warner - Blog 2.0 - California Film Foundation2024-03-29T09:45:55Zhttps://californiafilm.net/profiles/news/feed/tag/warnerWarner Bros.’ Streaming Plan May Invite Piracy "Bonanza"https://californiafilm.net/profiles/news/warner-bros-streaming-plan-may-invite-piracy-bonanza2020-12-19T00:34:17.000Z2020-12-19T00:34:17.000ZElla Christiansenhttps://californiafilm.net/members/EllaChristiansen<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}8305436493,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8305436493,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="8305436493?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p><h1>The studio’s decision to smash its theatrical windows for 2021 films could result in "high-quality" counterfeit versions of the titles "available on every pirate service in the world" the same day the features hit HBO Max.</h1><p></p><h1>The industry remains up in arms about Warner Bros.’ decision to send its biggest 2021 movies directly to HBO Max on the same day the titles hit U.S. theaters. But one group is probably pleased with the plan: Film pirates. “For sure, pirates are celebrating WarnerMedia’s decision,” says Abigail De Kosnik, director of the Berkeley Center for New Media and an associate professor at UC Berkeley.</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Traditionally, the theatrical window has provided some buffer against piracy’s erosion of a film’s earnings. Usually, during the early days of a theatrical release the only pirate copies that become available are low-quality “cam” versions, surreptitiously recorded via phone or tablet by someone in a cinema. Law-breaking consumers in some territories have demonstrated a willingness to watch these copies — especially in places like Russia and Turkey, according to experts — but pirates throughout the West and among the more developed major markets of East Asia, such as Japan, South Korea and China’s major urban centers, tend to prefer to wait for the film to hit streaming services, whereupon a high-definition copy can be “ripped” and disseminated.</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Warner Bros.’ hybrid plan of dropping next year’s film slate on HBO Max in the U.S. — the only territory where the service has fully launched so far — while simultaneously marketing and releasing the movies in cinemas overseas will likely erode international box office earnings of titles like Dune, The Matrix 4 and Godzilla vs. Kong. “If a film is made available in the U.S. on HBO Max, a high-quality pirate copy is going to be available on every pirate service in the world that same day,” notes Andy Chatterley, CEO of U.K.-based piracy data and analytics company Muso.</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Those dynamics were on display when Disney opted to release its big-budget, live-action remake of Mulan over Disney+ in select territories this fall, while also opening it theatrically in the countries where the streaming service hasn’t yet launched (such as the enormous China market, crucially). The film attracted 21.4 million illegal downloads in the 12 weeks after it released, according to De Kosnik’s research, one of the highest totals she has observed since she began measuring pirate consumption in 2017. “Pirates will enjoy a real bonanza next year because of the WarnerMedia decision,” she adds.</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Because piracy is such a complicated consumer decision, involving sensitivity to price, content availability, personal ethics and government efforts at deterrence, projecting its impact on box office earnings is difficult to do, explains Neil Gane, general manager of the Asia Video Industry Association’s Coalition Against Piracy. But thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, he says, pirates in many places are better poised to strike than at most moments in recent memory.</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Gane says lockdowns and stay-at-home orders have boosted the fortunes of piracy syndicates in the same way that they have driven subscription gains on legitimate streaming platforms. "For example, during the peak lockdown period in Southeast Asia from the end of March to mid-May," he explains, "we saw a proportionate spike there in usage of both pirate streaming and legal streaming platforms." (Indonesia and Malaysia were rare exceptions in the region, thanks to recent government efforts to block access to piracy sites.)</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Adds Muso’s Chatterley: “We’ve never seen so many big-budget movies hit pirate networks so quickly. The piracy rates are going to be staggering — that’s just inevitable.”</h1><p></p><h1></h1><p> </p><h1>Article by: <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-streaming-plan-may-invite-piracy-bonanza" target="_blank">P</a><a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-streaming-plan-may-invite-piracy-bonanza" target="_blank">atrick Brzeski</a> for the Hollywood Reporter.</h1><p></p><p> </p></div>Warner Bros. Under Siege: "No One Is Angry at the Streamers — It’s These Guys"https://californiafilm.net/profiles/news/warner-bros-under-siege-no-one-is-angry-at-the-streamers-it-s-the2020-12-16T00:29:00.000Z2020-12-16T00:29:00.000ZElla Christiansenhttps://californiafilm.net/members/EllaChristiansen<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}8292152668,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8292152668,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="8292152668?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p><p>WarnerMedia’s production partners are eyeing court battles over its day-and-date HBO Max plan, and top talent like Denzel Washington aren't pleased by "woefully inadequate" overtures.</p><p>In the aftermath of WarnerMedia’s decision to put its entire 2021 slate of films on its HBO Max streaming service the same day the titles open in theaters, the AT&T division seems to recognize the need for damage control — but not quite how to go about it.</p><p> </p><p>As Hollywood has revolted publicly against the plan, WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar is making rounds of brief calls to the company’s various creative partners, assuring them breezily that everything will be smoothed over before ringing off. And the offers that follow? One producer involved in the mess tells The Hollywood Reporter that what’s been proposed so far is “woefully inadequate” and “adds insult to injury.”</p><p> </p><p>An agency source references Kilar’s Dec. 13 comment in The New York Times that WarnerMedia is approaching “this situation with a guiding principle of generosity” and offers this response: “You don’t know the definition of generous, dude.”</p><p> </p><p>Part of the problem is that Kilar appears to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Warners threw the entire 2021 slate of movies on HBO Max day-and-date, the company says, because it had concluded that people wouldn’t be returning to theaters by the end of the year. This was even as the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, was saying things could be better much sooner than that, and as the world is witnessing planes delivering loads of coronavirus vaccines.</p><p> </p><p>There are those who argue that people will still be reluctant to go to theaters by the end of the year and those who believe people will be very eager to get out of their houses and experience movies on the big screen. But since no one knows for sure, it seems disingenuous to use the pandemic to explain making such a sweeping move for a full year.</p><p> </p><p>While Warners has been telling filmmakers that the move will apply only to 2021 movies, Kilar simultaneously says things like, “At a certain point you do need to lead.” Where is he leading? Is the studio’s destination really consistent with a temporary shift in strategy, necessitated by the pandemic?</p><p> </p><p>Those who come from the digital world believe the revolution is here, and that every movie will stream day-and-date. They cheerfully dismiss industry players like Christopher Nolan — who say the Warners move will destroy the business model that supports film — as Luddites who are resisting the streaming future. But throughout industry history, other outsiders have also had a dangerous tendency to imagine that Hollywood insiders are stupid. It usually ends badly for them.</p><p> </p><p>Filmmakers and stars understand that there’s a pandemic to consider and a digital shift in the works. They know that streaming day-and-date or going without a theatrical release altogether will be routine for many movies going forward; they know the exclusive, weeks-long theatrical window was unsustainable. “None of us are horse-and-buggy people,” says an exec involved in the battle. “We go across all platforms when everyone is in agreement and up-front about it. No one is angry at the streamers — it’s these guys.”</p><p> </p><p>Consider the case of Denzel Washington, whom New York Times critics A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis just named the greatest actor of the 21st century so far. Most likely, making him very angry was not such a good idea, but sources say that’s what happened as his new detective film, The Little Things, becomes the first one down the WarnerMedia chute.</p><p> </p><p>Like everyone involved with the 2021 slate, Washington was blindsided by the decision to stream day-and-date. Given the pandemic, sources say, he might have been amenable to the move if it had been done transparently the way Warners had handled Wonder Woman 1984. “Many artists would say, ‘As long as we have a fair negotiation, I’m fine,’” says a source involved in the situation.</p><p> </p><p>So Warners could at least partially solve the problem with money, though it hasn’t yet. But even if a Little Things deal is made, that doesn’t address the filmmakers’ unhappiness at being blindsided, nor their concern that the movie is supposed to debut Jan. 29 and Warners, having dismissed veteran Blair Rich, has a leaderless marketing department. Industry insiders note with concern that Warners seems to be purging just about every exec with ties to the studio’s formerly talent-friendly culture — which will have a long-term impact that seems inconsistent with a strategic shift necessitated by the pandemic. (The studio has hired marketing exec Josh Goldstine to consult on Little Things and is rumored to be close to hiring a veteran marketing executive to work across all platforms, which might help the company figure things out.)</p><p> </p><p>More trouble looms with respect to James Wan’s upcoming horror movie, Malignant. A knowledgeable source says Wan, as a producer and director, has an extraordinarily rich deal — 13 percent of first-dollar gross — so he could hardly have been pleased when Warners decided to wipe out the exclusive theatrical window. The same source says the $60 million film was fully financed by Chinese company Starlight Media, which owns all rights.</p><p> </p><p>Warners’ unilateral decision to put the film day-and-date on its own streamer with no deal in place looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The source says there is no version of a deal with Warners that does not include an exclusive theatrical release of the film. Starlight is said to be as unhappy as Legendary, which produced Dune as well as Godzilla vs. Kong and plans to fight Warners’ release plan. It doesn’t seem impossible that the two Chinese-owned companies could join forces in litigation against Warners. Legendary declined to comment, and an attorney for Starlight did not respond to a request for comment.</p><p> </p><p>Warners now has to navigate deals with dozens of players. “The poor business affairs lawyers at WarnerMedia — I do not envy them,” producer Jason Blum said on my podcast, KCRW’s The Business. “They have to deal with 17 groups of people who all say, ‘I want to get paid as if my movie did a billion dollars, like you did for Wonder Woman.’ Clearly, they can’t do that, [and] now they’re set up in this super-contentious relationship.”</p><p> </p><p>A source involved with the dealmaking on one film that’s caught up in the new Warners strategy says agencies, producers and talent have to take these talks to the mat: “When you let one company do whatever it wants, it opens the door to another company doing it in different circumstances.”</p><p> </p><p>Article by: <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-under-siege-no-one-is-angry-at-the-streamers-its-these-guys" target="_blank">Kim Masters</a> for the Hollywood Reporter.</p></div>Christopher Nolan Rips HBO Max as "Worst Streaming Service," Denounces Warner Bros.' Planhttps://californiafilm.net/profiles/news/christopher-nolan-rips-hbo-max-as-worst-streaming-service-denounc2020-12-08T16:18:36.000Z2020-12-08T16:18:36.000ZElla Christiansenhttps://californiafilm.net/members/EllaChristiansen<div><p> </p><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}8262895052,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8262895052,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="8262895052?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a>To many insiders, WarnerMedia's blindsiding of talent and their reps with news that it would send 17 films directly to HBO Max in 2021 felt like an insult.</p><p>For many in the movie business — producers, directors, stars and their representatives — Dec. 3, 2020, is a day that will live in infamy.</p><p>“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,” filmmaker Christopher Nolan, whose relationship with Warners dates back to Insomnia in 2002, said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.</p><p> </p><p>Added Nolan: “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.”</p><p> </p><p>On that now-infamous morning, Ann Sarnoff — whose ungainly title is chair and CEO of WarnerMedia Studios and Networks Group — and Warner Bros. film studio chairman Toby Emmerich called the heads of the major agencies to drop a bombshell: Warners was about to smash the theatrical window, sweeping its entire 17-picture 2021 film slate onto its faltering HBO Max streaming service, debuting them on the same day they would open in whatever theaters could admit customers.</p><p> </p><p>Surprisingly to some in the industry, sources say the idea was the brainchild of Warner Bros. COO Carolyn Blackwood who, looking at a relatively weak 2021 slate, saw an opportunity to avoid the humiliation of potentially bad grosses while currying favor with streamer-obsessed higher-ups.</p><p> </p><p>The instant response in Hollywood was outrage and a massive girding for battle. “Warners has made a grave mistake,” says one top talent agent. “Never have this many people been this upset with one entity.” Like others, he had spent much of the day dealing with calls from stunned and angry clients. And that swooshing sound you hear? It’s the lawyers, stropping their blades as they prepare for battle: that Warners was self-dealing in shifting these movies to its own streamer, perhaps, or that the company acted in bad faith. Some talent reps say the decision affects not only profit participants but others who have worked on films as the move might affect residual payments. They expect and hope that the guilds will get involved. (The Writers Guild of America declined to comment.)</p><p> </p><p>The Warners move poses big, maybe even existential questions: How do theaters survive this supposedly onetime, excused-by-the-pandemic move? Genies are hard to put back in the bottle — and no one believes Warners intended this to be temporary, anyway. What damage will be done to exhibitors by training customers that if they sit on their sofas, the biggest movies will come? And will Warners face serious backlash from important producers, filmmakers, guilds and onscreen talent? “Warners was the quintessentially talent-friendly, filmmaker-friendly studio,” says one agent. “Now Warners isn’t the first place, second place or third place you want to go.”</p><p> </p><p>Many in Hollywood think WarnerMedia opted for this drastic move to play to streaming-infatuated Wall Street and redo the botched launch of HBO Max, which has netted a dismal 8.6 million "activated" subscribers so far. But one prominent agent notes that the top executives at WarnerMedia and its parent — AT&T CEO John Stankey, WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar and, of course, Sarnoff — “don’t understand the movie business, and they don’t understand talent relations.”</p><p> </p><p>While Kilar pays what is seen as lip service to movies, industry veterans say Warners is sacrificing the huge profit that comes from selling movies in multiple formats and on multiple platforms around the world.</p><p> </p><p>Even before Warners made its play, there was grumbling among agents that Sarnoff, who has been on the job for more than a year, had yet to get acquainted with key players on the film side or make much of an impression at all. That’s why many are focusing their wrath on Emmerich. “Toby’s passion is only about managing up,” says one agent who represents major Warners talent.</p><p> </p><p>By the weekend following the announcement, Emmerich was calling important filmmakers with projects set for 2022 to assure them that their movies wouldn’t be dropped on the streaming service without warning. “As if anyone would believe he had any control over the situation,” says one producer with a major Warner property. “Toby probably had a really bad weekend, not that I feel bad for him,” says one agent.</p><p> </p><p>According to a source, Emmerich tried to soothe In the Heights director Jon M. Chu by pointing out that the movie was still getting a “global theatrical release.” But industry insiders say the studio is pretending that pirates won’t pounce as soon as these films are streaming on HBO Max. As soon as one does, there's an “excellent version of the movie everywhere immediately,” notes one industry veteran.</p><p> </p><p>WarnerMedia’s decision to attack without warning may be understandable given the blowback that was foreseeable. But to many insiders, blindsiding talent and their reps seemed like an insult. Sources say studio president Courtenay Valenti was the only Warner exec who dared to speak up about the need to reach out to key creative partners, but she was quickly hushed.</p><p> </p><p>Much of this outrage will surely be mitigated if WarnerMedia is prepared to write big checks to all the profit participants in the films that have been moved. “It’s a critical time for them, at the highest level, to make this right with the talent,” says one rep. But agents say the guidance that’s been provided so far suggests that the company isn’t planning to offer what is now called "Wonder Woman money," in honor of the rich deal the studio gave profit participants in Wonder Woman 1984 when that film was moved to HBO Max.</p><p> </p><p>WarnerMedia had to shovel tens of millions at Gal Godot and the other key players because the company wants a third in the series. But that sets the bar high. Sources say even Suicide Squad director James Gunn, who is platform-agnostic, was not pleased when the studio followed its shocking announcement by floating a lackluster formula for compensating him and other profit participants in the film.</p><p> </p><p>At minimum, WarnerMedia has opened the door to arduous negotiations with the major agencies over compensation for multiple profit participants in 17 movies. Did the Warners numbers crunchers, in projecting the cost of premiering its entire 2021 slate on HBO Max, factor in the cost of widely anticipated legal challenges? Industry insiders believe WarnerMedia may have opened itself up to those, especially as it is selling the movies to its own streaming platform when none of the profit participants has had a chance to figure out what Apple or Netflix might have paid for the opportunity to stream their projects day-and-date. Allegations of self-dealing are almost sure to follow.</p><p> </p><p>Many think Legendary will be the first to file a legal challenge. The company fired off a previous lawyer letter after Netflix offered something north of $225 million for the rights to Godzilla vs. Kong, which has seen its release date moved from March 2020 to November to May 2021. Though Legendary financed 75 percent of the movie, Warners had the power to block the sale and did. Legendary asked whether the studio would then give it a deal to stream the movie on HBO Max — and got no clear answer until its executives woke up one December morning to find that the movie was going day-and-date on the service without the benefit of a negotiation. Legendary’s even more expensive picture, Dune, is getting the same treatment. The other companies that finance Warners movies, Village Roadshow and Bron, are also said to be aggrieved parties that might end up going to court.</p><p> </p><p>And then there’s the talent. Dune director Denis Villeneuve is said to be among those who felt most strongly that a traditional big-screen release was essential for his film. Chu, who along with Lin-Manuel Miranda went through an intense courtship with multiple suitors for In the Heights and who had turned down a huge Netflix offer for Crazy Rich Asians because he cherishes the communal theatrical experience, told an associate he was “shell-shocked” after being informed of the Warners decision.</p><p> </p><p>Sources say WarnerMedia insiders have been hoping that Disney will follow its lead and shift its slate to streaming. But Disney, which had seven billion-dollar-grossing movies last year, isn’t about to do that. Instead, it is moving some films to streaming, as it did with Hamilton and Artemis Fowl — likely Cruella and more — but an agent notes that the way Disney has handled the shift stands in stark contrast to what Warners has done. “They didn’t do a unilateral thing,” he says, adding that studio executives made pre-emptive calls to talent and their reps that helped smooth the process.</p><p> </p><p>It’s also worth noting that Disney+, which has dwarfed HBO Max in terms of subscribers, has gotten a lot of mileage out of one original hit, The Mandalorian, which is based on an iconic movie property. “There’s never been a full-fledged franchise blockbuster launched on a streaming service,” observes an executive at a Warners competitor. “It starts with theaters and it starts with opening weekend.” And so far, those blockbusters have been the ones that generated merchandise sales and theme-park attractions.</p><p> </p><p>Warners doesn’t have theme parks but it has reaped big benefits from movies that almost certainly would have been dropped onto HBO Max had the option been available at the time. Consider last year’s megahit Joker. Film studio chief Emmerich was not a fan of the project; it was defended by worldwide marketing president Blair Rich, who was recently pushed out. Emmerich lowballed on the budget to discourage director Todd Phillips from making it, and when the filmmaker persisted, sold off half the movie. Joker then became a cultural phenomenon that grossed more than a billion dollars worldwide, was honored with 11 Academy Award nominations and an Oscar for Joaquin Phoenix. Would any of that have happened had Joker been dropped onto HBO Max?</p><p> </p><p>Despite their assertions to the contrary, many industry insiders believe that neither AT&T chairman Stankey nor Kilar has much interest in the legacy movie business. Kilar has said this move was made for the fans and told CNBC, “If we start our days and end our days focused on the customer, we’re going to lead the industry.”</p><p> </p><p>That brings to mind a line in the new Netflix movie, Mank — a warning delivered to the upstart Orson Welles by grizzled veteran Herman Mankiewicz: “You, my friend, are an outsider, a self-anointed savior-hyphenate. They’re just waiting to loathe you.”</p><p> </p><p>It also leaves out a long-standing Hollywood maxim: Content is king. And content comes from artists who aren’t always motivated purely by money. Says an agent who represents extremely important talent with business at Warners: “You had a decades-long legacy as being known as the most talent-friendly studio. Now you’ve gone from that to a studio that in starburst colors lit up a sign that says, 'We don’t give a fuck about talent.’”</p><p> </p><p>Article by: <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-nolan-rips-hbo-max-as-worst-streaming-service-denounces-warner-bros-plan" target="_blank">Kim Masters</a> for the Hollywood Reporter.</p></div>