programme big, loud, contemporary Hollywood offerings (which are simiarly horrible high contrast junk food only out to assault the audience); there's little appreciation for the art of cinema

They're like nightclubs, but without the dancing, social interaction, or resistance (a nebulous concept I'm not going into here).

You can say "this is what the market wants", but I wont't believe you. Such an argument is like saying social media (surveilled attention management) is what the market wants. The truth is much closer to "this is what the market can bear before it breaks".

Plenty of art house type movie theatres in the UK which would suit your taste better I expect.

I've generally preferred these over the mainstream chains. The nearest Picturehouse to me closed down recently, which was a real loss as it was in a great building. I feel they didn't lean into their art house background hard enough: half the programme seemed to be the afforementioned addiction-cinema.

I feel that these spaces should be celebrating cinema: specials, all-nighters, film discussion groups/clubs in their cafes, some kind of access for local film-makers... like to actually be a part of film-as-art, rather than a part of film-for-business. Some of this goes on (I've been to a few such events), but I have a hunch that there's appetite for much more. It's just a hunch though.

Mostly agree, but I have a different complaint about the lighting... The movie theaters I go in the US don't FULLY turn the main lights off, which drives me crazy. It's 95% off, but not 100%. In addition, there's always a bit of light entering through the door, killing immersion. The only lights I accept inside a movie theater are the step lights on stairways (and certainly not cell phone screens!)

Just to add to the pile: The audio/video experience is actually WORSE than a good home cinema with a UHD bluray.

Many theaters are still 1080p (and its very noticable on a large screen). Even in 4k the vast majority lack HDR.

The new Tron movie, for example, will look much better on a large home screen than it did in most theaters.

So why would I pay them to sit in a room full of jerks on their cellphones and watch it in worse quality?

I’ve mostly had pleasant experiences at my local theatre, even some memorable encounters with strangers, and find the notion of a home theatre rather depressing.

There's certainly something to be said for the social aspect. I just wish theaters would catch up with the tech.

Only something like 20-40% of theaters are 4k, and less than 1% do HDR. 4k is really important when the image is that large, and the missing HDR changes the entire vibe of some films.

There are lots of great theaters where I lived (Austin, TX) that are well maintained and have great food and drink.

My problem is other people. People can’t make it more than about 15 minutes before they check their phone and start scrolling. Or if they aren’t checking their phone they are still using the screen like a flashlight to see the menu or their food. Or they eat like a noisy animal. The worst is people with glasses of ice they chew on. Every time they raise their cup it’s basically an ice maraca followed by the sounds of them crushing ice cubes in their mouth.

Even in theaters where phones are banned (Alamo Drafthouse) they generally don’t do anything about it.

The one model I can maybe see working is one where you have a bunch of mini-theaters that seat maybe 10-20 people max. Each group gets their own theater showing what they want, timed perfectly to where they enter.

Basically renting a really kick ass home theater that happens to access to the latest releases.

Big screen TVs and home theatre also had a huge impact.

Most of the cinema experience at home (without the public).

The experience is better at home for many

Trash ? The Diplomat has as good a production value as any.

So does Bridgerton. Adolescence is basically a single shot marvel.

Others - Stranger Things, Money Heist, Black Doves.

Not to mention their true crime documentaries.

Warner Brothers makes quality content. I think this is an almost perfect fit.

None of those are close to peak HBO content sorry.

I would agree. However, I think Kaos, Sirens, and Sweet Tooth are as good as anything I've seen on HBO.

Ripley is HBO material but its miniseries that was probably bought as it is.

Production is good but not great, The Diplomat is quite melodramatic going too much into soap opera territory.

Money Heist is completely a soap opera.

Not saying that those aren't good productions but they aren't on par with what HBO used to deliver (True Detective, The Wire, Sopranos, etc.), notwithstanding the leap of faiths HBO take sometimes with stuff like The Rehearsal, and How To With John Wilson.

Netflix is very much formulaic, cinematography of Netflix shows is also quite bland/generified.

Netflix shows are forced to become soap operas because although they might have the budgets approaching prestige TV, Netflix might force lengths that push the story into the soap format.

Yes and I think the biggest media consumption habit in the last 5-10 years is really no one talks that much about what we are watching with friends / coworkers / on social media.

Game of Thrones feels like the last broad cultural simultaneous viewing kind of series.

Everything now is micro-niche algorithmic targeted single season shows with forgettable titles and actors.

One funny anecdote was overhearing the voice-overed NFLX shows my wife was watching in the other room and realizing they used the same handful of voice actors in a whole slew of series.

True that and you left Succession off the list :).

Thats why I think its a good addition. Its a step up from their usual quality. They are anyways paying 72B for the company. Netflix has distribution and Warner Bros delivers quality. I think its a perfect fit. I mean imagine Warner getting acquired by Amazon and folded into prime video - that thing where search returns episode names rather than the series. That would be like Rolexes being sold at the local Walmart. There's only two homes for quality content and thats Apple TV and Netflix. Thats why I think its a good deal.

Bridgerton is impossible for a man to watch. Adolescence started off well, but then just dragged on for a really long time and ended with a fizzle. Stranger things is okay but eleven, the female protagonist is insufferable.

Mindhunter was probably the last really good show they had. Squid game and dark winds are decent.

Maybe it depends where you are in life, but for me the last episode of Adolescence was the most impactful, perhaps due to being a parent myself (although my children are only 3 and 5).

My big takeaway of Adolescence is that it was an extraordinarily senseless thing that was done, yet had such a profoundly negative impact on so many people. It's scary that younger people who simply haven't yet matured enough to understand the impact of their decisions can do things like this which can never be undone (and I'm not just talking about the life they took).

Some good examples, but much of their true crime don't fit in that list. The Monster series is pretty good, but most other true crime show are extremely repetitive and spend 4 episodes telling a story that could've been a single episode.

If they get bought, Apple could be the only lead for quality content.

maybe things have changed but Netflix has thrown mindblowing amounts at famous people like Howard and Fincher. makes me the slightly hopeful we see another production from the twisted mind of Larry David. or at least the release of his cancelled doc

I like netflix content generally. I havent had issue to find something to watch. And they have a lot of good dubbing, so I use it for foreign language traing too.

I'm rather curious why they even want HBO. Yes HBO has had far, far more quality programs over the years, but it's not like Netflix hasn't had ample time and infinite money to do the same if they wanted to.

Would be a sad day. I typically equate HBO content with focused quality, and Netflix content as the opposite.

Deep IP catalog. DC, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter,….

Netflix paid $500M for the rights to Seinfeld for 5 years to give you an idea of what people are using Netflix for. Why make new content when you can sell old content?

Netflix is making new content though. I would prefer they stop, but they are doing it.

> it's not like Netflix hasn't had ample time and infinite money to do the same if they wanted to.

Yet they've failed, I think it's a culture problem. Buy HBO and hopefully carry over the culture and skills to Netflix that way is pretty much they only hope. Netflix created a few good series, but it's also clear that they don't have the writing talent to produce the volume they want.

Netflix can produce absolutely beautify shows, but they're not well written. They also can't buy content, because a large number of the license holders have their own streaming platform. Buying HBO could get them access to the content they need, if the contracts and licensing carry over.

Wasn’t there something going on with an internal battle between two content leads, one focused on “lots of content” and the other on higher quality, more risky bets (that lead to Squid Games, Ozark, Stranger Things, etc), and the one doing the higher quality content ended up losing.

I am convinced they’re hyper focused on the wrong metrics, and don’t take long term retention into consideration.

While I don't know, that sound plausible. Netflix can make incredibly technically beautiful shows, but that's getting cheaper and cheaper to do. Good writing is expensive and combined with data suggesting that people mostly look at their phone while watching their shows, why even bother making something with a complex and interesting plot.

All this deal making drama, thats been going in media for a while now hides the fact that Content Supply has vastly overshot Demand to levels that make no sense in any other industry. Cost of tools/production/distribution have all massively dropped over the last 2 decades.

Needs a more sustainable story or oscillations and chaos are going to keep increasing.

> Content Supply has vastly overshot Demand

Content has never overshot demand.

I would drown myself in content if it were good and abundant. It's not. It's lackluster and middling.

Content is scarce because it is expensive to produce. The wrong people get put in charge of projects (or tastes/reception is hard to gauge, and experiences hard to engineer). We wind up with a lot of expensive garbage.

There is a dearth of sci fi and fantasy. A few dozen titles get created, and half of it is garbage. I have money to pay to watch something every night. It just doesn't exist and isn't good.

I'd pay to watch original content. Original ideas don't get funded because it's "too risky". Which is a consequence of the big budgets, massive personnel and time investments, etc.

I see a film every other year or so where I'm not questioning the character arcs, the pacing. Where I'm fully enveloped and transfixed. That doesn't happen frequently enough. Where every note is perfect. It's rare and fleeting, and that's sad.

We're in the Precambrian times. Great content is nigh non-existent. There's a whole lot of "acceptable" and "good enough". But rarely anything sublime that steals away your brain for the rest of the day, forcing you to ruminate.

I want to live in a world where content fits my preferences like a glove and is constantly surprising and delighting me. Unlimited intellectual stimulation and adventure. I know that pinnacle can be reached eventually, just not with our current limitations. This scarcity trough.

I agree with the glove fit bit, while at the same time thinking that we're at the next level of siloed bubbles. All aspects of your world, tailored to how you already think, including TV series/movies/etc.

No new ideas.

(Not saying this is your intent, and yes I do indeed watch what I like. I am not immune to the very thing I worry about)

Don't get me wrong - I might have poorly communicated my intent.

I want to be catered to and subverted. I want to see things I'm comfortable with and things that make me question everything I know. Things that make me deeply uncomfortable. The full range of experiences.

I just want it to be great and hit the notes in ways that leave me in awe.

This does happen with current media, but it's exceedingly rare. It's a combination of great writing, fantastic direction, unusual stories, phenomenal acting. The mood, set dec and DP, the pacing and editing. Everything lining up in a stroke of brilliance.

And what's funny is that when it happens, people tend to disagree or have differing opinions about it. It's deeply personal.

You know when something speaks to you.

I agree. And I don't think you communicated it poorly, it's just that I think it will be more and more difficult to get that full range. Most folk don't want that. Most even prefer siloed.

Yet perhaps I am too jaded on this. There will be lots of niche content...

What are some good sci-fis in your opinion?

> Content has never overshot demand.

> I would drown myself in content if it were good and abundant. It's not. It's lackluster and middling

There is only an amount of time per day you can dedicate spending in front of a screen outside of work hours

If the poster just wants sci fi (and especially if that doesn’t include sci fi horror without space ships) I could see them only getting one or two good movies per year.

Me, I’d need two or three more lifetimes to get through my probably-good list of movies and tv, just for single watches… but I’m up for just about any genre.

Apple TV has a ton of great original sci-fi

And there will be more of it. Really of what value is HBO, if generative AI and video generation get better, and better, and better.

In 5 years, compute to AI generate video will be super cheap, both through algo being added to silicon for (C|G|T)PUs, and just general increase in compute. Every day, you'll likely see 1000s of TV series, movies, and shorts added to youtube, all with more complex, intriguing stories than the bottom 1/2 of HBO's mix. And the effects will pass or be on par.

I think this will do for movies and TV series, what the internet did to newspapers and magazines. There's really nothing left there, all the deep talent and investigation is pretty much gone.

There will probably be some real gems come out of this. Yet how will you actually find it, through all the "look at mine!" astroturfing and its kin on every site you visit?

Wow if Netflix buys hbo there isn’t really anything more left in the market to compete with them. On the plus side users don’t have to worry about paying for multiple services.

Ha! I like how you don't say consumers will pay less... Just less companies asking for money.

Except there's still Paramount, Disney and Hulu, and even if you get them all, there's no guarantee you can stream what you want to watch due to some bullshit regional distribution rights restrictions, which makes no sense in the digital era...

Which may lead to greater piracy

HBO is destination television - it's the taste that Netflix lacks and so desperately needs.

WB and HBO together have the franchises that Netflix has been trying to build. DC, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings (film + game rights - tv rights), West World, The Matrix, Mad Max, King Kong, all of Cartoon Network and Adult Swim.

What does Paramount or Hulu have? It's a lot of fluff on the same or even lower caliber than Netflix.

Amazon gives some good stuff away for "free". Apple has good shows, too.

Disney? Meh - they've got Andor and that's really it.

If whomever buys HBO also also buys A24, it's over. That's all I need.

Paramount/NBC/Peacock/Fox/ESPN have live sports, which are the only thing left worth paying for, everything else can be skipped or pirated.

ESPN comes with your Disney+ which also gives you Hulu

Peacock says they have sports, but then doesn't actually show all of the matches and instead tries to prop up USA and Telemundo numbers. Many times I have to watch a match in a language I'm not fluent even though I'm paying for Peacock specifically as they have the rights. Can't watch USA as I cut the cord years ago, so I'm left with hoping I can find the right spot for my OTA antenna to be able to tune in.

If anything, the gambling ads interspersed with sports can be skipped or pirated.

Westworld... the show you can't watch on HBO anymore. Taste? Like what they just did to one of the best shows ever, Mad Men? HBO today (Or Max, or HBO Max, or whatever their branding of the day is) is not the HBO it was before David Zaslav got his hands on it.

Netflix could have built many franchises by now but instead burns them all in season 1 or season 2 and makes slop on purpose (i.e. explain what you are doing while you are doing it for the people not watching directly, etc). They also just had the most successful franchise launch of all time -- Kpop demon hunters. The brand is apparently worth about 10 billion right now, and they bought the film and the rights from Sony for <20 million.

If they purchase HBO, I assume HBO will regress to the baseline that is Netflix content, not the other way around.

> What does Paramount or Hulu have?

Even less now that Taylor Sheridan has left for greener pastures.

Sheridan is staying with Paramount until 2029, and the shows he made for them will remain theirs. So, Sheridan will be still be elevating paramount subscriptions long into the future.

> Disney? Meh - they've got Andor and that's really it.

Disney owns so much content, IP and nostalgia that they don't care much.

Pretty sure their shareholders care. Their market cap is at pre 2019 levels. Their earnings are back to 2014 levels.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/walt-disney/earnings/

Meanwhile, Netflix is up $300B since 2019. And Netflix’s earnings are about to surpass Disney’s:

https://companiesmarketcap.com/netflix/earnings/

And Netflix has 13,000 employees, while Disney has 233,000.

> And Netflix has 13,000 employees, while Disney has 233,000.

And Disney is significantly more than just a single streaming service struggling to get content.

Their Direct-to-Consumer business (aka Netflix equivalent) posted a net profit increase 9.5x year on year (from 143 million to 1.3 billion) and has more than half the number of Netflix subscribers (196 million vs. 300+ million) in significantly shorter time than Netflix. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/the-walt-disney-company-rep...

Operating profit, not net profit. Net income (or profit or earnings) can only be calculated for the whole business.

> has more than half the number of Netflix subscribers (196 million vs. 300+ million) in significantly shorter time than Netflix.

I don’t find this impressive. Streaming has been the future for over a decade, and Disney has long had more, and more popular content than Netflix. So why is it taking them so long to catch up to Netflix? They should have surpassed Netflix a long time ago.

Disney even sells sports.

> Streaming has been the future for over a decade, and Disney has long had more, and more popular content than Netflix. So why is it taking them so long to catch up to Netflix?

Netflix started streaming 18 years ago. Disney+ appeared 6 years ago, and Disney didn't acquire Hulu (as part of 20th Century Fox) until 2019. Also, Disney+ appeared in the era of multiple streaming services, and IIRC didn't pull their content from Netflix until sometime after they launched Disney+. Netflix also didn't lose content from other big content distributors like WB until later.

To compare: in near-absence of any competition it took Netflix until 2021 (10 years) to reach 200 million subscribers. There's Hulu that was launched in 2007, but they were nearly absent outside of the US.

So Disney has streaming competition on all fronts, has gone through price increases etc., and still grows their streaming service.

---

Netflix buying WB is not really a desperation move, but it is a question of survival. Netflix has very little content of its own, and has trouble licensing relevant content from studios that are now its direct rivals: Disney, WB, Paramount etc.

They were all happily presented on Netflix, and then pulled nearly all their content to launch their own streaming platforms.

Netflix has survived by dumping enormous amounts of money into producing their own content, and licensing foreign content. But that is clearly not enough to maintain momentum, or to keep subscribers interested in the service. With WB they get their hands on a lot of IP that they can inject back into the service.

> Disney? Meh - they've got Andor and that's really it.

I like this post about how The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Mad Max and Harry Potter are all valuable IP written by somebody that appears to have never heard of Marvel comics, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Simpsons, any Pixar film, Avatar, The X-Files, or The Bachelor.

Westworld, the show that dont exist because they would had to pay royalties to actors and workers?

Screw them. Likr, literally choosing to remove the show to make an example of it.

Paramount has Star Trek, so it's a must-have for any Trekkie. And Disney has Star Wars, so it's a must-have for any nerf herder. :p

Nu trek definitely isn't must have for any Trekkie.

> Except there's still Paramount, Disney and Hulu

Should be:

> Except there's still Paramount and Disney/Hulu

Disney and Hulu are combining.

It will be Netflix and Disney as the prominent players with Apple and Amazon representing the high end prestige TV and lowest common denominator content, respectively.

I find Apple to be different lowest common denominator with high production value. I don't think the shows are really any better.

It's the best deal for both companies. Netflix gets the WB back catalogue and studios to provide high quality content and potentially premium streaming services with HBO. WB gets stable cashflows and a place where their content is needed and their production expertise will help improve the current product. I can easily see a new premium Netflix+ channel with that includes HBO bundled with it.

A win for both companies, Netflix with IP and WB with stability.

Yuck!! My ex forced me into getting a Netflix subscription because she was dying to watch Stranger Things. It wasn't half bad for the simple reason I grew up in the 80's. The only thing I binge watched was Black Mirror, Sense 8 and a few documentaries.

Since I was forced to get a subscription, thankfully I never gave those bastards my CC info. I just created an account and went to Target or Walmart and bought a couple of $30 gift cards and put the code in. When my account ran dry, that was it. The only thing I pay for now is YouTube premium. That's about all the content I consume online. I figured I'd help support my favorite creators rather than using an ad blocker.

Edit: I payed for Disney+ for one month because she wasn't current on Star Wars movies. That was my first red flag with her.

You're against Netflix on principle, or?

All I read here is, I bought some gift cards, binge watched a couple of decent series, and then moved on.

Sorry... It's mainly just the whole subscription model from everyone. The things I want to watch are spread out over too many services. Netflix is the worst one because they can't seem to put anything out worth watching.

If someone didn't know their Star Wars, I'd run the other way too

I've not seen any of the Star Wars franchise. Its never interested me.

The thinking in the comments here seems very US-centric (as usual).

Until recently watching HBO in the UK and Europe was not easy unless you’re prepared to watch it on Sky (in the uk anyway) so there’s money on the table for Netflix here in the form of eating some of Sky’s share. (HBO Max is coming to EU in Jan and UK sometime next year finally)

Secondarily adding HBO gives Netflix the opportunity to upgrade its production rather than downgrade HBO.

Having access to HBO/WB catalog on Netflix is going to add a lot of value imo.

I welcome this.

> HBO Max is coming to EU in Jan and UK sometime next year finally

This is a very misleading sentence. HBO Max has been available in 14/27 EU countries since 2022, and by now it's available in 22/27 EU countries, 4 of the remaining ones are covered by Sky, with which they signed an exclusive distribution agreement valid until 2025 back in 2019 - even before HBO Max was launched in the USA.

Thanks for the correction - wasn’t my intent to mislead

Great for shareholders, terrible for consumers. This is what we get when we allow rampant consolidation and throw out the idea of regulated competition.

It's not like there's really any competition anyway. Prices are going up, I can't switch from Netflix to HBO, because the content is available across platforms.

If Netflix just moves the HBO content to Netflix then that's one subscription less for a lot of people, so even if Netflix subscription goes up, many will still save money.

There is more competition than ever. That is why these legacy companies are being bought and sold.

Amazon/Apple/Comcast/Disney/Netflix/Oracle are all in the business of selling video, plus they are competing for attention with Youtube/Tiktok/Reddit/HN/etc.

There is also Sony and Lionsgate and A24 not selling direct to customers.

Dec 5th? They're a bit behind on this one. Without any concrete source. There's been talk as far back as Monday that Warner is 'warming' to Netflix, so...

Earlier on a different site with an actual named source; and mention of the stock fallout from the hint.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46141031

Remember back in the day when The Atlantic would write an in depth analysis 4 weeks after something happened and it was still considered news?

I'd wager that it would accelerate rather than decelerate the growing insignificance of US entertainment.

Good for Bollywood, chinese and russian cinema, and so on. For me personally, I have trouble imagining that HBO would ever again be involved in something on par with The Wire, Sopranos or True Blood, and it's not exactly hard to keep them around on a hard drive somewhere.

Couldn't do worse than Zaslav…

Only if they change the name several times only to revert back to the original

I doubt this will clear the government/regulatory approvals as it seems clearly monopolistic. But these days anything can happen and I might end up being surprised. Netflix stock seems stable in-spite of this news.

Sad news. HBO has a veritable treasure trove of TV shows like The Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Silicon Valley etc. Even their more recent ones like White Lotus, How to With John Wilson are leagues above Netflix. Only HBO can bet on artists’ vision like that.

I cancelled my Netflix subscription 7 years ago, 99% of their content is algorithmic drivel. Mindhunter, Dahmer, House of Cards were something I liked but nothing beyond that. I knew they were trash once I saw the sheer number of spinoffs they have just on Pablo Escobar. They had had one decent run of Narcos but then they just tried to extract every drop of juice out of that one persona. Most of Netflix dramas are just the equivalent of abhorrent and ugly graffiti. Their shows are Exhibit A in what happens if you give into algorithmic drivel and have no human touch to curate them.

HBO has some timeless TV classics that I keep rewatching every year even though I have watched them multiple times. Netflix can’t produce TV dramas like that, ain’t in their blood. Completely different DNAs.

Netflix does deserve all the plaudits wrt to their streaming experience though.

I went to a concert last night and wore a T-shirt I made that said "Fuck Warner Bros." The band was j*Davey. Warner Bros signed them over fifteen years ago and then shoved them into a box. The show last night, fortunately for me, was only about 300 people, but it should have been 10,000. Prince was a fan. They birthed an entire category of LA artists like Thursday Thundercat, Syd, Flying Lotus (those artists say that in their Instagram). They loved my T-shirt when we met after the show.

I got really emotional when I saw them again for the first time in twenty years. They are just amazing, and it is so shocking they couldn't make it work in the industry.

But Spotify seems even worse. It feels like the parasites are even worse now, and they turn around and invest in military startups.

What's the alternative? This band sold out of merch last night, is that enough for them to survive, or dare I dream, thrive in the world of today?

If you are in LA, go see them next week on the 12th. They are releasing a new album and if the world makes sense their next show will be 10,000 people.

Warner Bros video production business and Warner Music Group have been separate businesses since 2004.

Lots of complaints about Netflix, but for the money, combined with Prime, I only miss affordable NHL, which is split between too many providers.

I agree that I wish Netflix had less lowbrow content, but they target a wide audience, and let's be honest, most people willing watch crap.

And seriously: go for a walk, read a book, play a game, or work on a hobby? TV shouldn't be your life, and it's long been one of the big societal problems.

https://archive.ph/2E2Fk

The final slopification of TV content.

Star Trek "predicted" death of TV around 2040... looks like we are ahead of schedule.

Bait and switch... every time... the business world never changes

This is worse than Burger King buying Michelin and Nobu

It's interesting that despite their being a huge crop of talented, rich, and famous Hollywood actors, writers, producers, and directors, they can't figure out how to make movies and TV and distribute them without going through all these enormous conglomerates that they seem to truly despise.

Just start a studio and put out quality content exactly the way you want it and see if you can do better! It's literally never been easier! If the chucklefucks who run these streaming services can figure it out, some smart filmmakers should be able to put together a workable business plan while Clooney and Pitt rizz up some investors.

It's a symptom of a culture in crisis- how can you make popular tv shows if there isn't even a popular consensus for what reality is right now

This is definitely the worst timeline

I am pretty confident Lina Khan and many like her will end up back in government and this mergers are going to be reversed.

HBO the only definitively quality TV producer headed for enshittification.

If HBO is ringfenced and funded then fine. Otherwise we're fucked.

hate Netflix for its content process, hate Oracle for its owner.

first time ever, I'm rooting for Comcast.

lol

HBO should be the one to buy Netflix

That's like saying Ford should by Yugo. Why? They are small and insignificant and might not be around very long as they are making things people don't like.

HBO is making things people don't like?

I think that the joke there was that Netflix is small and insignificant and HBO is big and buff.

More that Netflix is making things people don't like

> More that Netflix is making things people don't like

And yet, more than 300 million households around the world who pay a subscription every month

Making money is the only important measure of quality. Because hes a billionaire, Mr. Beast is our generations best filmmaker

Reply on news.ycombinator.com