Most active commenters
  • johnnyanmac(3)

←back to thread

Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

(about.netflix.com)
1741 points meetpateltech | 15 comments | 05 Dec 25 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.026s | source | bottom
Show context
phartenfeller ◴[05 Dec 25 12:50 UTC] No.46160586[source]▶
I don't like this. Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content. Will the same happen for Warner? Are cinemas now second behind streaming?

Edit: I agree Netflix has good Originals. But most are from the early days when they favored quality over quantity. It is sad to see that they reversed that. They have much funding power and should give it to great art that really sticks, has ambitions and something to tell, and values my time instead of mediocrity.

replies(25): >>46160635 #>>46160784 #>>46160871 #>>46160906 #>>46160908 #>>46160976 #>>46161181 #>>46161209 #>>46161250 #>>46161377 #>>46161427 #>>46162473 #>>46162523 #>>46163337 #>>46163476 #>>46163711 #>>46163898 #>>46163935 #>>46164335 #>>46165595 #>>46166712 #>>46166867 #>>46167745 #>>46174490 #>>46175508 #
dclowd9901 ◴[05 Dec 25 13:45 UTC] No.46161181[source]▶
They're starting to up their quality. Frankenstein and Death by Lightning were two standout successes recently.

That said, I'm more uncomfortable with the continued consolidation of media ownership and more outsize influence of FAANG tech over media.

replies(5): >>46161329 #>>46161621 #>>46161699 #>>46162385 #>>46162552 #
1. skeeter2020 ◴[05 Dec 25 13:56 UTC] No.46161329[source]▶
Netflix has always had one or three stand-out projects over a year, but is that what we want from studios? It is like the tech model: 1 big success for 10+ duds (the VC show) or another superhero installment (the Google/Meta cash cow movie).
replies(3): >>46161691 #>>46161826 #>>46163451 #
2. sbarre ◴[05 Dec 25 14:26 UTC] No.46161691[source]▶
You're describing TV and movies since forever.

Ever year there are a few good shows and movies and a lot of mid-to-bad shows and movies.

This is not a Netflix thing, nor is it new.

replies(1): >>46166152 #
3. nebula8804 ◴[05 Dec 25 14:35 UTC] No.46161826[source]▶
If WB was any good, would they have been snatched up by Netflix?

All these studios fought the good fight against big tech over many years but the writing was on the wall.

Hopefully a future Progressive presidency reviews all these mergers and breaks up big tech big time.

replies(3): >>46162190 #>>46163429 #>>46177228 #
4. Mindwipe ◴[05 Dec 25 15:03 UTC] No.46162190[source]▶
Honestly Warner would have been fine if they hadn't been saddled with the debt that AT&T used to buy them. It wasn't an issue of Warner's business performance.
replies(2): >>46163107 #>>46163317 #
5. truelson ◴[05 Dec 25 16:03 UTC] No.46163107{3}[source]▶
AT&T was able offload a bunch of debt on to them, and cash out at about what they paid in 2016. Not shabby.
replies(1): >>46177272 #
6. cap11235 ◴[05 Dec 25 16:15 UTC] No.46163317{3}[source]▶
At this point why would you consider WB as an entity at all. Thry were just another IP bundle
7. Arkhaine_kupo ◴[05 Dec 25 16:22 UTC] No.46163429[source]▶
> If WB was any good, would they have been snatched up by Netflix?

Yes because the situation of WB has nothing to do with their performance.

In 1990s they merged with TIME publishing right before the internet killed all magazines. In 2000s with AOL right before th dot com bubble. In 2010s with AT&T who realised they needed a shit ton of money to roll out 5G so they took a massive loan and charged it to Warner debt.

So WARNER keeps performing and the business side keeps adding debt from horrible decisions

replies(1): >>46164710 #
8. jimbokun ◴[05 Dec 25 16:24 UTC] No.46163451[source]▶
By the definition of "stand out" you can't have very many right?

If all of them "stand out" then none of them do.

9. kovezd ◴[05 Dec 25 17:50 UTC] No.46164710{3}[source]▶
Lol so this means Netflix/streaming is the next trend going down?
replies(1): >>46177238 #
10. HDThoreaun ◴[05 Dec 25 19:31 UTC] No.46166152[source]▶
Just not true with HBO. Most of their content is consistently pretty good
replies(1): >>46169107 #
11. triceratops ◴[06 Dec 25 00:11 UTC] No.46169107{3}[source]▶
HBO is expensive and most people don't have it. Ergo most people never see or hear about their lower quality content. Only the good stuff that their rich friends rave about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HBO_original_programmi...

I don't recognize half the titles on that page.

They also make less content overall. This makes sense because they are one TV channel and assume you can get your reality TV fix somewhere else.

Netflix wants to be the only thing you watch. So they have to serve all needs.

replies(1): >>46169155 #
12. HDThoreaun ◴[06 Dec 25 00:16 UTC] No.46169155{4}[source]▶
You not recognizing their shows doesnt mean they are bad. Ive seen most of those and the overwhelming majority are at least solid. I understand netflix's business model, Im just annoyed that theyre buying HBO because they will likely make it worse. Maybe netflix wants more prestige content and will let HBO be HBO but I doubt it.
13. johnnyanmac ◴[06 Dec 25 22:39 UTC] No.46177228[source]▶
Yea WB went downhill... Because the merger had the new CEO slash with reckless abandon. His only goal was to get the company nice and pretty to sell, not to turn it around with quality content.

And he succeeded.

>The writing is on the wall

That everyone will blow themselves up to get a big acquisition paycheck as these companies crash a century of collective culture? I guess so.

14. johnnyanmac ◴[06 Dec 25 22:40 UTC] No.46177238{4}[source]▶
Given the state of streaming and revenue... Well, shit. Can they not take down my childhood with it please?
15. johnnyanmac ◴[06 Dec 25 22:44 UTC] No.46177272{4}[source]▶
Its always Art that gets the shaft first when businesses implode. Shows the respect these people have for culture.