[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 05 December 2025 - 01:49 PM, said:

Well Netflix is buying Warner Brothers...so if you want WB Physical media, buy it now or as soon as you can cause it's not going to be around in a year...

That's an interesting twist. It's 'just' the film and streaming business, but that, in theory, includes DC, GoT, and Harry Potter... or else it doesn't, am very curious about what happens to specific high-profileIPs.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 05 December 2025 - 01:49 PM, said:

Well Netflix is buying Warner Brothers...so if you want WB Physical media, buy it now or as soon as you can cause it's not going to be around in a year...

I don't think this is very likely tbh. Netflix's no-physical-media thing is really just a branding thing, they're the streaming guys and they don't have anything else going on so they don't want to dilute that perception, but they don't have to tie WB or HBO to that brand and it wouldn't make much financial sense to do so.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 05 December 2025 - 07:47 PM

[polishgenius]

In other news, cool.

[Tsundoku]

So ... another men v women contrasting tastes article. (Long-ish read)

Fight!

https://www.news.com...5e60d05b48623f1

I'm wondering what the gap is for The Usual Suspects (in my top 10).

EDIT: I think I found the source. It's from a discussion on the IMDB forums. But I can't find the full original list, just the top 20 for each gender.

https://www.neogaf.c...n-imdb.1688314/

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 05 December 2025 - 11:02 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

polishgenius, on 05 December 2025 - 07:46 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 05 December 2025 - 01:49 PM, said:

Well Netflix is buying Warner Brothers...so if you want WB Physical media, buy it now or as soon as you can cause it's not going to be around in a year...

I don't think this is very likely tbh. Netflix's no-physical-media thing is really just a branding thing, they're the streaming guys and they don't have anything else going on so they don't want to dilute that perception, but they don't have to tie WB or HBO to that brand and it wouldn't make much financial sense to do so.

Do WB own HBO? Are Netflix going to get a massive boost to what they're offering?

[QuickTidal]

 polishgenius, on 05 December 2025 - 07:46 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 05 December 2025 - 01:49 PM, said:

Well Netflix is buying Warner Brothers...so if you want WB Physical media, buy it now or as soon as you can cause it's not going to be around in a year...

I don't think this is very likely tbh. Netflix's no-physical-media thing is really just a branding thing, they're the streaming guys and they don't have anything else going on so they don't want to dilute that perception, but they don't have to tie WB or HBO to that brand and it wouldn't make much financial sense to do so.

I get what you’re saying, but reprinting stuff like the Warner Archive titles would be a pain in their ass when they can just encode it and stream it. So my expectations (and I could be wrong), are that they will let the existing printed matter run out and then just not print anymore.

[Slow Ben]

I can tell you exactly which they’re going to do. Whichever makes Netflix the most money.

Exponential growth. That’s it.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Slow Ben, on 06 December 2025 - 03:37 PM, said:

I can tell you exactly which they're going to do. Whichever makes Netflix the most money.

Exponential growth. That's it.

Or what they / their models think will. They've already confirmed that they're going to continue with Warner's theatrical releases:

Quote

Netflix said it planned to "maintain Warner Bros.' current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films."

The deal is a startling about-face in strategy for the streaming giant, which has never wanted to fully commit to the business of putting movies in theaters.

[...] The company has also not wanted to do other things — until it did them. [...] But perhaps no shift is as startling as what appears to be its decision to maintain Warner Bros.' theatrical distribution operation, which shows some 15 movies a year in theaters — movies like "Superman," "Dune" and "Barbie."

Netflix Changes Course Again With Warner Bros. Deal - The New York Times

Of course "Barbie" (a Warner Bros. film) also had a gigantic marketing budget for its theatrical release. The article indicates that Netflix has struggled with marketing its theatrical releases, so perhaps the Warner Bros acquisition is partly an attempt to improve there.

OTOH:

Quote

Sarandos, a co-chief executive of Netflix, [...] tried to downplay the change. [...] He said Netflix had released 30 movies in theaters this year. What he did not say was that none of those films stayed in theaters very long — having what insiders call a short theatrical window. [...] "I think over time, the windows will evolve to be much more consumer friendly, to be able to meet the audience where they are quicker, all those things we like to do."

And that is why the industry has already begun to panic. Shortened theatrical windows have been proved to be a cause of box office declines.

Netflix Changes Course Again With Warner Bros. Deal - The New York Times

Netflix might think that a short-term loss of profit could lead to greater long-term profit---if they can make streaming more lucrative, perhaps with better AI targeted ads. But they seem at a disadvantage there relative to at least several other Mag7 companies in terms of their access to personalized data for targeted advertising. Especially without the addition of eye-tracking or biometric sensors (for example, associated with AR/VR or health-oriented smart devices---though I'd suppose they could try installing surveillance cameras in some theaters, between the darkness, the movement of people eating, and the dispersal of the crowd, it seems unlikely to be worth the expense, at least in the near term).

[Macros]

The Roses.

Man that was unexpected, takes a really dark turn, totally bonkers in places.

The cast are a delight, bar (for the first time) a bit of a bum not for Kate McKinnon for me, she's playing the awkward a bit too much her, reigning it in a little would have made her last moment much more... oomph.
And the other lady married to the douche, just didnt get her character at all.
But Cumberbatch and Coleman are superb

[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 08 December 2025 - 09:51 AM, said:

The Roses.

But Cumberbatch and Coleman are superb

Very much the two reasons I really want to see it!

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Looks like Trump might block the Netflix Warner deal and effectively force Warner to sell to his oligarch cash cow over at Paramount Skydance... inconsistently invoking "antitrust" as a pretext for blocking Netflix but permitting Paramount.

But it might come down to who's willing to offer Trump the most money and influence.

Trumpflix or Trumpamount?...

Paramount makes $108.4 billion hostile bid for Warner Bros Discovery - Yahoo Finance

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 December 2025 - 02:40 PM

[Abyss]

Re Netflix / WB, an intersting point occured to me re the one little corner of this i actually just barely care about...

Netflix just had surprisingly big success w manga based DEMON SLAYER. They carry the four seasons and had a hand in the movie - not exclusively Crunchyroll and others are in there, but the North American success of a low marketed but massive buzz starts w their carrying the series. There is a lesson there they might follow w DC comics, an IP generator where they own the source comics, and the follow up tv series and movies to date. Pick a title with a following, do a show and mirror it closely, escalate to theatrical movies, circle back to streaming.

Demon Slayer is not brilliant, but it's nice to look at and fast and easy to follow, and the manga and anime are functionally interchangeable - yes there are differences but they're nuance not plot. The one feeds on the other and both feed to the movie and boom, $800mil.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 08 December 2025 - 02:39 PM, said:

Looks like Trump might block the Netflix Warner deal and effectively force Warner to sell to his oligarch cash cow over at Paramount Skydance... inconsistently invoking "antitrust" as a pretext for blocking Netflix but permitting Paramount.

But it might come down to who's willing to offer Trump the most money and influence.

Trumpflix or Trumpamount?...

Paramount makes $108.4 billion hostile bid for Warner Bros Discovery - Yahoo Finance

The Shareholders at WB are not stupid. They will get a FAR sweeter overall deal from Netflix than they ever would from Ellison...so I think they'll reject the direct hostile attempt. It's not like the Board's rejection of Ellison was done without their sayso...

And I think Trump is only blabbering on about it as if he might block it as a media distraction so that no one will notice that the TV side that is not part of the deal with Netflix will be quietly bought in the background by Ellison...giving one of Trumps Billionaire Bestie's ownership of...say it with me now...CNN.

Media is kingmaker in 2026 and the midterms...CNN (which already has owners who are more fond of him than they otherwise might be) would be a huge part of the propaganda machine he needs. This man WILL NOT GO QUIETLY....so we need to be paying attention to what we DON'T see more than what we DO see. The Netflix/WB deal is the distraction. Keep your peepers on the ball.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 08 December 2025 - 03:52 PM, said:

The Shareholders at WB are not stupid. They will get a FAR sweeter overall deal from Netflix than they ever would from Ellison...so I think they'll reject the direct hostile attempt. It's not like the Board's rejection of Ellison was done without their sayso...

Howso exactly? Ellison is offering more money---at present at least. From the article:

Quote

The offer [...] bests Netflix's $27.75 offer that mixes cash and ‍stock. [...] Reuters had already reported, citing sources familiar, that Paramount had raised its offer to $30 per share on Thursday for the entire company, but that the Warner Bros board had concerns about the financing. [...]

[...] Paramount said that the Ellison family, which owns Paramount, along with private equity firm RedBird Capital, had agreed to backstop $40.7 billion in equity capital. The offer also includes financing from Kushner's Affinity Partners, the Saudi and Qatari sovereign wealth funds, and L'imad Holding Co, owned by the government of Abu Dhabi.

https://finance.yaho...-140913192.html

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 08 December 2025 - 04:46 PM, said:

[size="2"]

QuickTidal, on 08 December 2025 - 03:52 PM, said:

The Shareholders at WB are not stupid. They will get a FAR sweeter overall deal from Netflix than they ever would from Ellison...so I think they'll reject the direct hostile attempt. It's not like the Board's rejection of Ellison was done without their sayso...

Howso exactly? Ellison is offering more money---at present at least. From the article:

Netflix deal includes stocks. Ellison's never did. Their bid was always higher than Netflix, Netflix won out due to the Stock offer.

The WB also balked at the Ellison bid as they found the financing shady, so that worried view will not go away with an even higher bid from the same people.

EDIT: It's also for WB and Discovery, whereas Netflix offer was just for WB, meaning shareholders would get the eventual benefit of Discovery's purchase as well...it's literally "Take our worse deal or else" mob type shit. All cash, to the tune of 18billion OVER the Netflix offer...do you know how con men can smell the stink of a bad offer, that's this. There is no world in which those shareholders at WB would EVER see all that...it's a bluff. They want WB to blink so that they bail on Netflix, pony up to the Ellison offer, at which point the Ellison offer will get modified for LESS than the Netflix deal, with no stocks.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 08 December 2025 - 05:07 PM

[QuickTidal]

So Tarantino's comments on Hunger Games (VS Battle Royale), and then Paul Dano, and Mathew Lillard calling them the worst actors ect. and people are turning on Tarantino about it and I'm over here like "I have been screaming to anyone who would listen to me for YEARS that he's a socially inept asshole cut from the ComicBookGuy cloth, just for movies!"....like I can even pinpoint it, there is a video from like almost 2 decades ago from the Sundance Film Festival where some dude is videoing Tarantino as he walks out of some establishment, and Tarantino gets in his face about it...and I'm like "Bro, you are a currently hot director in then middle of your career, you're a juror at that festival, and you're out in the town during a film festival in which movie nerds descend on the place, and you're just out randomly pretending you're no one getting a coffee...and you get pissy with a guy for videoing you in the street?" Like I think Paparazzi are terrible too, but this was just some QT stan getting video of someone he clearly was a fan of. Like I can get on board with dude not wanting to be bothered, but FFS throw up two peace fingers, smile and go about your day. That dude walks away happy, and you don't come off as a smug douche who got your start being a video store employee with a big fucking mouth who is too comfortable saying the N word.

Like Tarantino has ALWAYS been this. And I have hated him for a long time.

Also imagine you're Tarantino and calling Paul Dano the worst actor in SAG....while Tarantino is in SAG and is himself the worst actor he randomly inserts into his films...

But Matthew Lillard? The guy is a fucking saint, who goes out of his way to be kind of all his fans from all his eras of film, and seems like a genuinely good dude...socially Tarantino could not even polish Lillards shoes. Tarantino is and always has been a complete asshole. I'm glad people are FINALLY seeing it. I was getting sick of the glazing and excuses people made for that man.

A short list of the all the other times he was an asshole:

“Half of these Cate Blanchett movies — they’re all just like these arty things. I’m not saying they’re bad movies, but I don’t think most of them have a shelf life,” ~Tarantino

“Part of that is the explosion of David O. Russell’s talent, which had always been there but really coalesced in that movie. I think he’s the best actor’s director, along with myself, working in movies today.” - Tarantino on One of the most hated directors working still

“This might come across as egotistical, but I don’t really feel in competition with anybody anymore.” - Tarantino about himself

“There’s a little part of me that thinks everything is influenced by me, but that’s just my own megalomania.” - yeah...

“I saw ‘Matrix Reloaded’ at the Chinese Theatre the day it opened, and I walked out of the cinema singing that Jay Z song: ‘S-dot-Carter / Y’all must try harder / Competition is nada.’ I was like, Bring it the f - - k on. I was worried about that? Ho-ly s - - t.” - Tarantino about a film series about the Trans experience that has nothing to do with his films

At the 1997 Oscars red carpet, Tarantino got irate when his then-girlfriend Mira Sorvino attempted to answer a question from Premiere magazine’s Chris Connelly, whom the filmmaker accused of writing something nasty about his father. Tarantino grabbed her and refused to let her speak, then gave the finger to Connelly — and spat on him.

The writer-director threw a hissy fit when an actor shared the script for “The Hateful Eight” with his agent.

“I gave it to three motherf - - king actors,” Tarantino said. “We met in a place, and I put it in their hands. [Producer] Reggie Hudlin’s agent never had a copy. It’s got to be either the agents of [Bruce] Dern or [Michael] Madsen. Please name names.” The director then vowed not to make the film.

“I’m going to publish it, and that’s it for now,” he said. “I give it out to six people, and if I can’t trust them to that degree, then I have no desire to make it. I’ll publish it. I’m done. I’ll move on to the next thing. I’ve got 10 more where that came from.”


And lastly, and probably my absolute FAVOURITE bit ofd Tarantino-related shit...when singer Fiona Apple was dating Paul Thomas Anderson (a relationship she described as chaotic snd painful) She described an experience at Tarantino's house that caused her to quit cocaine for good. She described the night as "one excruciating night" where she was in a private movie theater with Tarantino and Anderson, listening to the two filmmakers "brag" while on cocaine. Do you know how fucking irritating you need to be as a human to get someone like Apple to quit the drug she'd been recreationally using for years because your use of it annoyed her? Also I'll add that as someone who loves to chat about movies, there is no universe that exists in which I would EVER want to share air with someone like Tarantino chatting about movies....not the least of which is him cribbing Asian cinema (shots and all) for his movies and then pretending they are his creations....Kill Bill being Lady Snowblood and a few Shaw Bros flicks he hopes you've not seen, but moreover his debut Resevoir Dogs being a straight copy of Ringo Lam's MUCH better CITY ON FIRE. He is a hacky hack whose filmography depends on you not being as into old more obscure (or foreign) movies than he is. I also LOATHE what he did to Bruce Lee's legacy in OUATIH...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 08 December 2025 - 06:07 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 08 December 2025 - 03:52 PM, said:

And I think Trump is only blabbering on about it as if he might block it as a media distraction so that no one will notice that the TV side that is not part of the deal with Netflix will be quietly bought in the background by Ellison...giving one of Trumps Billionaire Bestie's ownership of...say it with me now...CNN.

Media is kingmaker in 2026 and the midterms...CNN (which already has owners who are more fond of him than they otherwise might be) would be a huge part of the propaganda machine he needs. This man WILL NOT GO QUIETLY....so we need to be paying attention to what we DON'T see more than what we DO see. The Netflix/WB deal is the distraction. Keep your peepers on the ball.

Consider Trump handing control of US TikTok over to his MAGA propaganda peddlers... he'd love to do the same for Warner's holdings.

Granted, I'm not aware of evidence of US TikTok going full MAGA yet. They'll probably want to start out being subtle about it, then gradually ease in. Or accelerate rapidly at some critical juncture... possibly even the 2026 midterms, if Trump's aggressive enough about it.

Quote

It's also for WB and Discovery, whereas Netflix offer was just for WB, meaning shareholders would get the eventual benefit of Discovery's purchase as well...

Definitely a fair point. As for the stock offer---Netflix is publicly traded so WB shareholders could just buy stock in it with the proceeds from the sale if they want. If they actually get paid the full amount in a timely fashion, that is...

QuickTidal, on 08 December 2025 - 05:54 PM, said:

[...] him cribbing Asian cinema (shots and all) for his movies and then pretending they are his creations....Kill Bill being Lady Snowblood and a few Shaw Bros flicks he hopes you've not seen, but moreover his debut Resevoir Dogs being a straight copy of Ringo Lam's MUCH better CITY ON FIRE. He is a hacky hack whose filmography depends on you not being as into old more obscure (or foreign) movies than he is.

Interesting, I hadn't realized that. I'll have to check those out eventually.

Had to look up what he said about Battle Royale and the Hunger Games:

Quote

Quentin Tarantino Slams 'Hunger Games' for Ripping Off 'Battle Royale'

[...] accused The Hunger Games of ripping off the 2000 Japanese film Battle Royale. Tarantino has regularly placed the movie, which was based on author Koushun Takami's 1999 novel of the same name, on his favorite movies list.

"I do not understand how the Japanese writer didn't sue Suzanne Collins for every fucking thing she owns," he said. "They just ripped off the fuckin' book. Stupid book critics are not going to go watch a Japanese movie called Battle Royale so the stupid book critics never called her on it. They talked about how it was the most original fuckin' thing they'd ever read. As soon as the film critics saw the film, they said, 'What the fuck? This is just Battle Royale except PG!'"

https://www.hollywoo...ale-1236436663/

Hmm, the author of the books claims she wasn't familiar with Battle Royale, though I'd guess the film-makers must have been.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 December 2025 - 06:53 PM

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 08 December 2025 - 06:47 PM, said:

Quote

Quentin Tarantino Slams 'Hunger Games' for Ripping Off 'Battle Royale'

[...] accused The Hunger Games of ripping off the 2000 Japanese film Battle Royale. Tarantino has regularly placed the movie, which was based on author Koushun Takami's 1999 novel of the same name, on his favorite movies list.

"I do not understand how the Japanese writer didn't sue Suzanne Collins for every fucking thing she owns," he said. "They just ripped off the fuckin' book. Stupid book critics are not going to go watch a Japanese movie called Battle Royale so the stupid book critics never called her on it. They talked about how it was the most original fuckin' thing they'd ever read. As soon as the film critics saw the film, they said, 'What the fuck? This is just Battle Royale except PG!'"

https://www.hollywoo...ale-1236436663/

Hmm, the author of the books claims she wasn't familiar with Battle Royale, though I'd guess the film-makers must have been.

It's not even a good analogy between the two properties. The ONLY connections are "kids being forced to kill each other in a large arena setting" and "society has progressed to "kids being forced to kill each other in an arena setting""....that's literally it. Battle Royale is literally Japanese society is overcrowded and so they take the 8th grade kids every year and shove them onto an island where they only let one live, no food, and randomized weapons (the main kid gets a pot lid FFS)...and the main thrust of that story is that some of the kids decide "fuck that" and survive anyways and escape into society to live out quiet lives in anonymity. Japan itself does not look much different than the Japan of the early 2000's...it's not like it's super futuristic, with a decadent and stratified by class society... it's super normal...meanwhile Hunger Games entire setup is all around class war and entertainment for the rich and powerful set in a very futuristic society....no one watches the Battle Royale for entertainment, it happens quietly away from society so no one gets uncomfortable....the movies could not be farther apart in planning and execution. It matters not whether Suzanne Collins read or knew about BR before writing the Hunger Games...the stories are WILDLY different.

So either Tarantino is talking out of his ass (probable) or he's never seen Battle Royale, or The Hunger Games or both...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 08 December 2025 - 07:02 PM

[Tsundoku]

Hmmmmm ... ok ...



https://www.news.com...d01e4f19f8ef3f5

Carefully note a certain cameo that has them squeeing.

[Macros]

You'll need to point that cameo out to me