The end is near -- the new movie landscape

[thughes]

I don't think I've ever actually seen 1 gig. It's usually somewhere between 500 and 800 meg. I just measured it at 803 M.

that test determines the bitrate your internet service can handle and so the amount of compression you will see.

... sounds like I always need to enter through a wired connection, not a wireless one. The above 803 is wired.

[thughes]

On a wireless one I just got 384. All my watching occurs on wireless since the rooms of the house are not wire.

All of this notwithstanding, I still know that most of the time physical media beats streaming.

[thughes]

Christopher Nolan responds to the Warner Brothers decision about HBO Max

“Some of our industry’s biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service. Warner Bros. had an incredible machine for getting a filmmaker’s work out everywhere, both in theaters and in the home, and they are dismantling it as we speak. They don’t even understand what they’re losing. Their decision makes no economic sense and even the most casual Wall Street investor can see the difference between disruption and dysfunction.”

[thughes]

I'm curious what James Cameron will say. Both Cameron and Nolan make movies that are at their best on the IMAX screen and, in Cameron's case, in 3D.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by thughes

Christopher Nolan responds to the Warner Brothers decision about HBO Max

What? Do you mean companies make poor short term decisions to insure that quarterly earnings numbers don't suffer. Unfortunately bonuses aren't based on insuring the long-term viability of most companies.

[thughes]

What? Do you mean companies make poor short term decisions to insure that quarterly earnings numbers don't suffer.

I think it's the opposite. Short term they will lose money. In the long term, I think they are hoping to gain subscribers. To me it sounds like WB just made the decisions without thinking it all through. They just paid Patty Jenkins (Wonder Woman director) and Gal Gadot $10 million each to compensate for the money they will lose without a strong theatrical release of WW 1984. WB still have Margot Robbie and Keanu Reeves in the pipeline uncompensated plus directors like Nolan. These people bring big money into WB. I wonder how you put on the balance sheet that you pissed off your creative talent and risk losing them?

[thughes]

Correction: AT&T is the ultimate owner.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by thughes

I think it's the opposite. Short term they will lose money. In the long term, I think they are hoping to gain subscribers. To me it sounds like WB just made the decisions without thinking it all through. They just paid Patty Jenkins (Wonder Woman director) and Gal Gadot $10 million each to compensate for the money they will lose without a strong theatrical release of WW 1984. WB still have Margot Robbie and Keanu Reeves in the pipeline uncompensated plus directors like Nolan. These people bring big money into WB. I wonder how you put on the balance sheet that you pissed off your creative talent and risk losing them?

My point is that rather than continuing to repeatedly postpone for a wide release of some major films they are hoping for a short term bump by simultaneously releasing them for streaming.

I didn't know Keanu Reeves was still relevant.

[PHC1]

Of course Keanu Reeves is relevant. He always was, is and forever will be. The guy is immortal....

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

[thughes]

I didn't know Keanu Reeves was still relevant.

I'm not sure he is either, but I'm sure he cost WB lot of money for Matrix 4, probably a good percentage on the back end box office gross which the WB's move negates.