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

Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

about.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#751

Post by bigbuppo »

jmkd wrote: post #76

This deal is an indicator of huge changes in global film & TV production. Hollywood's struggles amplified after the writer's strike with a perfect storm of issues around unionisation, technology, fragmenting audiences, new formats, asset liabilities and enormous competition to the east. Now LA soundstages are empty while production centres in Europe, UK, India, China, Nigeria are booming and vast new studios cropping…

Remember when a company that started out making car bumpers bought Paramount? Those were wild times.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#752

Post by hephaes7us »

meowface wrote: post #281
afavour wrote: post #182

Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers. But at least it wasn’t bought by Larry Ellison, as was considered very likely (assuming this merger gets approved, in the current administration you never know). From a Hacker News perspective, I wonder what this means for engineers working on HBO Max. Netflix says they’re keeping the company separate but surely you’d be looking to move them to Netflix…

Maybe there are licensing restrictions or other things that prevent it, but wouldn't it make more sense to combine HBO Max and Netflix into a single app? Or at least make all HBO Max content also available in Netflix (and then eventually sunset HBO Max). That would make a Netflix subscription a much more compelling purchase for a ton of people.

I'd rather not even have to sift through all the stuff on Netflix to get to the stuff from HBO.

And I definitely don't want to pay double for one big catalog.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#753

Post by mrandish »

The most realistic acquirers were Paramount/Skydance or Netflix. Paramount/Skydance is a relatively new-ish entity with David Ellison (Larry's son) as CEO. The general sense in Hollywood is Paramount/Skydance will do little high-brow, art house or awards-fodder films but they will at least distribute films primarily to theaters (they promised to release at least 14 Warner films per year to theaters if their bid was accepted).

Netflix is mostly uninterested in theatrical distribution so the main practical impact of this most of us see day to day may be less theatrical release movies and probably fewer higher budget films being made at all.

Caveats include that the deal has to actually get regulatory approval in the U.S. and EU and survive potential (inevitable?) shareholder lawsuits. Netflix's offer reportedly involved less cash and more debt. Paramount/Skydance argued regulatory approval and the heavy debt made Netflix's offer less attractive than their own despite Netflix's higher top-line price.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#755

Post by Forgeties79 »

s0rce wrote: post #750
Forgeties79 wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One only has to look at the word of mouth reputation of Plex these days to know what's going on. I'd say more of my circle knows about it than doesn't, and a solid 15% run one or use someone else's, including my non-techie friends. Shoutout to Jellyfin it's great, but it is not nearly as turnkey, so Plex is clearly the dominant player for folks hosting their own media.

I found Jellyfin was super easy but I came from XBMC/Kodi which was a big struggle.

I think what trips people up with jellyfin is making sure they aren’t exposing their network. Getting it to work at home is one thing, getting it to work outside your home is a different beast

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#756

Post by renegade-otter »

nonethewiser wrote: post #315
afavour wrote: post #182

Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers. But at least it wasn’t bought by Larry Ellison, as was considered very likely (assuming this merger gets approved, in the current administration you never know). From a Hacker News perspective, I wonder what this means for engineers working on HBO Max. Netflix says they’re keeping the company separate but surely you’d be looking to move them to Netflix…

> Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers This is a very common narrative to this news. But coming into this news, I think the most common narrative against streaming was essentially "There is not enough consolidation." People were happy when Netflix was the streaming service, but then everyone pulled their content and have their own (Disney, Paramount, etc.)

Netflix was the STREAMING platform - it was not really making content until the House of Cards went supernova.

This is true consolidation and monopolization - regardless of the "narrative" in whichever news you happen to consume.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#757

Post by hephaes7us »

philipallstar wrote: post #486
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just have one subscription at a time and then pirate the rest of it. They all had their chance. They blew it.

> They all had their chance. They blew it. This is so silly. It's like saying "Sweet manufacturers all had the chance to sell the same sweets, and they blew it. So I just nick most sweets." Just say "I don't like paying for things and can get away with this, and my ethics only work in public or when I'm forced to obey them." And then we're done.

Sweets have a cost, and constitute a straightforward loss to someone if stolen. Digital copies of a file are clearly different.

There's plenty of valid arguments against piracy, but equating it to zero-sum material theft is not one of the strong ones.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#758

Post by vel0city »

alt227 wrote: post #506
vel0city wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality is that cable was a paid premium service, unlike broadcast TV, which was free and littered with ads. The reality is, most cable channels had ads from day one. Less ads than most broadcast stations (which made up most of the channels you had on cable at the start anyways) but still a lot of the first cable-only channels had ads from the start. WTBS had ads on cable in 1976. MSG/USA had ads on cable start…

I dont think I have ever seen a completely ad free cable channel?

They do (did?) exist. Nickelodeon was originally a completely ad-free channel. HBO and Cinemax also didn't have ads.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#759

Post by twirlip »

LarsDu88 wrote: post #748

Reminder that Superman enters public domain in 2034, Batman in 2035, and Wonder Woman on 2037.

1938 Superman didn't fly; he jumped. And he was named Kal-L. But he was also a lot more of a social justice warrior. His chest emblem was different, too. But yeah, I expect good things.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#760

Post by standardUser »

jmkd wrote: post #76

This deal is an indicator of huge changes in global film & TV production. Hollywood's struggles amplified after the writer's strike with a perfect storm of issues around unionisation, technology, fragmenting audiences, new formats, asset liabilities and enormous competition to the east. Now LA soundstages are empty while production centres in Europe, UK, India, China, Nigeria are booming and vast new studios cropping…

Even NYC is having a soundstage boom. It's not just about cutting costs, it's also about being free to go where the talent and resources are, instead of being chained to LA.
Post reply on HN