Live data from Hacker News

The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

wegotthiscovered.com

191–200 of 323 posts

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#191
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that the Wachowskis claimed that, but in what way is the Matrix's red pill similar to estrogen pills, or transexuality in general?

when it was originally written, the most common estrogen pill on the market was red. short answer: the matrix is gender. but it also represents any social construct pretty generically, and that's why there's so much confusion. long answer: duck duck go matrix transgender. also, like, when a creator tells you their work means a thing, just take them at their word. they would know. you can criticize how well or how poo…

>when it was originally written, the most common estrogen pill on the market was red.

As Don Quixote once said "El Oh El"

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#192
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much did HBO pay for the streaming rights? They wouldn't -have paid- anything, HBO is owned by Warner too edit: ...they wouldn't have to have paid anything..

Oh very interesting! I wonder how that looks from an accounting/profitability perspective?

This reminds me of my dad’s story at work on time. He worked at a mill and the higher ups had a meeting with everyone. They said due to the high pricing of logs currently we are thinking we have to lay some guys off we didn’t want it to come as a surprise. My dad spoke up and said you own this division and the logging division. You set the price of the logs. You are telling us you charge yourself too much for logs and now we are going to lose work? There was union talk of a mill wide strike if they did it and they ended up not laying anyone off.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly cannot tell if Lana Wachowski hates the Matrix or not. The movies and the production of them? Yes. The concept and story? No. > Did she honestly ruin it on purpose? Yes. I think she did.

What kind of person would take something of their own and ruin it like that? Tons of people loved the matrix, just let it be.

It was rumored that WB would have made another Matrix without Wachowski involvement if she had not agreed to it. Who knows how that would have turned out.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a way to make Matrix 4 that looks upon its own legacy and destroys that baggage, "kill your darlings" and all that, and even maybe many of the scenes filmed in this one could be present in that movie. But the film we saw in theaters is not the quality version of that meta-textual film, it is often very confusing with poor writing, execrable action scenes, and plot that is far less clever than its ambi…

I rewatched the original recently and that dialogue is not exactly a strong point either. Really devoid of subtly or even the barest hint of humor. A pretty unbelievable amount of exposition, telling rather than showing. I think I looked past it when it came out because I was a kid, and the world building was interesting to me.

The original had the capacity to convey awe, for its time. The first sequel felt like the franchise was treading into Star Wars prequel territory- the danger of a fantasy disappearing into the self-seriousness of its own contrived, convoluted lore. By the time of the second sequel all was lost, it became self-parody in many points with oblique pointless philosophical meanderings, even subplots that were brought up to be instantly dropped (just what was up with the "eyes of the Oracle" anyway?).

This third sequel is knowingly a self-parody, but imo its sins are a mix of the old (ponderous self-seriousness) and the new (unsubtle modern blockbuster cringe- "hey did you hear that everyone who served with him died?" "I was... shook."). This new one just feels lacking in the taste or sophistication of the previous ones.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#195
post #2

Uh huh. Sure. There's a reason they call it Hollywood Accounting[1]. Not that Warner Brothers is new to this game either: >A Warner Bros. receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper after grossing nearly $1 billion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Dumb question: how is Hollywood accounting not fraud? I know there have numerous civil court cases over differences of "opinion" over incentive compensation calculations, but has anyone actually gone to jail?

Hollywood accounting doesn't change whether there are profits, it changes who records the profits.

IP Holder the rights to a movie. Production Studio S to make the movie for a fee. Distributor D distributes the movie for a fee.

Most people think that Production Studio S is the company that records the profits from the movie, but they generally don't see anything beyond their costs associated with actually making the film. In the old days, Production Studio S also got saddled with all the costs associated with the movie, including distribution costs paid to the distributor; now this is usually only the case for independently financed movies. Naive talent and investors, or independent film investors, make their profit sharing agreements with Production Studio S.

IP Holder owns the rights to the movie, and generally is the one that records the profits to the movie. These days, this entity is rarely the same entity that made the movie, but for independent films, this entity is usually the same as the Production Studio S.

If Distributor owns IP Holder, they will usually put expenses into this entity instead of Production Studio S because...sophisticated talent and investors make their profit sharing agreements with IP Holder (and Production Studio S won't see much income, so that's a moot point). Distributor can suck out the profits by increasing the fee charged to IP Holder for distribution services, which includes marketing. IP Holder sees a lot of expenses, and it may take years (or over a decade) to record a profit, so the highest-tier talent and investors make gross point profit sharing agreements, meaning that their profit share is based on the movie's pre-expense earnings rather than on net (post-expense) earnings (but only the highest tier talent and investors get to do this, see e.g., Sandra Bullock and Gravity).

Note: when I was at a firm, my clients included both one of the big studios and a number of the smaller studios, so the above is a very simplified version of the accounting structuring.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#197
post #38

I don't understand how they do the math with streaming. In a way, you can say that everyone who is an HBO subscriber has already paid for the Matrix Resurrections. Obviously you don't have to watch it immediately, since it's now part of the streaming service catalogue, so unlike a movie theater where all people who intend to see the movie must watch it before it leaves the cinema, all HBO max subscriber can just thin…

Streaming services truly flip the "economic calculation problem" [0] on its head: the stakeholders would supposedly gain more reliable information on the value of different IP licenses if we all made purchases a la carte. As it is, they have little idea which program I'm hate-watching ironically, vs what's good enough to convince me to stay on the service (Midnight Mass), vs what I'd pay for exorbitantly out of pocket if I could (OA season 3).

Yet clearly market forces have spoken: the desirability and convenience of the "club goods" model is strong enough to overwhelm any advantages of the transaction model; and the streaming services clearly believe their usage data and analytics are good enough to give them reliable correlations with subscriber acquisition and retention, so they can decide what to license and produce. (While telemetry surely helps, it's worth noting that HBO made this model work for decades based solely on surveys and brand cachet.)

See also: https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-the-people-s-republic-...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#198
post #13

In comparison, Spiderman No Way Home is the 8th highest grossing film of all time. I haven't seen it yet, but some of my friends have said the two films are equally bad. It seems they both attempt to sell nostalgia, and one of them worked and one didn't

You ever have that one friend who's taste in movies is so bad that you know any recommendation from them is likely horrible and they also don't seem to like popular movies? You seem to have multiple of those.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#199
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Tenet lose money? That was a great movie.

One of the best and most well-written SciFi movies of late

^ Something that can only be said because the only competition is the latest set of horrific Star Wars movies.
Post reply on HN