Still not quite convinced that the adjective should be applied to the website itself in a quite loose use of the word.
Warner Bros anachronistically keeps this website online would be a simple fix; here used to reference and to point out that maintaining an untouched 1996 promotional site at it's original location is not typical for the lifecycle of a website, usually the publisher would rather redirect clicks to some current offer.
Othwerwise there is no anachronism here with the website itself, just it's location under the original URL and not in some archive only.
The website itself fulfilled its purpose for promoting the movie when it was released and simply continues to exist.
You wouldn’t call posters, magazines, or other artifacts from the ’90s anachronistic just for still existing.
Being retrievable doesn’t make something outdated by itself.
“Anachronistic” would apply only if a new promotional site were created today to look like this—though that would more likely be called “retro.”
Or if the movie industry insisted on using CSS-free table layouts for all its promotional websites, similar to other norms or laws that feel anachronistic because they no longer match current needs.
Sadly the whole piece reads like it was written 80%+ by an LLM too, seriously why all the emojis?
But apparently this is where content is heading in general.