Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Exactly.

Most of these cancellation are on HBO Max. WB has other platforms, and a lot of their stuff is licenses to non-WB platforms.

Fair enough, although as far as I can see, a lot of those licenses are region locked, meaning that for a good portion of the world there is no way to legally watch some of the removed shows.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/batgirl-will-be-screened-by-warner-bros-after-all-but-none-of-us-get-to-see-it/ar-AA113XVq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9dc5c85708f647c1b107a711a0de98fd

The plot thickens...

I wouldn’t say that exactly. Given what is happening, letting the cast and crew see it in some kind of final form seems pretty reasonable.

 odinsgrandson wrote:



Is Snakes on a Plane a stage of grief? Can this movie really be worse than Morbius? And that one got released TWICE!

How dare you sir! Snakes on a m@therf@cking plane was a product of its time. Samuel L Jackson was at the height of his angry glory, and could literally show up, drop the f bomb, and people would come and see the film. The producers managed to hire him for what he knew would be a terrible movie, and then they tried to make it classy and change the name to something that, you know, syfy would have thought twice about airing.

He made them keep the title.

It is, oddly enough, a movie made terrible as a vanity project. He signed on to make an awful B movie, and did everything he could to make sure it was, because that was funny to him.

There's a major difference between a movie that knows it is well, Snakes on a Plane, and one that attempts to be good and is terrible.

And yes... to my shame or glory, I did see Snakes on a Plane in theaters. It was a good time, and a film that made the Leprechaun franchise look like cinematic genius.

 Flinty wrote:
I wouldn’t say that exactly. Given what is happening, letting the cast and crew see it in some kind of final form seems pretty reasonable.

I dunno, kinda seems like rubbing salt in the wound. “You get to see the product of all you work over the past x-years, but no one else will…”

 Tyran wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
in the same month WBD has not only been cancelling plenty of shows (specially animation ones), but it has outright disappeared loved shows like Infinity Train.

Firstly, a lot of the cancellations are cancellations on HBO Max. The streaming service. For instance, the Caped Crusader show hasn't been cancelled, it's just not been given the go ahead on the HBO Max service. Warner Brothers is shopping it around to other places.

As for "disappearing" things, they've explained this: There are many shows that, by keeping them available, it costs them money as they have to keep paying residuals. By removing them, those costs go away.

If shows no one is watching are costing you money, and you can save that money simply by removing them from the streaming platform, why wouldn't you?

Considering some of the removed shows are quite beloved with dedicated fanbases, really debatable no one is watching them.

It depends entirely on how much of a fanbase it actually is. A small but vocal one isn't exactly as helpful as a large group actually watching said shows and keeping it profitable.

There is something fundamentally amiss when they're not willing to pay for content people like but other streaming services are willing to pick them up.

It really looks to me like HBO MAX is set to be a casualty in the streaming wars.

If that's the case then its carcass will eventually be picked clean and you'll be able to watch all of the HBO shows on other services. I kind of expect it to simply become an add on for other services or something like that.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It depends entirely on how much of a fanbase it actually is. A small but vocal one isn't exactly as helpful as a large group actually watching said shows and keeping it profitable.

Given the nature of streaming, it is kinda impossible to known the true numbers.

At the very least, WBD's actions show a complete lack of integrity that has a good portion of the content producing community outraged and has utterly failed to create any degree of trust with the investors.

Removing content to avoid paying residuals is just short term profiteering. Residuals are structured in such a way that they drop dramatically each year the content is on the platform. It's designed to not really cost anything to just leave up. The only real reason to do it is the same as when you lay off your entire staff after a project. Get rid of all costs while profiting on the work of your predecessors so you can show the numbers go up for a year.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
There is something fundamentally amiss when they're not willing to pay for content people like but other streaming services are willing to pick them up.

It really looks to me like HBO MAX is set to be a casualty in the streaming wars.

If that's the case then its carcass will eventually be picked clean and you'll be able to watch all of the HBO shows on other services. I kind of expect it to simply become an add on for other services or something like that.

While that'd be preferable, I'm not sure it'll actually happen. HBO MAX might very well die, but according to folks who've worked on several of their animated projects the stuff is being outright deleted rather than just archived.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
There is something fundamentally amiss when they're not willing to pay for content people like but other streaming services are willing to pick them up.

It really looks to me like HBO MAX is set to be a casualty in the streaming wars.

If that's the case then its carcass will eventually be picked clean and you'll be able to watch all of the HBO shows on other services. I kind of expect it to simply become an add on for other services or something like that.

While that'd be preferable, I'm not sure it'll actually happen. HBO MAX might very well die, but according to folks who've worked on several of their animated projects the stuff is being outright deleted rather than just archived.

Man, this story makes less sense all the time. Why delete it rather than archive it somewhere? There's less than no reason to do that.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
There is something fundamentally amiss when they're not willing to pay for content people like but other streaming services are willing to pick them up.

It really looks to me like HBO MAX is set to be a casualty in the streaming wars.

If that's the case then its carcass will eventually be picked clean and you'll be able to watch all of the HBO shows on other services. I kind of expect it to simply become an add on for other services or something like that.

While that'd be preferable, I'm not sure it'll actually happen. HBO MAX might very well die, but according to folks who've worked on several of their animated projects the stuff is being outright deleted rather than just archived.

Man, this story makes less sense all the time. Why delete it rather than archive it somewhere? There's less than no reason to do that.

The tax write off mechanism they're using here requires them to be able to say they're never going to or try to make a profit from these properties. But writing off effectively finished work at this point and at this scale is so unusual that it's not altogether clear what would satisfy the IRS that this is the case. Somehow showing that they've destroyed whatever master files exist is being proposed as one form of cover for that purpose.

Destroying the files would also make the story go away quicker after an initial shock, because so long as they exist you'll have people wondering what might be out there and how they might see it.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
You don't know that. Sure Thing films fail at the theaters all the time, and this is FAR from a Sure Thing film.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance


Which stage are we at now?

Is Snakes on a Plane a stage of grief? Can this movie really be worse than Morbius? And that one got released TWICE!



Actually I do feel annoyed on behalf of the film makers. They were hired to make a movie that was definitely going to get a release and now that's all gone. This offends me as an artist, and it doesn't really matter whether the art was bad. This means that artists that make films good will have less trust with the people who make movies get funded at WB.

I'm a creative professional too, and I honestly feel a little differently. I can sympathize with them because I know how it feels. I've experienced everything from fleshed-out ideas that never launched to whole campaigns that were completed and then shelved. Some years back before COVID, the local ad club had an event where people could bring their best ideas and projects that never saw the light of day. It sucks and hurts in the moment, but after a lot of years of doing this I've come to accept that it's part of the job when you're being paid to create something for someone else. It's ultimately not yours and you're not entitled to it. *shrug*

Maybe the folks in Hollywood have been mostly exempt from this just because the budgets are bigger. But looking at it from a business perspective, maybe they shouldn't be. At least not in a case where the project probably shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place. It was in such a weird spot budget-wise, and then they'd be throwing marketing money probably plus additional funds to spruce it up for theatrical release (IIRC, Blue Beetle got that budget bump for that reason).

And it does have to be said that IF Zaslev and company are serious about a more tightly shared universe...does a film featuring Keaton's Batman make much sense if he's not actually going to BE the Batman of the DCEU going forward? Because that's starting to look less likely as these DC films keep getting pushed further out and plans change at WB. I wouldn't mind seeing Leslie Grace play Jeffrey Wright's daughter at some point down the road, and then seeing Batgirl spin off of Battinson. It was already weird that she's playing Batfleck Gordon's daughter being mentored by Keaton's Batman at a time when Battinson is really THE Batman people think of, even if he isn't actually in the DCEU.

Quick edit on that last point (slightly spoiler-y):

I've had a project cancelled after I had finished it (and got paid for it!). A 40k-related one, no less. Never got to see it in its final formatted form, but it was cancelled due to monetary reasons. It sucks. I was disappointed. I also moved on. And it didn't stop me from working for the same company in the future on many more projects.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
It really looks to me like HBO MAX is set to be a casualty in the streaming wars.

HBO Max will be a casualty of redundancy. WB/Discovery now have two streaming platforms and multiple other platforms through which to show content. They don't need HBO Max, and will merge it into other areas.

And it didn't stop me from working for the same company in the future on many more projects.

Warner/HBO have a fairly unique issue with this though.

The reason their stuff looks so expensive compared to Netflix stuff that costs much more to make is that they have access to a whole grey infrastructure other studios don't. They have fabricators, prop archives, soundstage and backlot space, and longstanding relationships with creatives who like working for them, and they use these things to lever for stuff they *don't* have.

Because of this, HBO can do something for 1k beautifully that costs Netflix 2k to get done while still looking crappy - and people want payment upfront from Netflix where they (used to) have enough faith in WB to bank on future residuals and opportunities.

So it's not just a question of one big dramatic move putting everyone in their places, these decisions have put WB/HBO'S whole way of doing business in doubt going forward. After all, if HBO might pull Netflix style bs with your work and benefits, why not just work for Netflix?

So by burning everyone for the sake of short term pennies, Zaslav has likely made everything HBO does much more expensive in future. That this doesn't seem to factor in to his decision making makes people think he either doesn't understand the sector he's in now vs Discovery's, or that he simply doesn't care about the long term damage this does, because he doesn't care what happens to HBO in that long term.

Trying to hide all this stuff under House of the Dragon doesn't seem to be working for the stock market either, so it's not clear who all this stuff is meant to benefit.

 gorgon wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
You don't know that. Sure Thing films fail at the theaters all the time, and this is FAR from a Sure Thing film.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance


Which stage are we at now?

Is Snakes on a Plane a stage of grief? Can this movie really be worse than Morbius? And that one got released TWICE!



Actually I do feel annoyed on behalf of the film makers. They were hired to make a movie that was definitely going to get a release and now that's all gone. This offends me as an artist, and it doesn't really matter whether the art was bad. This means that artists that make films good will have less trust with the people who make movies get funded at WB.

I'm a creative professional too, and I honestly feel a little differently. I can sympathize with them because I know how it feels. I've experienced everything from fleshed-out ideas that never launched to whole campaigns that were completed and then shelved. Some years back before COVID, the local ad club had an event where people could bring their best ideas and projects that never saw the light of day. It sucks and hurts in the moment, but after a lot of years of doing this I've come to accept that it's part of the job when you're being paid to create something for someone else. It's ultimately not yours and you're not entitled to it. *shrug*

Maybe the folks in Hollywood have been mostly exempt from this just because the budgets are bigger. But looking at it from a business perspective, maybe they shouldn't be. At least not in a case where the project probably shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place. It was in such a weird spot budget-wise, and then they'd be throwing marketing money probably plus additional funds to spruce it up for theatrical release (IIRC, Blue Beetle got that budget bump for that reason).

Hollywood is far from immune to this sort of thing. They actually experience it often- probably more often than other industries. But NEVER like this.

-Projects are pitched and sold- and you get paid at this point but your film has something less than a 1% chance of getting made. I always think it is funny when an author or company announces "We've sold the movie rights to Monsterpocalypse" as if it is a film that's going to happen.

-Pre-production- each step of pre-production increases the chances of the film getting made because each step represents producers getting more invested in the project. People are hired to write scripts, direct, storyboard, test scenes are filmed on low budgets and stuff like that.

-Many things can shut down production once it has started. Actors can be too injured to complete their role, weather can destroy your sets, governments can seize your footage because you didn't realize you were shooting near a secret airbase, But it all comes down to investors- whether they think they're better off cutting their loses or putting in more money. A lot of times you're fighting with the fact that investors can take some insurance payout.

-Films that get made to completion don't always get released. Some get shown at festivals and never again, sometimes a studio chooses to sit on them indefinitely. One of the rarest cases are films that are worth more unreleased than released.

-And remember the same people do television as film. Pilots for shows get made and never aired. Four test episodes are made and then never aired. Though sometimes those get some sort of meager release.

- The last way that a studio can forget your film is the "write off." That doesn't mean that they don't release your movie in any form- it means that they've decided that marketing your film is not worth it. The film might get a limited release to theatres. But those finished films are still released, and once in a while they become "sleeper hits" (ie- a film that does better after its first week).



What is different here is that this film was the kind that was very certain to get released.


Some of the strange things here

- Film is complete and not getting even streaming release that would cost nothing at this point.
- Finished film had big name actor Michael Keaton. His name is supposed to mean something
- Film had $90 mil budget without even being given the chance for limited release or sleeper status.
- Marketing was well underway with official photos of Batgirl costume and hype about actors
- Copies of film/footage are denied to the creators (I'm sure this is because there is actual public interest in the project- a fact that would usually lead to the film being released)


There's a ton of "oh hey, that's business" that goes on in Hollywood, but this film had already passed all of those hoops.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
You don't know that. Sure Thing films fail at the theaters all the time, and this is FAR from a Sure Thing film.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance


Which stage are we at now?

Is Snakes on a Plane a stage of grief? Can this movie really be worse than Morbius? And that one got released TWICE!



Actually I do feel annoyed on behalf of the film makers. They were hired to make a movie that was definitely going to get a release and now that's all gone. This offends me as an artist, and it doesn't really matter whether the art was bad. This means that artists that make films good will have less trust with the people who make movies get funded at WB.

I'm a creative professional too, and I honestly feel a little differently. I can sympathize with them because I know how it feels. I've experienced everything from fleshed-out ideas that never launched to whole campaigns that were completed and then shelved. Some years back before COVID, the local ad club had an event where people could bring their best ideas and projects that never saw the light of day. It sucks and hurts in the moment, but after a lot of years of doing this I've come to accept that it's part of the job when you're being paid to create something for someone else. It's ultimately not yours and you're not entitled to it. *shrug*

Maybe the folks in Hollywood have been mostly exempt from this just because the budgets are bigger. But looking at it from a business perspective, maybe they shouldn't be. At least not in a case where the project probably shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place. It was in such a weird spot budget-wise, and then they'd be throwing marketing money probably plus additional funds to spruce it up for theatrical release (IIRC, Blue Beetle got that budget bump for that reason).

Spoiler:

Hollywood is far from immune to this sort of thing. They actually experience it often- probably more often than other industries. But NEVER like this.

-Projects are pitched and sold- and you get paid at this point but your film has something less than a 1% chance of getting made. I always think it is funny when an author or company announces "We've sold the movie rights to Monsterpocalypse" as if it is a film that's going to happen.

-Pre-production- each step of pre-production increases the chances of the film getting made because each step represents producers getting more invested in the project. People are hired to write scripts, direct, storyboard, test scenes are filmed on low budgets and stuff like that.

-Many things can shut down production once it has started. Actors can be too injured to complete their role, weather can destroy your sets, governments can seize your footage because you didn't realize you were shooting near a secret airbase, But it all comes down to investors- whether they think they're better off cutting their loses or putting in more money. A lot of times you're fighting with the fact that investors can take some insurance payout.

-Films that get made to completion don't always get released. Some get shown at festivals and never again, sometimes a studio chooses to sit on them indefinitely. One of the rarest cases are films that are worth more unreleased than released.

-And remember the same people do television as film. Pilots for shows get made and never aired. Four test episodes are made and then never aired. Though sometimes those get some sort of meager release.

- The last way that a studio can forget your film is the "write off." That doesn't mean that they don't release your movie in any form- it means that they've decided that marketing your film is not worth it. The film might get a limited release to theatres. But those finished films are still released, and once in a while they become "sleeper hits" (ie- a film that does better after its first week).



What is different here is that this film was the kind that was very certain to get released.

Some of the strange things here

- Film is complete and not getting even streaming release that would cost nothing at this point.
- Finished film had big name actor Michael Keaton. His name is supposed to mean something
- Film had $90 mil budget without even being given the chance for limited release or sleeper status.
- Marketing was well underway with official photos of Batgirl costume and hype about actors
- Copies of film/footage are denied to the creators (I'm sure this is because there is actual public interest in the project- a fact that would usually lead to the film being released)


There's a ton of "oh hey, that's business" that goes on in Hollywood, but this film had already passed all of those hoops.

Are you trying to debate me or support my point? Hollywood isn't used to having medium-sized projects completed, paid for and shelved. TV pilots aren't the same thing at all...they're just a well-developed business pitch. Acts of God or government actions aren't either. The new management took a look at Batgirl and just didn't want it. Didn't think it made business or creative sense. And that happens everywhere outside of Hollywood. And in that instance, those creatives don't stomp their feet and act entitled that their work be seen.

Although I'm a creative, my experience is that these kinds of situations are usually 95% about the financials for some reason or another. In this case, I suspect there is a creative/branding angle also. And again, are they actually wrong that their Batman situation is a giant fething mess? They have a stylish new Batman franchise that just kicked ass at the box office...so let's roll out a Batgirl with no narrative or creative connection to that. Instead she's gonna be the daughter of Affleck's Gordon but mentored by Keaton's Batman...and put in a suit that looks like something from the CW.

The new bosses almost certainly don't want three Batmans and two universes and mishmashed backgrounds with spinoffs of big budget franchises that look and feel cheap. IIRC, Zaslev talked about wanting the DC stuff to play big and not damage the brand...I think the answer's there and not so mysterious if you look at their words and actions. They also just showed the world where they're putting their Batman chips with Reeves' new deal. The Penguin spinoff is moving ahead. The Arkham spinoff apparently also. Batgirl not so much because it's not anything that they want to be moving forward with.

The reason the directors were locked out can almost certainly be spelled Z-A-C-K-S-N-Y-D-E-R. I'm quite sure they want no part of more directors sitting on studio property and leaking/teasing it to gin up social media and try to force a release.

I think I was supporting your point for the most part.

What you're saying is that they realized that their DC universe is a total wreck and they want to fix it.

It hadn't occurred to me. I had figured they either didn't realize the mess they had made or that they didn't care (which I figured was more likely) so long as they could keep pretending that it all fit together.

'What Would 'Batgirl' Have Looked Like? Alleged 'Funeral Screening' Intel Describes 'Very CW' Tone' - SyFy Wire

... Umberto Gonzales (a film reporter for The Wrap known for netting juicy scoops) claimed to have spoken with an anonymous attendee from one of these events, who described the movie as "a very expensive CW pilot." And while "it was certainly not the worst superhero movie" this individual had ever seen, they still understood why WB Discovery opted for "the write-down" instead

 Ghaz wrote:
'What Would 'Batgirl' Have Looked Like? Alleged 'Funeral Screening' Intel Describes 'Very CW' Tone' - SyFy Wire

... Umberto Gonzales (a film reporter for The Wrap known for netting juicy scoops) claimed to have spoken with an anonymous attendee from one of these events, who described the movie as "a very expensive CW pilot." And while "it was certainly not the worst superhero movie" this individual had ever seen, they still understood why WB Discovery opted for "the write-down" instead

How goddamn DARE them?!?!?!?!? Batgirl stars a WOC and is therefore inherently amazing and beyond criticism or reproach.

Batgirl featuring Warriors of Chaos would be pretty metal.

"Gotham is my city!"
"Blood for the Blood God!"
"Wait... what?"

I have to admit, it would amuse me to see Batman keep sending champions of Khorne to Arkham asylum because that works so well for mortal criminals.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Batgirl featuring Warriors of Chaos would be pretty metal.

"Gotham is my city!"
"Blood for the Blood God!"
"Wait... what?"

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I have to admit, it would amuse me to see Batman keep sending champions of Khorne to Arkham asylum because that works so well for mortal criminals.

Damn, I think we found a way to make this movie watchable...

Please read "Dark Knights: Metal" for further details

The biggest problem of course is that they weren't true to the character of Barbara Gordon.

Traditionally portrayed as a wheel-chair using hacker, casting a Temporarily Able-Bodied actress they just threw out the most interesting part of her character.

#notmybarbaragordon

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The biggest problem of course is that they weren't true to the character of Barbara Gordon.

Traditionally portrayed as a wheel-chair using hacker, casting a Temporarily Able-Bodied actress they just threw out the most interesting part of her character.

#notmybarbaragordon

Barbara's spine has been healed since 2011, though may have been temporarily damaged again last year.

While I might agree with you that the Oracle version of Barbara is more interesting than the Batgirl version, the version they were filming has been re-established for long enough for it to be reasonable.

I'm kinda curious to see if Sasha Calle's Supergirl ends up making it to the main DCEU universe or not, and in what form that takes. I think Kara Zor-El is a very interesting character because of her contrasts with Kal-El. The plan was apparently to have her REPLACE Superman in the DCEU. Flash movie spoiler:



But now there's a lot of chatter (again) about Cavill possibly coming back after all, so who knows. I'd rather see Supergirl as part of a Superman family, because I think it's just more interesting all around and enhances Superman's character as well. Feel that Superman isn't 'relatable'? Give him a cousin who lived on Krypton during its destruction and have him introduce her to Earth even as she helps teach him about Krypton. It gives him an extended family and opportunity for interesting interactions...and makes him less the outsider.

FYI, I've really been digging the Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow comic. Really gets into what it would mean to be her, having lived through a disaster that Kal-El knows about but has no memories of.

And (getting this back on topic), if the plan was to have Batgirl basically fill Batman's shoes in the DCEU (with Keaton being semi-retired)...meh. Would rather see Leslie Grace play the character in the Reeves films, or at least a better, not-TV-movie version alongside a proper DCEU Batman.