3 hours ago, Zerzar999 said:Well, it kinda is. Contracts aren't quite as set in stone as you might think. If any party in any part of any particular contract either tries to renegotiate or change or fails to live up to the terms of any part of that contract, any other party involved in the contract would be completely justified to try and terminate or adjust the terms of that contract. It's the same as anyone who takes a job and signs something like a non-compete clause or an NDA. All the contract says is that certain terms and standards confirm the negotiations and were agreed upon with signage and both sides are aware of the possible consequences or implications if they break that contract. It only helps in litigation, it's not a slam dunk. Not to say it wouldn't go to litigation, but any party can literally sue another party for literally anything, and while a contract will help, a victory is still decided by a judge or jury. To put it in simple terms, if a brick layer signs a non-compete or NDA in order to work at a company, there is no way, in the event that person leaves or gets fired, can he be expected to adhere to all the terms if it affects their ability to me a living. As long as they're not stealing property, intellectual or otherwise or forfeiting trade secrets, and that is very hard to prove, there is no court in the world (maybe California) that would keep a person from working in the field for which they were trained or experienced in. Someone like Kaley Cuoco, while not exactly an A-Lister yet is coming off and currently in some major successful projects and it would be completely understandable if she decided to not just stick around and wait for WB to drop a double or get off the throne if they aren't giving her the right amount of work or time they agreed upon. Right now she's at the top of her game and I'm betting she could probably be a central character in her own superhero project or action movie. I think she could actually knock it out of the park as the next live action Harley Quinn. If the cards aren't stacking up right she could easily bolt.
You'll forgive me for not following up "That's not how contracts work." with "She would need to prove that Warner Bros Discovery violated or failed to live up to its part of the deal they made, and we don't know precisely what the terms of her development contract are," so "easily" is a relative term, especially when dealing with a multibillion dollar company. Just how easily she could prove a hypothetical breach of contract in a hypothetical situation is entirely that: Hypothetical.And speaking of hypothetical, most of this past discussion today has been entirely that, and we've reached a point (passed it) of going back and forth on minutae related to things that haven't happened yet and that are only tangentially related to Batgirl. I know I'm the one who started this with some doomsaying last night, and I'm going to stop it for now, because I think this is veering a bit too off topic. Once we know more about the fates of HBO Max shows like Harley Quinn, Doom Patrol, Young Justice, and Peacemaker; CW shows like Stargirl and Superman and Lois; and upcoming DC movies like Blue Beetle and The Flash, I am certain that it will be reported on the front page and get discussion threads separate from this one.So let's refocus this thread on Batgirl instead of getting even further into the weeds with regards to other DC properties and actors that we really don't know anything about yet. It might be a bit difficult, because this article is as much about the greater strategy for DC at Warner Bros Discovery moving forward as it is about how Batgirl didn't fit into that strategy, but let's see how it shakes out for now.https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/warner-bros-discovery-streaming-strategy-in-focus-for-q2-earnings.htmlEdit: Since we shouldn't really have the same discussion in two places, I'm going to lock this thread, which is probably for the best, since it was going off the rails.The discussion thread for DC's future under Warner Bros. Discovery can be found here:
4 hours ago, Monstrous said:and just because she signed a 3 year deal, she can easily pull her production company from their projects if shes unhappy, which they definitely dont want.
3 hours ago, Satam said:That's not how contracts work.
Well, it kinda is. Contracts aren't quite as set in stone as you might think. If any party in any part of any particular contract either tries to renegotiate or change or fails to live up to the terms of any part of that contract, any other party involved in the contract would be completely justified to try and terminate or adjust the terms of that contract. It's the same as anyone who takes a job and signs something like a non-compete clause or an NDA. All the contract says is that certain terms and standards confirm the negotiations and were agreed upon with signage and both sides are aware of the possible consequences or implications if they break that contract. It only helps in litigation, it's not a slam dunk. Not to say it wouldn't go to litigation, but any party can literally sue another party for literally anything, and while a contract will help, a victory is still decided by a judge or jury. To put it in simple terms, if a brick layer signs a non-compete or NDA in order to work at a company, there is no way, in the event that person leaves or gets fired, can he be expected to adhere to all the terms if it affects their ability to me a living. As long as they're not stealing property, intellectual or otherwise or forfeiting trade secrets, and that is very hard to prove, there is no court in the world (maybe California) that would keep a person from working in the field for which they were trained or experienced in. Someone like Kaley Cuoco, while not exactly an A-Lister yet is coming off and currently in some major successful projects and it would be completely understandable if she decided to not just stick around and wait for WB to drop a double or get off the throne if they aren't giving her the right amount of work or time they agreed upon. Right now she's at the top of her game and I'm betting she could probably be a central character in her own superhero project or action movie. I think she could actually knock it out of the park as the next live action Harley Quinn. If the cards aren't stacking up right she could easily bolt.
42 minutes ago, Monstrous said:just because she signed a 3 year deal, she can easily pull her production company from their projects if shes unhappy, which they definitely dont want.
That's not how contracts work.
42 minutes ago, Monstrous said:they can also just air it on regular hbo like im sure they'll do with GOT.
This would be the smart move, but so far, no one has accused Zaslav of being smart.
42 minutes ago, Monstrous said:or sell the rights to air their programming to another network. tnt already airs some hbo max stuff
TNT is owned by WB Discovery. Also ask an ex TNT or TBS employee how they feel about this merger.
42 minutes ago, Monstrous said:u think disney, paramount, peacock, or amc wont throw millions of dollars at wb to get the streaming rights to their entire library?
They very well might, but that doesn't mean WB Discovery would sell it to them - especially the rights to make new seasons of existing shows. DC is practically synonymous with WB, WB is still planning on producing blockbuster DC movies, and it would make no sense to let NBC, Disney, Paramount, or even AMC produce, let alone show things like Harley Quinn, Young Justice, Titans, etc for almost any amount of money if Zaslav has it in his head that he's going to "protect the brand."
42 minutes ago, Monstrous said:if he actually wants to move away from original scripted programming then there wouldnt be any streaming service offered by them. all discovery plus has is original programming. its also the only way to get subscribers.
Discovery Plus has documentaries and reality shows, not original scripted content, which refers to dramas and comedies and stuff. So far, that's been a very successful formula for them, and by all accounts, that's all Zaslav has faith in, as far as streaming goes.
8 minutes ago, Satam said:There's absolutely a way they cancel it. Popularity doesn't always matter in situations like this. Corporate mergers are mostly ego-driven. If a new CEO wants to change things and undo the work and goals of his predecessors, he's not going to let much stand in the way. It's all rumors and speculation right now, but insider sources say that David Zaslav wants to fold HBO Max into Discovery Plus and move away from original scripted programming for streaming, despite HBO Max having the highest customer satisfaction ratings among all streaming services. There are reports that they're firing 70% of HBO Max staff and slashing scripted content development. That's not the kind of thing that bodes well for future seasons of even successful streaming shows. Harley Quinn hasn't been renewed for a fourth season, and it is far from a sure thing. Plus Kaley Cuoco has already signed a three-year contract (but not for Harley). Even if she's unhappy with the new direction of things, even if they cancel one of her current projects, she's likely stuck with WB Discovery.
they could easily move it over to discovery plus along with all their other shows. and just because she signed a 3 year deal, she can easily pull her production company from their projects if shes unhappy, which they definitely dont want. they can also just air it on regular hbo like im sure they'll do with GOT. or sell the rights to air their programming to another network. tnt already airs some hbo max stuff, could be very lucrative to sell to another streaming platform, it worked out very good for wwe when they did it. that could even be the plan. u think disney, paramount, peacock, or amc wont throw millions of dollars at wb to get the streaming rights to their entire library?
and customer satisfaction means absolutely nothing to them. u can have the worst customer satisfaction and still be extremely successful, just look at walmart lol. they clearly dont want 2 seperate streaming services for one company, theyll merge all content into one, give it a new name and go from there. if he actually wants to move away from original scripted programming then there wouldnt be any streaming service offered by them. all discovery plus has is original programming. its also the only way to get subscribers.
44 minutes ago, Monstrous said:no i was saying her being the main character and a producer and the fact that she does a ton of other successful things for them means as long as she wants to keep doing the show they'll let her. its an extremely popular show based on one of their most popular characters, if the new season remains successful theres no way they cancel the show.c
It doesn't mean that, and there's absolutely a way they cancel it. Popularity doesn't always matter in situations like this. Corporate mergers are mostly ego-driven. If a new CEO wants to change things and undo the work and goals of his predecessors, he's not going to let much stand in the way. It's all rumors and speculation right now, but insider sources say that David Zaslav wants to fold HBO Max into Discovery Plus and move away from original scripted programming for streaming. There are reports that they're firing 70% of HBO Max staff and slashing scripted content development. That's not the kind of thing that bodes well for future seasons of even successful streaming shows. Harley Quinn hasn't been renewed for a fourth season, and it is far from a sure thing. Plus Kaley Cuoco has already signed a three-year contract (but not for Harley). Even if she's unhappy with the new direction of things, even if they cancel one of her current projects, she's likely stuck with WB Discovery.
32 minutes ago, Satam said:Did she make a statement about this whole situation, because I can't find one. Got a source?She recently made a three-year deal to develop content for WB, including HBO Max, but that doesn't necessarily prevent her new bosses from axing Harley Quinn once the third season ends.
no i was saying her being the main character and a producer and the fact that she does a ton of other successful things for them means as long as she wants to keep doing the show they'll let her. its an extremely popular show based on one of their most popular characters, if the new season remains successful theres no way they cancel the show.
23 hours ago, Monstrous said:see they dont have to have a cohesive unified universe tho. it works for marvel cause thats how marvel is anyway. 90% of the characters are based in new york, theyre gonna know each other and run into each other and the movies gel because of it. dc characters are very spread out and tend to occupy their own little worlds. look at the actual successful dc movies. reeves batman, aquaman, shazam. those work because they stay in their own world and dont try to stray outside of the characters and setting. thats the formula that works for dc. anything a justice league movie tries to do would just be an avengers clone and it wouldnt work. they have the titans show and whats left of the arrowverse for cohesive worlds.
But that tried...and a common refrane from fandom was "how come the Arrow dude isn't in JL" or "why are there 2 different Flashes?" DC tried to use the multiverse as its mcguffin but it just came off cheesy and rather last minute. WB/DC just never knew what they wanted to be/do. Batman went from "not being around" to dead, to whatever depending on the show. This looks like they are just erasing the entire chalk board.
10 hours ago, Monstrous said:harley is safe too. kaley cuoco ensures that.
Did she make a statement about this whole situation, because I can't find one. Got a source?She recently made a three-year deal to develop content for WB, including HBO Max, but that doesn't necessarily prevent her new bosses from axing Harley Quinn once the third season ends.
4 hours ago, Zerzar999 said:I think the sources actually said that money is already spent, that the movie was actually already set to release in 2020, pre-plague. Also, I think it was estimated the cost was more like 90-100 million. How bad does a show have to be for them to be willing to take that big and loss and not even give it a shot on a streaming service? They say promoting and advertising for most theatric movies roughly equal the price they spent on the movie itself. I find that hard to believe, but those aren't my statistics, so I suppose they were actually able to keep from spending another 70 million there. I'm guessing the show was so bad they thought it might do irreparable damage to a character, or characters they might have plans for in future projects. In that case it was probably a good, if not great, call.
I just wish someone at Marvel had the stones to make tough, yet necessary, calls like this.
I forget where I read it (I want to say Dealine, but it might have been THR), but apparently test audience scores for Batgirl were in the same range as scores for the 2017 It movie, and it only tested once. This has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with changing a corporate strategy, and it happens with mergers all the time. Whether it's going to prove a smart strategy or not, Warner Bros Discovery apparently only wants big DC movies, and Batgirl wasn't deemed big enough for theaters. David Zaslav, the new president and CEO also seems to hate the previous regime's strategy of making movies specifically for HBO Max, so he killed Batgirl before it was finished, along with a Scoob! sequel, and decided it would be better to write off the losses.
On 8/3/2022 at 3:18 AM, Outsiders said:Sounds to me that the WB didn't want to spend $70 million on a movie that will only be hitting a streaming service and not the theaters. I don't blame them...
I think the sources actually said that money is already spent, that the movie was actually already set to release in 2020, pre-plague. Also, I think it was estimated the cost was more like 90-100 million. How bad does a show have to be for them to be willing to take that big and loss and not even give it a shot on a streaming service? They say promoting and advertising for most theatric movies roughly equal the price they spent on the movie itself. I find that hard to believe, but those aren't my statistics, so I suppose they were actually able to keep from spending another 70 million there. I'm guessing the show was so bad they thought it might do irreparable damage to a character, or characters they might have plans for in future projects. In that case it was probably a good, if not great, call.
I just wish someone at Marvel had the stones to make tough, yet necessary, calls like this.
6 hours ago, Satam said:We're likely going to lose Doom Patrol, Harley Quinn, Young Justice, and Stargirl because David Zaslav seems to only want DC movies - big movies with big name stars to be specific. James Gunn tweeted that Peacemaker season 2 is safe, but I'm sure it's only because WB Discovery knows that if they canned it, he wouldn't make a followup to The Suicide Squad for them.
I dunno, I'm betting Stargirl and the new Superman shows are pretty safe, for now anyway. They're still pretty good and pretty well received, but then again so were Supergirl and Flash for the first couple of seasons. There's still time to steer it away from the metaphorical ditch.
