Live data from Hacker News

Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

tedium.co

151–160 of 485 posts

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indie film makers release a lot of their work on youtube.

There hasn't really been a Blair Witch Project movie happening on Youtube yet...

The best example I can think of is already mentioned up-thread, but just to drill down on that. Kung Fury[1] was initially released on Youtube (and a few other services, mostly in other countries I think) and became a pretty big viral hit. Enough so that the filmmaker eventually signed a deal to make a sequel[2] with distribution by a traditional film company and some big-name stars. Unfortunately the release of the sequel has been held up for "legal reasons" and FSM only knows when or if it will see the light of day. :-(

Anyway, not as big as BWP, but still a decent example of the concept under discussion, I think.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury_2

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#152
post #140

Since those are mostly old movies, my immediate thought was: "maybe it's a new creative way to create a new income stream for hard-to-sell-otherwise assets?". If a decent enough number of users watch them, it could bring some cash to the publisher, couldn't it?

That's my thinking too. In fact, I was in a mood to watch OG film noirs, but between 3 streaming services, the only movie available was Sunset Blvd. Also failed to find any of the 1950s sci-fi movies I went looking for.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only 2 companies that made money during the “streaming wars” were Netflix, which had the infrastructure in place already and didn’t need to build anything from scratch, and Sony, which decided not to build any streaming service and just license all its content out. Seems WBD is following the lead of a winner. * https://www.yahoo.com/tech/sony-succeeded-becoming-powerful-...

Is it really following the lead of a winner if you started by building your own failing streaming service, then buying another streaming service and merging them, and only then starting to license out content?

Warner Bros didn't buy out Discovery, other way around really. In return for taking on loads of debt, Discovery got ownership of WB.

HBO Max was an incredibly lean org, around 200-300 engineers at launch, 1/10th the size of its competitors but we launched a similar scaled service (tens of millions of domestic users, followed up by international launches one after another).

IMHO once COVID ended and HBO Max just became a streaming destination instead of having movies "launched" on it, they'd be just fine in terms of profit (and indeed iirc the successor Max service is profitable). First releasing big block busters doesn't drive enough user growth to pay for the movie, but if you have an existing content pipeline then having a streaming service as another delivery platform becomes reasonable.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#154
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that bandwidth is by far the biggest cost for running your own streaming service, so letting Google take that hit makes a lot of sense.

Ah, FAST services as referenced by the parent are an entire genre of streaming services that might have slipped under the radar for most Hacker News readers.[1] They’d be off my radar too since I’m not interested in them per se, but for Jason Snell’s excellent Downstream[2] podcast (earlier episodes co-hosted by Julia Alexander) covering basically the business of Hollywood with an emphasis on streaming services and r…

With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway.

We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years.

And if you include short form content and slop, it'll be more content per second than entire years.

When faced with infinite content, people will reach for content currently popular in the zeitgeist or content that addresses niche interests. Hollywood never made Steampunk Vampire Hunters of Ganymede, but in the future there will be creators filling every void. There won't be much reason to revisit old catalogues that don't cater to modern audiences unless it's to satisfy curiosity or watch one of the shining diamonds in the rough.

There will be a few legacy titles that endure (Friends, Star Wars), but most of it will be washed away in a sea of infinite attention sinks.

We're about to hit post-scarcity, infinite attention satisfiability. We've already looked over the inflection point, so it doesn't take much imagination to reason what's next.

---

Edit: copying my buried comments from below to expand on this.

---

I have direct experience with this field.

I've written, directed, and acted in independent films. I've worked on everything from three person crews all the way up to 200 person shots. Even mocap and virtual production.

We're now developing film and VFX tools for individual artists, and the world is full of artists. It's been starved for films, however. The studio production system only had so much annual capacity per year, and most creators never get the opportunity to helm a project of their own.

You're not crying over the accessibility of digital art, digital music, indie games, or writing.

Film production and distribution has been bottlenecked at the studio level for far too long due to capital, logistics, and (previously) distribution barriers. That's all changing now.

Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing.

I have friends in IATSE (film crew union) and AI is going to hurt their work. The nature of work changes, and new opportunities arise. But what's hurting them right now is that film productions are being offshored to Europe and Asia to break up their unions and bank on cheaper local labor. Production in Atlanta is one sixth of what it was just a few years ago.

I also have friends who write and direct that are looking at this as their big chance to build their own audience.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#155
Check out Peroscope films.

They take public domain footage, mostly us government stuff, and release it and claim copyright over it.

I took some of their public domain footage and put it on YouTube and they freaked out.

Through logic and reason I was able to get them to admit they have no copyright right, as they were initially claiming.

But they did have the YouTube terms of service.

So, back to this.

If they had public domain stuff they wanted to protect, this is another less obvious way to do it.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#156
post #29

Honestly maybe just because they can? They have these relatively obscure movies that aren't really worth much so why not throw them on youtube and give them the best possible chance of being watched. I think it's a great move honestly, I know a tv show from the UK that's been doing the same, hopefully more shows/movies will do it as well.

[deleted]

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#157
post #34

Free money? It's probably zero effort to upload them to YouTube. People watch them. YouTube generates ad revenue and pays out Warner Brothers. They probably choose the movies nobody wants to pay for any more on VoD/DVD and nobody views on paid streaming services.

I wonder if any of them will make back the amount of dollars the intern was paid to upload them.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#159
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, FAST services as referenced by the parent are an entire genre of streaming services that might have slipped under the radar for most Hacker News readers.[1] They’d be off my radar too since I’m not interested in them per se, but for Jason Snell’s excellent Downstream[2] podcast (earlier episodes co-hosted by Julia Alexander) covering basically the business of Hollywood with an emphasis on streaming services and r…

With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway. We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years. And if you include short form content and slop, it'll be more content per second than entire years. When faced with infinite content, people will reach for content currently popular in the zeitgeist or content that addresses niche interests. Holly…

Yeah, just like how the Odyssey became worthless when people started writing things down, the bible fell into obsolescence with the printing press, and Ulysses was usurped by the internet.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#160
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube serving content with ads would be more AVOD (on-demand with ads) vs FAST. FAST typically means a linear feed programmed to play specific content at specific time just like tuning into a channel on OTA or cable networks.

That's how it started, as far as I know, but these services now offer lots of content on-demand as well.

if it is on-demand, then it is AVOD. A company that started as FAST might have pivoted or decided to release the content they used to program their FAST channel as AVOD as well.

I've personally been involved in doing this very thing, but just look at the apps for like Max where they have their linear channel offerings within the same UI as their VOD. While Max isn't ad supported, it's a similar concept.

Post reply on HN