zlacker

>>meetpa+(OP)
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.

>>pharte+n4
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.

>>dclowd+Yd
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).

>>skeete+mg
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.

>>nebula+no
> 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