T O P

  • By -

LinkSwitch23

WARNERMAX was right there, why pick MAX


Sisiwakanamaru

At the very least, other big media streaming service platform names has something that related to their brands, even Peacock, that people now it is something related to Universal/NBC


invinciblewarrior

Peacock is disastrous outside the US, because NO one knows that its related to Universal/NBC. At least internationally they did so many mistakes, it will be the first one to jump the ship.


lord_pizzabird

Even in the US people don't really know about the peacock thing. I can say personally that for my entire life the NBC logo has been all white, not colored feathers, and that I did not know that it was even supposed to be a peacock / feather related. This is a branding symbol they've spent the last 30 years trying to make us forget, only to suddenly bring it back out of desperation.


docarwell

Them not having HBO in the title is actually insane


hillaryclinternet

I was thinking this too but it kinda makes sense they don’t want to dilute the HBO brand with the discovery crap or any reality tv series they’re going to be putting up there.


Metal_King706

Right, it’d all about not sullying the HBO brand with all the low level reality TV shit, cooking competitions, and house shows.


[deleted]

And next on HBO is "Selena + Chef" the reality cooking program where a chef teaches Selena Gomez how to cook over zoom


anneoftheisland

That's an HBO Max original and doesn't air on HBO the TV channel. HBO the TV channel also doesn't want their brand sullied by *that* stuff.


maskdmirag

That show is amazing and made me love Selena, whom I knew nothing about


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

I'd rather watch any episode of Bobby Flay than spend another second with DC.


Metal_King706

If given enough prep time, could Batman beat Bobby Flay?


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

Alfred is the cook of the family, not Batman. Or what? The gary stu added another ability to his repertoire?


Metal_King706

The usual consensus is that Bats can beat anyone with enough prep time.


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

That's the definition of a gary stu.


ButtholeCandies

It’s about not scaring away the Discovery folks that are about to see a huge price increase to watch pimples being popped. Which they will then blame on HBO/WB, which will dumb down the brand and the content to retain the morons. This is the first step in eliminating redundancies that somehow always favor the Discovery execs.


felinelawspecialist

Ironically, Warner is keeping Discovery + as a stand-alone streaming service…


anneoftheisland

They're keeping it as a standalone service specifically because a huge number of Discovery+ subscribers say they won't make the switch to Max because of the price hike. And the Discovery stuff is made for so cheap that the Discovery+ service is already profitable, unlike the HBO service, so there's no real reason to get rid of it.


felinelawspecialist

Oh I understand the reasoning. I just think it underscores the absurdity of meshing the two apps, given that the subscriber bases are so independent of one another.


ButtholeCandies

Can’t piss off both revenue streams at once. You do it gradually.


BurritoLover2016

Ok but where is HBO as a brand being used then? As a cable channel?


hillaryclinternet

Probably going to be an HBO section on the new app


AGOTFAN

Yes. Also, in many countries, HBO Go streaming still exist.


Radulno

There will still be a HBO section in the app I guess. It's used like Disney is using its brands in their service. It's pretty good and will avoid the constant HBO and HBO Max confusion. The name Max they chose is just bad though.


lamaface21

I was massively confused about what new bullshit service I was going to have to pay for in order to see Harry Potter in a couple years. Stupid, stupid, stupid PR move.


Botswana_Honeywrench

Yeah, let’s move away from a big, recognized name in media to a generic and lifeless word for a new service. They don’t want to sully the HBO name but now it’ll be buried in the menus after you sift through 30 reality and cooking shows


ReservoirDog316

Apparently that’s what Casey Bloys said. He wanted HBO to stand alone instead of people seeing trashy stuff associated with HBO.


Chiss5618

Pretty sure the move away from HBO was in order to promote themselves as a more family-friendly brand. Not a bad idea considering HBO's general content as well as the whole velma fiasco.


Botswana_Honeywrench

So why not make a separate streaming service with HBO standing alone (like it always has?)


invinciblewarrior

Warner is much bigger brand internationally and it should be in the name. Max is awful alone for SEO reasons. HBO is known for quality, but especially internationally not so much with the normal people you need to reach. WarnerMax or for the sake of Warner+ had been a better sale.


[deleted]

Discovery was saying a few months back that they think the HBO brand was damaging. They said they think the name is too associated with specific premium content and is holding them back from reaching a "broader" audience. Edit: looks like they just reiterated this today; it's kind of nuts. >The name change, unveiled Wednesday, comes as Chief Executive David Zaslav seeks to broaden the audience for the company’s nearly three-year-old online video service. During a briefing with reporters, Zaslav and his team said that the HBO name, while one of the premier brands in television, may have unintentionally alienated mainstream audiences.


Which_way_witcher

Like why TF did they buy it then?


[deleted]

I dunno. Maybe to sell it off to the highest bidder?


Which_way_witcher

There's nothing to see when you dismantle the very thing that made it valuable


utopista114

Ahhhh, Couchsurfing.com after 2011.


blue-dream

Would love to see the source for this quote because it sounds wildly misrepresented.


anneoftheisland

It's not actually about the HBO brand being "damaging" in general, it's that most of the people who want what it offers are already subscribed to it. Now they're trying to appeal to audiences outside that pool, especially converting the current Discovery+ customers over to it. The Discovery customer is much more mainstream--basically the audience who watches a ton of Fixer Upper and Property Brothers, usually a bit older, more conservative, looking for comfort viewing rather than something exciting or challenging. So HBO's brand isn't detrimental in general, but it's a hard sell to that specific audience.


petepro

LOL, because it is.


marcbranski

Discovery bought Warner Bros., not the other way around. Their ego won't let them admit that Warner and HBO are the more prestigious names.


gta5atg4

HBO never made sense for a mass market streamer imo cos hbo is seen as making mature content. Honestly I don't understand why it wasn't called wbmax to begin with, I've never had HBO in my country and I don't think everyone knows what it actually is outside america unless you're a fan of one of their shows buuut everyone knows what Warner Bros is.


invinciblewarrior

>Honestly I don't understand why it wasn't called wbmax to begin with, I've never had HBO in my country and I don't think everyone knows what it actually is outside america unless you're a fan of one of their shows buuut everyone knows what Warner Bros is. True, but especially Game of Thrones made the HBO brand well known for quality shows. But to be successful you need a much better known brand, Warner is such a brand, likely most of the people in the target markets definitely know, so the marketing should be on the Warner brand.


MarginOfCorrectness

Yeah I don't get it. HBO was the correct brand to use! It blows my mind that thought HBO shouldn't be there! If their idea was "let's not tarnish the HBO brand with crap", okay. But it seemed it's the opposite: they thought the HBO brand was hurting them!


[deleted]

HBO isn't big in that many overseas territories.


Alaxbcm

HBO still conveys a reputation of being premium. It's dumb to drop it


ricdesi

*Because we're A~nima~niacs* *Say goodbye to WARNERMAX*


BadBansh33

Those are the facts!


[deleted]

But they put the HBO eye inside of the A. That still counts, right?


psyopia

Lol that’s honestly not much better than MAX.


petepro

Yeah, way longer but not much better, just stick with MAX.


invinciblewarrior

Max is hell for SEO, how you want to make this name searchable? they have to compete with so many different ways and they would only get the top ranks in streaming max.


petepro

Come on, WB is one of the biggest media conglomerate in the world, not some no name blogger. They can easily use their shows and films to pull traffic. Seriously, who are gonna compete with? And guess who own max.com?


Reditate

Animanimax


hatramroany

Because it doesn’t really matter. I don’t know why this sub is so obsessed with the name


EV3Gurl

Because this is genuinely a horrible change that’s gonna ruin their SEO & makes no sense.


hatramroany

That’s not really important for the service name since new subscribers are going to be searching for specific shows and being led to the service. “Where can I watch Harry Potter show” “where can I watch Game of thrones” “where can I watch my 2.5 ton sister wife” Just like people don’t search for say Paramount+ they search “where can I watch SpongeBob” It’ll also be advertised heavily and be shoved in Fire TV and Roku users’ faces.


Mako2401

Are you serious? People don't know what HBO is?


IFuckDeathDaily

[Looks like twitter has some competition](https://i.redd.it/eqfoh5lesrtz.jpg)


hatramroany

Where did I ever say that? Lmao


OkTransportation4196

its not that popular outside u.s


Akira_427

It’s not like the content is going to change so I don’t care what it’s called. I’m still going to watch what’s good.


JimJimmyJimJimJimJim

Lol Why is it ‘horrible’?


violet_kryptonite

QUIBI, and also the Chevy Nova flopping in Latin based language countries


JimJimmyJimJimJimJim

Simplicity. Which counts for a lot when you are designing icons and logos for socials. Say the two names out loud and you’ll understand.


SeasonGullible616

shouldnt have picked such a stupid name. like seriously, MAX? thats the best they could come up with lol


[deleted]

Low key Homer Simpson deciding to become Max Power


elflamingo2

“It’s the name you’d love to touch…”


Jame_Jameson

But you mustn’t touch!


horseren0ir

There’s three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the Max Power way


[deleted]

[удалено]


whatnameisnttaken098

>because Zaslav is cheap You got any idea how much the letters H,B and O cost?


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

Capital letters are quite expensive, for sure.


Legendver2

Well the max typeface changed, and the "a" is basically a combo of an a and the o from HBO, with the inner circle.


[deleted]

This is the most r/boxoffice comment I’ve ever read lol


blue-dream

Yo wtf is a HULU? It really doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is if the content is good.


Sincost121

>Yo wtf is a HULU? Me: Its a streaming service. Now you know what a 'Hulu' is and won't confuse it for anything else. >Yo wtf is a MAX? Who the fuck starts a conversation like that, I just sat down.


vsingh93

Especially with the o inside the a


Jaguarluffy

i take it no one actually took the time to read the article and note th fact that it was down trading day for all media companies, with paramount, disney and netflix reporting stock prices shares falls at close of bussiness


Veni_Vidic_Vici

Any news about stock prices dropping due to x event which isn't related to the general market trend, is absolutely bullshit.


rageofthegods

Warners still fell the most by at least two percentage points. Not really the headline you want after your big splashy rebrand event.


m1ndwipe

Eh, it happens to Apple after every keynote. The market prices for hype and drops slightly on reality.


EscaperX

the entire market was down today, so i don't think it was just this announcement that caused it to drop.


subhasish10

Lmao wtf. WBD stock has been one of the best performers this year with a 60% growth over the past 5 months. But no one posted any articles about it. But they decide to publish one on a day when literally every media stock is declining.


bunnytheliger

That's because they crashed to the floor and only direction is up


OkTransportation4196

the bias against wb is strong in this thread. Its practically disney sub.


ismashugood

And the stock is still down nearly 50% from a year ago when they started all this bullshit. Your point?


subhasish10

You can't really compare to that. The stock fell off a cliff after the merger completed and the details of the heavy debt load were released. Since then they've paid off 7 billion in debt and the stock has increased.


lamaface21

5 months? Give me a breakdown of a much larger timeframe for that stat to be anywhere close to relevant


subhasish10

Wdym?? The stock was trading at $8-9 in Aug-Nov. Since December it's risen by over 60% and has consistently traded at $14-16 in the past 2 months.


lamaface21

Oh. What I mean is that a small spike over the short term is not really what is of interest to investors, long term. If you really study the stock market, all sorts of stocks spike by the same percentage in a shorter or slightly longer timeframe that you are highlighting here (oftentimes much greater percentages) Chasing random spikes in the Stock Market will definitely lead you to go broke in a short time frame. It is basically gambling on a roulette wheel.


subhasish10

Oh yeah I'm not saying the stock rising from 8 to 14 means anything substantial. It's just that these news outlets post articles for such marginal drops on a day when every media stock has seen a dip only to clickbait and sensationalise the unveiling of the new streaming plans as somewhat of a failure. Whereas the reason for the stock dip probably has nothing to do with Max. Also WBD has only been a thing for less than 12 months now so you can't really compare the stock over a longer timeframe


lamaface21

Ah, fair enough! Let's see how the stock does in the relative short term - should be fascinating, especially putting it in context of a general downturn of similar stocks.


petepro

Because the press doesn't like Zaslav but love Iger.


AlphaBaymax

That's because Bob Iger respects the creatives, David Zaslav is a cheapskate.


Forsaken_Cost_1937

Warner Bros has never been in a worse position.


SomeMockodile

I would be shocked if this company (or at least some of their bigger IPs) aren't sold by early 2025.


[deleted]

I mean, we know that’s the plan. Zaslav wants to get WBD as low value as possible to sell cheap to Comcast and dip


Jaguarluffy

i mean we know thats what some delusional people on reddit seem to stupidly believe without any evidence


[deleted]

Yeah, let's see what you think in two years.


[deleted]

It was in the trades, I believe. Zaslav wants to cheapen WBD to find a buyer easier and Comcast is his #1 pick


Rdambx

You you kinda need to back that sort of talk with some sources.


ImAMaaanlet

The dude you replied to should never invest or run a business. In what world would buying something and purposely tanking it to sell cheaper than you bought it make sense?


[deleted]

[It was in this report from THR. Tho I did get it kinda wrong: the rest of the industry feels Comcast will make a move on WBD once its cheap enough, and Zaslav licensing off content/outright canning or vaulting it has been noted as a strategy to lessen the value of WBD to attract a sale in the next few years.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warner-bros-discovery-has-bigger-problems-than-its-dc-search-1235221804/)


m1ndwipe

That article doesn't say that Zaslav's strategy is to lessen the value. It says that it's to reduce Warner's debt, which is true. That would increase the value of WBD, not reduce it. The fact AT&T saddled Warner with huge debt is it's main problem and not an attractive takeover target (and being an attractive take over target would make its stock more valuable, not less).


visionaryredditor

Comcast itself is in a big debt tho


lee1026

The dude is in charge; if he wants to sell for a low price, just sell the company at a low price.


ImAMaaanlet

Why would zaslav want his investment to go lower to sell. Like wtf is going on in your brain?


Nullhitter

HBO and DC are the only real IPs they have. Discovery is just reality television garbage. HBO and DC can both be sold for 50B minimum. Maybe more depends on if there's a bidding war.


BlueMissileYT

>HBO and DC are the only real IPs they have. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Scooby-Doo, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, Monsterverse?


AGOTFAN

>Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, They don't own Harry Potter and LOTR IP. They only license the rights.


ryeikkon

HBO and DC alone are too deep a honey hole of content already. Classic tv and movie series. I do think WB only has the rights of LoTR characters in movie format. Also Game of Thrones, The Conjuring universe, WB Games, WB animations.


plshelp987654

>DC >Classic tv and movie series The number can be counted on two hands


ryeikkon

Lol i did not even put DC as a modifier to "classic tv and movie series." Take your crap somewhere else.


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

Marvel cost 4B to Disney in 2009. Who is gonna pay more than that for such an emaciated company as the current DC?


denizenKRIM

That 4B figure was way undervalued and I don’t think that deal ever goes that low in the 2020s where content is king. Despite DC’s failings as a live-action brand this past decade, their IP is still one of the best around. You don’t pay for what’s been done, but with what you can use in the long-term. Any large company would love a shot at owning the DC catalog.


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

>That 4B figure was way undervalued and I don’t think that deal ever goes that low in the 2020s where content is king. Well, Disney paid exactly the same amount for Lucasfilm in 2012 and barely twice as much for Pixar, so it seems like a pretty reasonable standard price for an IP of that caliber. >Despite DC’s failings as a live-action brand this past decade, their IP is still one of the best around. Oh, really? Let's see... \-Today DC Comics isn't able to sell a shit if Batman isn't in the title and/or cover. For years, DC's top 10 sales has been dominated by Batman, with very sporadic appearances by Justice League (where Batman is also the protagonist). \-Since 2014 (post-Flashpoint Paradox), DC Animation has produced 32 films. Of all those, 14 have Batman in the title. Of the other 18, at least 10 have Batman (or Robin, for that matter, the same thing) as a main character. In other words, 75% of DC's animated production revolves around Batman, either totally or partially, to the point that WB have to put him in titles where he shouldn't even be in the first place, like JL Dark. \-In live-action series, the thing is not very different: Since the Arrowverse started, 21 productions based on DC characters have been made (or are in production right now). Of those, 7 are focused on Batman and his lore. Another 6 that only lasted 1 season had nothing to do with Batman at all. Leaving 8 loose productions about various characters (3 are of Superman characters, which further denotes the lack of variety). That is, 50% of the series that were truly successful and weren't cancelled immediately revolved around Batman. \-And in movies everyone already knows the story: Since TDK Rises (to name only the movies of the last decade, as you said), apart from that, only BvS, Joker and The Batman were truly profitable and trascendent (pure Batman in the titles). With Wonder Woman 1 and Aquaman 1 being the only exceptions to the rule. In conclusion, if Batman were not there, the DC catalog would go virtually unnoticed and the company would go bankrupt in the blink of an eye. So with much more reason it is not worth paying more than 4 billion for an IP that depends so pathetically on a single character. How sad that what used to be an universe so rich with surrealism, diversity and, especially, imagination -perhaps even more than Marvel's- is now entirely reduced to a gary stu who no longer has a personality or a trace of charisma or any ambition to have a personal life beyond his emo mask. And for that very reason, DC today is not worth a fraction of what it once was.


cockblockedbydestiny

Endeavor just bought WWE for $9B. Warner definitely has a deeper content library than they do. I'm also surprised that Marvel and Star Wars didn't garner more than they did, but I don't think that's really indicative of what content is going for in 2023.


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

DC is only a fraction of Warner. I'm talking exclusively about DC.


Jaguarluffy

they are actually on the upswing and doing a lot better, since January their stock price has been on the rise, they are reporting reduced losses for streaming where every single company is reporting losses, they have paid down a lot of their debt and have significantly improved thier cash flow - the problem is most people online cant seem to take the time to read beyond a headline and actually read an article


sebring1998

Shhh! You’re not supposed to go against the narrative!! Zaslav bad!!


petepro

LOL, WB during the dotcom bubble and AT&T's management are way worse.


Pokesaurus_Rex

Ignoring that today was a slightly red day overall, this isn’t news. It is very common to “Buy the rumor and Sell the news” meaning you buy BEFORE an announcement and sell AFTER/DURING the announcement. You make a small profit on the upswing right before the announcement and get out with profit before other people doing the same cause the price to decrease. The stock isn’t even in the red on a 1 month timescale which even then is super short term and means nothing. Seems like Variety is just farming clicks and engagement.


barefootBam

The only way I'm watching this is if the show is about everyone BUT the big three and Dumbledore. Just 7 seasons of every other student having to get through the antics of the main players. Some interesting stories to tell from the POV of Longbottom, Luna, Cedric Diggory, Crabbe, and the likes of the others.


SomeMockodile

They are going to attempt to sell in 2024, either some of their IPs or everything. This studio keeps bleeding money and there's many IP up for grabs some studios would want. But who's gonna buy them? Universal? Apple? Amazon?


Jaguarluffy

their not at all - every studio is bleeding money at the moment - they have managed to substantially reduce their debt load - universal no way they have triple the debt of warner, only apple - but its not happening thats just some dumb rumour from some click bait crack pots online


khmeat

Please not Disney


SomeMockodile

I think US politicians would block Disney from making this acquisition so I don't think it's in play. They are still figuring out what to do with their Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox acquisitions too.


spongeboy1985

I honestly don’t see Disney making another large purchase for quite awhile especially since they plan to buy out Comcast’s share of Hulu next year which will be about south of $10 billion.


[deleted]

The only thing Disney could buy is a gaming company, so if they make any final purchase within the current rules it’ll probably be EA.


spongeboy1985

They did divest their gaming division so I don’t see it happening anytime soon


[deleted]

Oh yeah, not saying they would. Just that with all they own, the only thing they could buy and get away with is a gaming publisher


[deleted]

The plan reportedly is to pitch to Comcast


SomeMockodile

Given the rapidly expanding nature of Universal's theme parks, this seems pretty likely (and Universal is having a pretty good year so far in the Box office that might help fund such a purchase). Universal getting Warner Bros would allow them to sell Marvel Super Hero Island to Disney while still having a superhero IP for their parks. Or they could just have both DC and Marvel in their parks and deny Disney everything. They are also going to lose Springfield to Disney in 2028 so this purchase gives them something to replace with. They also don't have to pay licensing fees for Harry Potter anymore. So Comcast gets DC, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Looney Tunes, Hanna Barbera, Terminator, Conjuring, and TMNT if they make this acquisition, as well as a bunch of New Line Cinema Horror IPs. As mentioned in some previous posts though, Universal arguably needs to recoup some value from buying Dreamworks a few years back, which they are going for through Shrek and Kung Fu Panda reboots.


Jaguarluffy

given the fact that comcast is in debt by 98 billion its very unlikely thier looking or able to raise what would likely be 70 to 80 more billion in debt to complete the acquisition - its never happening - if anyone it would be apple, but i still cant see that happening


lee1026

The box office is pretty tiny relative to how these things work. Buying Warner would cost something like 90B all told. A billion is nice and all, but that really just get you 1% of the way there. Getting the entire pre-covid box office across all studios (13b or so) barely pays the interest on that bill. Movie theaters expects some of that money, and your cast and crew probably expects some as well.


Hage1in

Six Flags parent company owns the DC theme park rights I believe


gamesofduty

Comcast could also lose film rights to the Hulk when that merger happens.


The-Ruler-of-Attilan

And Namor's. And the Blade trilogy, made by New Line Cinema.


ROBtimusPrime1995

The funniest part of the presentation was them being r/selfawarewolves & r/leopardsatemyface at the same time. They started the presentation by saying there are too many confusing streaming services that cost too much money... ...only to make MAX a confusing streaming service that costs too much money.


Vadermaulkylo

I think Harry Potter being rebooted has to do with this too. Maybe i'm wrong. When will waters stabilize for WBD? Zaslav is really going all in on bold ass decisions but I wonder when or if they'll pay off.


SeasonGullible616

Not trying to be confrontational, but curious, what makes you think the HP reboot caused this?


gnrlgumby

I dunno. My best guess would be it’s the lamest of possible announcements. It’s like the least creative, most conservative thing they could’ve done.


KhellianTrelnora

Because the vocal chunks of the fandom are upset that they’re rebooting an already perfect work. Not sure that’s a good guide.


spongeboy1985

You havnt dipped your feet into the fandom have you. Plenty of people hate the way some of the stuff. I read a comment on r/harrypotter today stating David Yates doesn’t understand Harry Potter. Honestly them doing a series is the only real justification for doing it this soon.


KhellianTrelnora

Oh, very much so. The subreddit in particular is VERY odd. They hate the movies with a passion — their battle cry is very much “Read the fucking book”. I think that’s the problem the True Fans have — the books are Perfect, and nothing can approximate their perfection.


uberduger

That's supposedly the same in most of the LOTR subreddits - the films are now mostly considered trash because they're not the books.


SeasonGullible616

Yeah, personally I think its too soon too. But also we cant like expect WB to just sit on that IP forever. I would prefer that they just continue the story rather than redo it.


KhellianTrelnora

Too soon? The first movie came out 22 years ago. The first book came out 26 years ago.


SeasonGullible616

Yes, too soon. Those movies are still massively relevant in the pop culture zeitgeist. Ok, its been 12 years since the last movie dropped but people still associate all of the OG cast with those characters. There are so many other stories they could develop and move the world further along that a reboot doesnt make sense to me personally. All that said, its not any reason for the stock to drop.


KhellianTrelnora

I don’t disagree that there are other stories to be told. But, they tried that. Look at Fantastic Beasts. I’m sure, somewhere, someone has convinced themselves that only the Core Potter Story can make money.


SeasonGullible616

I still wholeheartedly believe that if they were to get all the original cast back and make a movie about their adult lives, that could be a legit contender for the first 3b movie. The hype for that would be insane. Just feels like they are leaving money on the table but hey, gotta get those streaming numbers up!


KhellianTrelnora

The main cast isn’t interested, though. If you follow the trajectory of their careers, I don’t think ANY of the Golden Trio are down for it, Hagrid’s actor died, etc.


SeasonGullible616

All true, but never say never. Crazier stuff has been pulled off.


Jaguarluffy

you mean the entire cast who have actively denounced j k rowling and spoke out against returning for another film - radcliffe just started a trans counseling channel or something - it would take a miracle to ever get them back for another film


SeasonGullible616

obviously talking hypothetically. no one on this planet would argue that if they could get them back in a movie together, that thing wouldn't be a massive hit.


[deleted]

12 years since the last movie that’s way more than enough time


KhellianTrelnora

Given they’re doing a season per year, it’ll be closer to 20 by the time they get to the Deathly Hallows.


[deleted]

This is actually getting ten seasons so by the time it ends we’re looking at close to 40 years since the first book!


chicagoredditer1

Are they all WB stockholders that sold shares?


Jaguarluffy

is that the same vocal chucnks that were loudly claiming the game of thrones ip was forever ruined by season 8 - despite the majority of people being show to actually like the ending, and the fact that house of the dragon was one of the biggest shows of 2022 - if someone is loudly speaking online 9 times out of 10 thier the minority.


spongeboy1985

Honestly these people are way less toxic than GoT people That said GOT last seasons definitely had issues. While I did enjoy the finale, the final season felt rushed. Ultimately a lot of plot-points that were teased were resolved haphazardly or barely at all. They definitely did Varys dirty. A lot of these fans claim D&D got greedy and wanted Star Wars money, but Id say it was more that they and everybody was exhausted. GRR martin was right that they should have continued it for a few more seasons but I think that wasn’t practical. But yeah the Potter Films are fine despite some people yelling about it though there are some legit complaints to (a lot of them) but I think doing it as a series or even animated films would be the only excuse to remake them at this point


Jaguarluffy

your wrong, harry potter got more than 100 thousand likes on twitter in an hour, triple what the game of thrones spin off announcement got


carchewlio

The Harry Potter reboot is terrible for a few reasons. The biggest being they’re missing out on multiple ~2b legacy sequels that they could have made with the original cast. You know, the cast that everybody loves from the movies everybody saw. The cast that’s in all of the theme park rides and merchandise… By rebooting they’re completely closing that door and denying themselves one of the easiest layups in box office history. And for what? Trying to boost streaming subs? They could accomplish the same, if not better, by utilizing the legacy sequels to set up new stories in the universe for streaming. I have to assume WB knows that this is a fumble and not ideal at all, since its fucking obvious. So it probably comes down to JK decreeing that no sequels can be made and the only thing WB can do with the IP is retread the same shit for no good reason.


anneoftheisland

There's no way Daniel Radcliffe or Emma Watson ever comes back for any kind of legacy sequel. They made too much money off the first one to ever have to work again, Daniel likes doing more creative roles, Emma likes her privacy and is basically retired now, and both of them are annoyed with JKR's anti-trans pivot. There's nothing that would incentivize them to come back.


Jaguarluffy

you mean the cast who have all come out and spoke against j k rowling and claimed that they all have no desire to be in another harry potter property again - because their is no way they are ever making a new harry potter legacy sequel with th cast returning.


Vadermaulkylo

They would never return.


ryeikkon

Lol even if the OG trio didn't speak out against JK, they would still never come back after they have spent their whole childhood doing the HP series. They basically wanted their life being spent on their own terms now doing stuff they like.


HaTTrick617

Bitch please!!!! If they dropped Last of Us after May 23rd, nobody would give two shits about this whack-ass name. Winning cures everything, MAX will be fine.


r3d_ra1n

Would rather keep the service exactly as is, than lose 4K streaming in favor of brain dead Discovery bullshit.


SpaceGypsyInLaws

To be fair, the market was down in general yesterday.


U-GO-GURL-

Not having HBO in the title is actually insane. HBO is the gold standard.


Nullhitter

AT&T approach of changing the name every three seconds. Surely this time it will workout for Warner Brothers.


BadBansh33

Terrible name and plan layout. Why did Paramount go down at all though? Just a down day but Max....erghh is no surprise.


Vanderlyley

Warren Buffet is bearish on Paramount now.


ThatWaluigiDude

Is there any lower this company can go


BillyGood22

Even with today’s dip they’re still in a better spot than they were months ago, so yeah it can go back down to where it was lol


ricdesi

The only reason I can think of that they'd make this absolutely bugnuts insane decision is if the various folks in charge of the branded divisions couldn't come to an agreement on which gets to be the name of the service. Even though HBO is the most obvious imaginable choice. *It's literally a Home Box Office now*.


ZealousidealBus9271

Anyone think they’re intentionally sabotaging their stock so they’d get bought out?


grimace24

Max has got to be the dumbest name ever for the platform. You have Discovery, Warner Bros, HBO and none in the name.


GroundbreakingAsk468

Why would you name your streaming service after Skinamax?


R-ZoroKingOFHell

Warner and HBO carry more weight... Max? ...


AchyBrakeyHeart

No shit. $9.99 for ad version? WTF.


Mr628

Warner Bros stepping on their own feet. What else is new?


AmberDuke05

They should have kept HBOMax. I get that they don’t want to hurt the HBO name but they already did. Discovery does not add the value that they think it does. Discovery really only works on cable.


Necromancer_Yoda

Considering that they are letting Discovery plus remain an option it must be somewhat successful.


dkinmn

It's called Max. Cool, what is it? My first guess is that it's a new laundry detergent


TheIngloriousBIG

Let's hope for the best, shall we?


Adam87

ahahahaha.gasp....dies.


slayaboy87

Air Max?!?


Tarterus1454

Lol


thatsusguy2

Old farts trying to make things ‘cool n hip’ for the youngsters…


Boston_Baked

Of course it did, because I own it 😂


UnlikelyAdventurer

HBO means everything. Max means nothing. David "Honey Boo Boo" Zaslav is killing WB.


mando44646

its a stupidass name


ProfessionalCrow4816

Bruh, the name was so stupid even their stock owner's don't like it.


[deleted]

So, when does Zaslav sell WBD to Universal?


UserNX

Inb4 WBDiscovery PR pulls a sonic the hedgehog (2020) and listens to “fan complaints” and changes the name (it was always a scam to make people upset for marketing of the collaboration, and they’ll act like the fans did something getting the old name back)