Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

wegotthiscovered.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 323 posts

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

#141

Post by samsin »

LegitShady wrote: post #107
Latty wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting box office sales while ignoring the fact this was released simultaneously for streaming really doesn't tell the full story.

Do they suddenly make more money streaming? Do you have any evidence people joined a streaming platform to watch it? This thing bombed everywhere. People with existing subscriptions watching it doesn't make it any. More profitable to Warner Bros

I'm not sure the specific licensing agreement between HBO and Warner Bros, but it's likely they agreed upon a flat fee with additional $ per viewer. I don't think these deals would ever hinge solely on how many new subscribers joined the platform specifically to view that movie, which would be difficult to prove anyway.

From HBO's perspective, they also benefit from having a 'blockbuster' in their catalogue since it signals to potential subscribers that they're a platform you can expect to view high-budget movies.

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

#143

Post by 908B64B197 »

matwood wrote: post #32
samspenc wrote: post #9

Doesn't HBO Max streaming somewhat counteract the losses in the theater? When HBO & Warner Bros decided to release all their movies on big screen and streaming at the same time for 2021 (only), part of it was a play to increase their streaming app subscription base? I know that we got a family subscription to HBO Max for exactly this as the main reason. I would be interested in understanding how the increased revenue…

Exactly. Box office numbers are going to become less and less important over time. Except for the few big special effect movies, most movies will move to streaming. Another wrinkle is the movie format itself is under attack. Dune for example should have been a weekly series. There just isn't enough time to do it right in a movie.

> Dune for example should have been a weekly series

The movie is a trailer for the books.

It's as good as it could ever be, considering it was in the making for 40 years [0].

[0] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/dune...

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

#144

Post by jevoten »

trissylegs wrote: post #113
titzer wrote: post #61

I saw it twice. I honestly cannot tell if Lana Wachowski hates the Matrix or not. There was this meta montage of "oh we have to make a sequel to the Matrix because the suits wanted it, everybody pile on stupid crap", which was obviously a middle finger to...someone. I laughed out loud at how over the top that blatant F-U was...but given that the movie proceeded to then actually crap on every single thing that was awe…

I think the F-U might have been to the Redpill movement. For taking an allegory for Estrogen and turning into some misogynist hate movement. Or it could just be these tweets: https://twitter.com/lilly_wachowski/status/12621047544963399...

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?

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

#145

Post by jevoten »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #51

I'll just throw out but I felt I was actually watching 3 different movies stacked one on top of another the first was some sort of meta-comedy about bad sequels and reboots then it went into some sort of shaky cam action film then it turned into some sort of zombie film. Having watched it I still don't think I could really explain it to someone else.

They'd have to see it for themself?

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

#146

Post by TylerE »

newsbinator wrote: post #134
pessimizer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wikipedia says the film cost $190m, which seems reasonable for a film like this And you can add half of that again for the marketing budget.

It seems like it wasn't marketed very much: I didn't realize it was in production, about to be released, or... released. I just happened to see it online ready to watch one day and watched 2/3rds of it before giving up.

That's actually a pretty low marketing budget.

General practice amongst the box office geeks is to assume marketing is EQUAL to the production budget for a big blockbuster.

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

#147

Post by Apocryphon »

js2 wrote: post #108
fallingmeat wrote: post #27

Resurrections was like someone saying, “Hey remember that awesome movie we made in the 90’s? Yeah that was so great…” Axiom: You can only see The Matrix for the first time, once.

I saw Dark City first, so I wasn't able to see The Matrix for the first time even once. :-)

It's no The Thirteenth Floor

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

#148

Post by trepanne »

pengaru wrote: post #111
trepanne wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or take an intermediate position on buy vs build, and _marry_ a CPA. I've regretted it a few times, but on balance I'd recommend it.

> ...or take an intermediate position on buy vs build, and _marry_ a CPA. I've regretted it a few times, but on balance I'd recommend it. Has the marriage concluded in divorce/death yet? Otherwise I'm not sure how much weight should be placed in that recommendation ;)

Are there generally accepted marriage principles??

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

#149

Post by mason55 »

samsin wrote: post #141
LegitShady wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they suddenly make more money streaming? Do you have any evidence people joined a streaming platform to watch it? This thing bombed everywhere. People with existing subscriptions watching it doesn't make it any. More profitable to Warner Bros

I'm not sure the specific licensing agreement between HBO and Warner Bros, but it's likely they agreed upon a flat fee with additional $ per viewer. I don't think these deals would ever hinge solely on how many new subscribers joined the platform specifically to view that movie, which would be difficult to prove anyway. From HBO's perspective, they also benefit from having a 'blockbuster' in their catalogue since it…

HBO is owned by Warner

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

#150

Post by mbreese »

PostOnce wrote: post #139
LegitShady wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they suddenly make more money streaming? Do you have any evidence people joined a streaming platform to watch it? This thing bombed everywhere. People with existing subscriptions watching it doesn't make it any. More profitable to Warner Bros

More money isn't just new subscriptions, it's also revenue from existing subscriptions (which can be cancelled any time). By this logic, platforms will never need new content ever in order to keep existing subscribers happy. It's not just new subscriptions, it's also retention: do people stay subscribed to platform X because movies like The Matrix Resurrections are on the platform? It'd be rather hard to measure for…

I watched the movie via HBO Max. I’m sure that on one set of calculations (HBO), a good chunk of my monthly fee is assigned to the Matrix Resurrections account. But on another set of calculations (Warner Bros), I’m a negative because I would have likely gone to see it in a theater.

Nevermind that they are the same company.

Post reply on HN