Lots of movie adaptations (like comic ones) don’t adapt the source story even close to 1:1. Most video game adaptations don’t do this. Mario bros, sonic, Pokémon, Halo, resident evil, assassins creed are their own thing but use events and characters to create their story.

The only medium then tends to get close to 1:1 adaptations are books.

They are simply two different approaches to adapting.

Crave has garbage quality encodes too

HBO has historically been a channel that most people primairily get to watch movies commercial-free on cable/satelite and probably still is. HBO shows are critically acclaimed but you aren't seeing massive viewership via linear in the past two decades apart from a handful of shows, especially in recent years with streaming. Most of the viewership is happening on streaming nowadays for the people interested in the shows. The Last of Us only had around ~1M viewers on linear whereas had millions more viewers on streaming.

So to answer your question what's happening 6-8PM is that they are showing movies. Movies that are likely the primary reason why a lot of people are subscribing to and using the linear channel.

Because MGM+ is a seperate business that they bought and they are leaving it as is. Just because they own both doens't mean they have to merge both. In the same way if I owned a gym and a yoga studio I'm not going to force everyone to only use gym membership to access both when not everyone wants the gym membership. And if it doesn't help the gym business enough, I'm not going to make the costs of my gym business even higher by adding additional costs to it.

They aren't taking advantge of lack of knowledge because them owning both means nothing. It's a business decision if they want to merge products.

From your article:

The company's revenue for the quarter rose 1.8% to $7.85 billion from $7.71 billion last year.

But they did increase revenue YOY. The article is a prediction from days ago and they announced things today.

From their letter, $462M of earnings was something to do with weak US dollar and debt owed in euros.

I don’t think that’s what OP is saying since he said “…now feel like” then references two shows that came out this month.

It’s arguably not true either way they have stuff like the crown, queens gambit. Mind hunter, house of cards, etc. that are more of the slow burn serious or artsy fartsy style.

Netflix is a general purpose streamer aiming to appeal to as many people as possible. They can make shows only in the style of OG HBO if they wanted to but not everyone is into those style of shows in the same way not everyone is into the kinds of books your English teacher wants you to read. If Netflix was a for-profit library do you expect them to only carry books like 1984 and the great gatsby or would you expect self help books, young adult novels & romance books too?

Commercials for the actual seasons and show. When you bought stuff from amazon they would ship cardboard boxes with ads for the boys printed on them instead of their regular packaging.

In regards to late night interviews and YouTube shows just doing quick searches you can find a handful of them. Even with characters from season 1 who were barely in the show. For magazines EW has them on the cover for season 3 which akes sense that they would do later seasons because the property wasn't big enough for them to preemptively feature them before release.

The reality is unless you spend a fuck ton on marketing you aren't going to reach every person ever in the world. Especailly nowadays with ad-blocking, less people watching linear TV and if you don't leave the house.

Even if they target an ad towards you becaue they think you like comic book shows. There's a chance some alogirtmh won't show you the ad because it won't think you'll click or finish the ad.

The boys definately had mainstream advertising. They had forced commercials, they had billboards, they have the boys branded packaging when you ordered products from Amazon telling you to watch the show.

Amazon in general? At least in Canada, Amazon advertises the most, they show amazon TV show ads at the theater, they show them on TV and on YouTube and other sites. They come on Amazon packages. They show up in banners. They buy the homescreen placements slots on Android TV.

I mean if you think they have that attitude hat could be partly why they aren't getting more roles.

The part about he audition in my post was about their old roles that they were praised for being in. They weren't really that sought after before that. It was about how they were likely good for the roles and exceled at it but to my overwall point just because they were great at that role doesn't mean there's a bunch of roles out there that make people go this guy would be perfect for this role.

Just because they did great at those roles does not mean they'll be great at every other role. These guys likely auditions and it was decided they were perfect for those roles which is why it resonates so much with you but does it mean that they are gonng to be good at every role available? No. Are these actors the TV equivalent of "bankable stars", I don't see any reason to think so.

This is what I hate about news that spreads on TikTok. The trash sites are featured in videos with often misleading, inaccurate & super sensationalized headlines; and because nobody reads the actual articles what spreads is a lot of misinformation & in turn sometimes creates drama. variety is generally pretty careful when they are reporting on something that’s not an exclusive.

They’ve always wanted social media. They’ve always kind of had a toe in it too with MSN/WL they’ve acquired other social networking sites and tried to others other than Tik tok. Spent a lot of money to own a small part of Facebook. My guess is that they like the prospects of additional subscription and ads based businesses that they can converge. Maybe also because of the scale of social media companies has led to a lot of tech innovation.

Microsoft had a TV division for a brief period of time. The current CEO shut it down shortly after he joined. Netflix is super expensive to buy. But they also at the same time they don’t like their money sitting in the bank.

Worth noting that pretty much everyone plans on increasing yearly total content spend in dollars, albeit a smaller increase than what. was previously planned for some.

Streaming is profitable. Netflix been profitable for a long time. Disney has always said they plan to be not profitable until 2024 and they’ve been exceeding their own performance targets in the mean time. HBO Max, paramount+ and other have simply been poorly managed and are so at risk at reaching their profitability goals. There’s nothing inherently unsustainable or unprofitable about the business.

Simply having a bunch of money isn’t going to make you successful. All the dead or mediocre performing products and services from Microsoft, Google, and Amazon over the years are great examples of that. Yes they have a lot of money but it’s silly to think they are going to spend most of that money on one business unit. If these companies want to over pay for sports it doesn’t really hurt the people not over paying for them. Streaming isn’t a zero sum game and not everyone is a sports fan.

Most big companies in general are doing layoffs nowadays.

But they don’t want or care for this type of content. If they weren’t making it for amazon they probably wouldn’t be making it at all. HBO max is not just bleeding money they can’t even get eligible users to use the service they bad churn, technical problems and struggling to get new hit shows. They growth is extremely slow, companies usually burn money for hyper growth.

The reasons to make a streaming service is to make money eventually and not simply be in the business of making content for other people who may or may not buy their stuff. The service was arguably poorly managed. They burnt a bunch of money and don’t have a lot to show for it.they even burnt bridges. You can justify losing the money if you don’t have problems gaining, retaining and enticing customers. But even still this strategy during these economic times is no longer favourable as it was maybe a year ago.

HBO Max is simply not interested much in animation as part of their new strategy. But the higher ups aren’t going to prevent some of their subsidiaries from doing business because one subsidy doesn’t want to do it. Maybe Disney blocks this today, I don’t know if that’s a real rule but they’ve been willing to make stuff for other distributors in the past. Unless there’s strong reason to believe you shouldn’t make it at all if you aren’t going to make it for yourself regardless of the money because you maybe believe it would hurt the overall company indirectly. Then maybe. But at face value it’s a lot more money than doing nothing.

That’s just what people assumed would happen but it doesn’t make sense to not make content for other people willing to pay if they don’t plan on making it for themselves. And for other content contrary to popular belief Warner* can’t just put stuff on HBO Max for free it cost money and the business is bleeding it.

That’s nothing new they’ve always made content for anyone willing to pay for it. It’s either they don’t make it at all for themselves or anyone or they make it for other people.

And it’s not being “cheap”. The company has more debt than it’s worth to buy and it loses hundreds of millions of dollars every 3 months. In the last 6 they’ve lost $1.1 Billion.

I don't see what's unlogical about it. They will likely make more money licensing it out and take a lot less risk. Even before the merger many DC animated shows didn't last very long. Now you are going to have someone who is not your sister company footing the bill and ordering a shit to of shows, it's great money for them and very low risk versus keep trying themselves with their own moeny to see what works.

When this happens usually the show isn’t done to release it all at once. And to reduce the gap between seasons and to also maintain some level of binge watching they release two batches. It’s done as a middle ground because else you’d just be waiting longer for full season while they finish up the later eps or you’d have an arguably more annoying weekly model.

There was a seperate article about this a month or so back. I'm guessing the statistic are just skewed because new shows only air in a certain block of time like (something like 2 hours a day) N/7 days of the week. The vast majoirty of what is shown on the CW are reality shows outside of that block of time. If those out perform the given scripted original programming of the CW, then it very plausible the average age is that high.

michaeljaminwriter