What’s Happening With Warner Bros?

While Warner Bros is a powerhouse of creative talent, it doesn’t have the best history of business decisions. After all, Time Warner’s (Warner Bros’ parent company in 2000) merger with AOL has often been dubbed “the worst merger in history”. Bad practices have also been in constant discussion since the merger of Warner Media and Discovery in 2022. 

Warner Bros. Discovery shelved big brand movies for tax write-offs. Their streaming service, HBO Max, saw constant rebranding. The DCEU had an inconsistent critical and box office reception. There have been lay-offs after lay-offs and more. But even after all that, the studio still had $29 billion in debt at the end of 2025.

The company then announced it was splitting into two, one company focusing on the major studio properties (Warner Bros, HBO, DC Studios, etc.), the other focusing on TV networks the company controls (CNN, Discovery, TNT Sports, etc.). However, this was put on hold by recent events.

Warner Bros. Discovery Buyout

On December 5th 2025, Netflix announced it would buy Warner Bros movie and streaming arms for an equity value of around $72 billion. Then, on December 9th, Paramount Skydance announced a hostile bid for the whole of Warner Bros. Discovery. This deal was valued at around $108.4 billion but was rejected. 

From there, several other offers were made, and US senators and industry workers scrutinised the effects the deal could have on the industry.

Eventually, Netflix backed out. Warner’s shareholders approved a deal with Paramount in April, which had an equitable value of around $81 billion. The deal is currently being scrutinised in the US, UK and EU.

Consequences For Media

It is impossible to cover everything that will come from a deal this big. Promises have been made about keeping theatrical releases in place, and 30 cinematic releases are promised per year. However, media industry consolidation is inherently negative. 

It means job losses as two studios pool resources. There will be less story diversity as voices will be tightened to fit one company’s vision. This also means fewer diverse choices for the public, but this isn’t restricted to the types of stories told.

Apparently, this merger will give Paramount control of 40% of the “most-watched acquired series on streaming”. If the company is committed to third-party distribution, as they say, how much will they ask for to screen such valuable intellectual property? Prior big mergers also tell us that huge consolidated studios release fewer projects. Meaning less art for customers to enjoy, along with less business for cinemas, as big studio releases bring in big audiences, and fewer jobs for creatives. Meaning an uncertain future for workers in job markets like the UK. 

Additionally, while saving measures may be introduced to entice people to its streaming platforms, Paramount’s market control will enable it to raise prices on viewers when possible.

Consequences For Politics

This doesn’t even address the danger of having a larger portion of the industry concentrated in the hands of owners so willing to intervene in politics. Since last year’s Paramount Skydance merger, Paramount-controlled news networks like CBS have seen efforts to nix stories critical of the Trump administration (Paramount CEO David Ellison is a Trump supporter). Ellison has also reportedly expressed support for Israel despite its genocidal onslaught, and the deal has links to several governments linked to human rights abuses, including the UAE, which has been accused of supporting genocide in Sudan. This could lead to less accurate reporting and even less accountability for serious crimes.

Conclusion

With the big five studios falling to four, concentrating Hollywood power into even smaller hands, executives using these companies to advance their own financial or political agenda, while workers and cinemas will be further strained, and less customer choice is offered, this deal would be awful for the media industry. Many workers and government figures are currently protesting this merger. Whether it works or not, we will have to wait and see.

The post Warner Bros Discovery Merger Explained: What the Paramount Deal Means for Hollywood appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In this article, we will examine what his administration has done to roll back protections for marginalised people. We will also unpack what these actions could mean for the entertainment industry and its workers.

Eroding Work Protections

In January, Trump signed three executive orders. These orders mainly focused on rolling back Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programmes. Along with affirmative action and protections for trans people. High, Jordan and Ostrager note that though the orders were aimed mainly at federal agencies, they instruct agencies to make “reports identifying…private sector companies with the most ‘egregious and discriminatory’ DEI programs.” Along with “potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations and large non-profits.” Meaning they will have wide-reaching effects.

What This Means

These orders are meant to send the message that measures being taken to protect and cultivate better working environments for marginalised people and address systemic hiring biases that often disadvantages people who are marginalised because of, “their race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin,” will be vilified by the Trump administration. Companies that voice inclusive policies even face potential legal action. Meaning this is being done to create an intimidating environment for marginalised people. Crucially, although these orders frame themselves as anti-discriminatory, the ACLU says these orders “weaponize civil rights laws’ to reverse decades of progress for women, people of color and for all communities.”

Company-implemented programmes around diversity measures have been criticised for how businesses often use them to whitewash their image over taking concrete steps to address company discrimination. However, they still help many marginalised people. These orders aim to destroy even these small protections that make businesses consider their hiring practices, employees’ talents and well-being.

How Companies Are Responding

Big media companies like Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount, Disney and Amazon have already changed their policies significantly. Amazon excluded a section from a 2024 report that indicated the company was focused on “diversity and inclusion in hiring”. They also said they are “winding down outdated programs and material,” relating to DEI initiatives. Disney is changing its Disney+ content warnings, shifting its “talent strategy” to centre on business outcomes over fostering diversity and inclusion, and closing a website celebrating the contributions of underrepresented voices at the company. Paramount has rolled back its targets to attract more diverse employees and has removed website content speaking to DEI initiatives. WBD are also changing their language to revolve around “inclusion”. In addition, it is making its application process “uniform and consistent”.

Many of these companies are trying to make it clear that they still value diverse perspectives and inclusive environments. That said, these measures, coupled with Amazon creating content around the Trump family and WBD having reportedly had similar suggestions made, Paramount’s potential merger on the way, and Disney pulling content featuring diverse characters, indicate these companies are just trying to garner favour from the Trump administration to protect their financial interests. All while trying to hold onto marginalised audiences and workers, despite capitulating to policies made to make them feel unwelcome.

The Future

We will have to wait and see how these orders affect the whole American film industry, as well as the film industry broadly and if workers and companies will fight these orders. However, these actions also reiterate a dark truth. The film industry has long dragged its feet on improving on-screen and behind-the-scenes representation. Now that high-profile companies have retreated from commitments to diversity and protecting marginalised groups, it has the potential to alienate diverse creatives from the entertainment industry further. Thereby depriving them of a voice within culture and their workplace. Plus, if these companies bow to pressure, the number of productions pandering to the Trump administration will undoubtedly rise over the next few years. Which will serve to normalise its hateful rhetoric. For that, these companies should be ashamed.

The post How Film Studios Are Responding To Donald Trump’s Attack On Diversity, Equity & Inclusion appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

For this article, we will look back over other sequel examples that have changed genre from the first. We will analyse whether Joker: Folie à Deux can succeed and look at other franchises that could benefit from taking a different track.

Changing Beats

Film franchises regularly shift focus over time. By King Kong’s third feature appearance, the series had morphed from a fantasy horror adventure to sci-fi-inflected action. Aliens famously changed its series from horror to more of an action focus. Many serious series have also become more comedic and vice versa (the Evil Dead trilogy and the recent Ghostbusters films).

These genre shifts happen for many reasons (creative and financial) but do these changes land well at the box office? After all, it can be alienating for fans to see a movie series built on one genre’s principles suddenly shift to another. While also seeming confusing for general audiences.

Generally, it’s impossible to say. Sometimes a genre shift can go down well if the prior film was already successful (Alien and Aliens) or if it shakes up a fairly predictable franchise (Ghostbusters). However, even films with solid fanbases can see a genre change undercut their success financially (Return To Oz) or in terms of reception (Halloween 3). So there’s no guarantee that a genre change would automatically yield failure or success for a sequel.

A Different Devil

But regardless of financial success will this change suit Joker’s dark world? Well from a talent perspective, it could certainly work. Both Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix have experience with singing and dramatic roles (A Star Is Born and Walk The Line). Director Todd Phillips and cinematographer Lawrence Sher also have experience making films based on music. Phillips directed Phish’s concert movie Bittersweet Motel and Sher shot a Dua Lipa music video. So the talent is there to make the film work.

Additionally, the series change can work tonally. One of the first film’s highlights was the stair dance sequence, which shows that music and theatricality are nothing alien to this Joker. Joker also trades on us not knowing whether something is real or in Arthur Fleck’s head, making for a perfect excuse to make the film a musical.

This doesn’t mean it will definitely be a success. Musicals are struggling to draw box office numbers, genre changes are unsure things in franchises and the conceit could not work from a story perspective. This merely means a genre change isn’t necessarily a bad idea.

Change The Record

Lastly, for fun, here are three film franchises that could benefit from a genre change. 

Batman (Main Series)

For decades, it feels like DC has been afraid to let Batman have some fun in his main cinematic releases (only seeming to lighten up in spinoffs). With every new adaptation upping the Bat-misery a comedic Batman film would be very welcome now. All they would need to do is have Batman and a version of Robin fight a villain without the fate of Gotham being at stake and have a laugh with the universe.

Knives Out

The Knives Out series has successfully updated the murder mystery formula for modern audiences but unlike other franchises it hasn’t gone outside its genre wheelhouse (like A Haunting in Venice). Writer/director Rian Johnson has often upended expectations, and with the series having fantastic casts and social commentary the films could easily switch to another sub-genre while keeping it based in modern times so long as it has something to say. Imagine Benoit Blanc investigating a musician’s death leading into a musical story about how the music industry exploits radical images for profit. Who wouldn’t watch that?

Halloween

After so many lacklustre sequels and requels that all boil down to Michael Myers stabbing people Halloween should return to its long-abandoned anthology idea. Just give the brand name to an up-and-coming creative team and let them do something different in any horror sub-genre they want.

Do you think Joker Folie à Deux’s genre change will work well or hinder its success? And what film franchises do you think would benefit from a genre change?

Also Read: The Perfect Batman: A Look At The Actor & Director Duos Behind The Films

The post Reinventing the Franchise: Will Joker: Folie à Deux’s Musical Twist Succeed? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

We will look at the reasons why studios shelve movies and what its implications are for the industry. Firstly though let’s contextualise this phenomenon.

Warner Bros

Recently Warner Bros has made several headlines relating to the shelving of complete or almost complete films. Famously in 2022, the studio shelved Batgirl, which was almost finished. The $90 million production was intended for release on HBO Max before its release was cancelled. Then earlier in November, they shelved the animation/live-action hybrid movie Coyote vs. Acme, based on the Looney Tunes franchise. Which cost around $70 million. This film was going to be released on streaming before being upgraded to a theatrical release and then cancelled. Only allowing the filmmakers to shop the project around after significant backlash.

Why?

So why would a studio that spent so much on these films not release them? Historically studios have shelved movies to protect the studio’s image, due to internal politics like mergers, changing rights etc., or to wait for better release opportunities. Among other reasons. But Warner Bros. permanent shelving is reportedly purely financial. Warner Bros. Discovery planned to cut $3 billion in debt within two years of the merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery. 

As a result, Coyote vs. Acme was shelved for a tax write-off of around $30 million. Meanwhile, Batgirl was part of a package of cuts that saw $2-2.5 billion written off.

Several factors may explain Warner Bros. decision to sacrifice these films. These films did not have comparatively big budgets but with Batgirl originally going to be released on streaming it may have been harder to make its budget back. Cinema distribution could have remedied this but the studio would have had to spend money on marketing. Which could increase costs by up to 50%. Additionally, as Batgirl has not led a live-action feature before and Looney Tunes films have struggled to make huge profits recently the studio may have feared for their box office performance. So they could have viewed the write-off money as more beneficial in the long run. 

Art and Business

However, these claims do stretch credibility when we factor in a few things. Firstly considering these movies were both part of well-known franchises with big actors involved it’s easy to see them making their money back with the right amount of marketing. Some may point to the diminishing numbers for the most recent DC superhero movies and the last Looney Tunes-related feature (Space Jam: A New Legacy) as a point against releasing the films. However, Space Jam was released during the aftermath of the pandemic and the last two DC films encountered problems from bad press and releasing during a strike where union members weren’t doing marketing promotion. It’s easy to see smaller-budget films performing well given ample marketing opportunities and release territory. 

Beyond the money calculations though it also raises grave questions about the trustworthiness of studios. Considering that actors and writers spent months fighting with studios for adequate recognition of their value in the industry locking away projects that many artists put a lot of hard work into, so studios can make their money back, will not encourage artists to work with Warner Bros. And it also makes a bad impression on audiences as it robs them of the chance to see something they may have wanted to see.

Conclusion

This is not the first time we have seen movies shelved for financial reasons. But these permanent shelving attempts feel more pronounced given the time in which they come.

In the aftermath of a pandemic that saw many turning to entertainment for comfort and historic strikes that saw actors and writers taking studios to task for undervaluing them for a studio to wipe away many artists’ hard work, potentially severely denting the confidence of the artists and viewers whose support they need to make and buy their projects, can’t be seen as a business-savvy move.

The post The Maths Behind Studios Shelving Movies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Barbie Begins

Ruth Handler’s main inspirations for creating Barbie were seeing Bild Lilli, a then-popular German doll line, and her daughter Barbara (whose name is the brand’s basis) playing with paper adult dolls. Mattel’s Barbie debuted in 1959. As a fashion doll, Barbie was made to showcase the fashion of the time. With owners able to buy her different outfits, accessories and more. Interestingly she was one of the first adult-looking toy dolls on the US market. Many dolls produced beforehand were baby dolls made to encourage parenting instincts.

More Barbie-branded characters soon followed. Including Barbie’s boyfriend Ken (1961) and family or friends characters, like Midge (1963), Skipper (1964), Christie (1968), and more.

The brand’s popularity also spawned Barbie-branded tie-in media. There are Barbie comics (as early as 1962), video games (the first released in 1984), television series and specials (starting in 1987); the character has starred in 40+ animated films since 2001 and appeared in projects like Toy Story 2 – 4. Despite some sales dips the brand remains iconic. Often being listed among the all-time best-selling toys.

Barbie’s Many Hats

Barbie helped change what toys targeted at girls and women could do. It shifted attention away from baby dolls that enforced aspirations of motherhood toward focusing on personal enjoyment. Thus helping to shift cultural attitudes. Barbie dolls also later showcased different career prospects for women and began introducing Barbies that provided representation for different groups. Barbie’s aesthetic has also been cited as helping many LGBTQ+ people feel comfortable expressing their identities. Undoubtedly the brand has sometimes had a positive impact regarding representation, and showcasing fun, positive, inspirational images for its customers.

But Barbie does have problems. For example, many have argued that Barbie’s unrealistic body has, because of its reach and influence on children, had negative effects on children’s physical and mental health. Additionally, despite the brand showcasing more progressive images now its dominant image has helped reinforce particular hegemonic ideas of womanhood. One that prioritises white, straight, cis-gendered, non-disabled women, in stereotypically gendered attire above other women. This serves to further entrench ideas of what womanhood is and alienates those who fall outside of this image.

Product or Art

Considering everything shown here how will a live-action Barbie movie play in 2023? Well with Greta Gerwig directing and writing alongside Noah Baumbach and Margot Robbie starring it has incredible potential.

Gerwig’s previous directorial efforts both explored childhood nostalgia and viewpoints, through Little Women‘s split-time structure and Lady Bird‘s memory-like feel. She is also talented at making fully rounded characters and her stories foreground themes of independence and diverse views on womanhood. This makes her perfect for Barbie (2023). Her other films indicate she will give us engaging characters and a movie that knows how to appeal to its child and nostalgic adult audiences. While her thematic focuses guarantee some thoughtful interaction with the brand’s problems.

Co-writer Baumbach also has a great record of making thoughtful comedic work with strong women characters (Frances Ha). Robbie has excelled in roles that have harnessed her star appeal to explore relevant cultural issues (Bombshell and I, Tonya). Finally, with its diverse, talented cast and joyful attitude evidenced in the trailers, Gerwig’s Barbie seems prepared to celebrate what fans love about the property while also addressing the cultural debates surrounding it, which could represent a turning point for how the world sees Barbie.

Also Read: “Little Women” & Cinema for the Self Partnered

The post Barbie Reimagined: How the Live-Action Film Could Transform the Iconic Brand appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we’ll look at two factors (advertising and consolidation) that could in the future make streaming resemble the old cable television model.

Ads Will End In…

Streaming services supported by adverts are nothing new. Think of the likes of FreeVee, ITVHub, All4, Pluto TV, YouTube, etc., or the value apps available on smart TV sticks. But surprisingly big streaming players like Netflix are now moving to include a subscription tier on their service that allows you to watch their content for cheaper with adverts. Will audiences accept this shift?

Well, commercial advert-supported services like All4 and ITVHub have a firm foothold in the UK. According to an early 2022 Ofcom survey 45% of online adults/teens aged 13+ had used ITVHub/STV Player and 41% had used All4 in the past 3 months to watch films/tv shows. Outperforming all major SVoD brands except for Amazon Prime and Netflix. The BFI 2021 Statistical Yearbook also showed 31% of UK households using ITVHub and 22% using All4. So adverts don’t necessarily hinder viewer interest.

However, surveys like this one from Morning Consult indicate that a majority of streaming audiences hate this idea. Would this stop people from taking up Netflix’s advertiser-friendly model? Would advertising be seen as more egregious if introduced to a previously ad-free service? Possibly but in the midst of a cost of living crisis, the cheaper advertising-friendly option may prove very attractive.

And Then There Were Fewer

Advertising isn’t the only way streaming is starting to resemble cable TV. Warner Bros Discovery’s boss David Zaslav has announced the plan to merge HBO Max and Discovery+ into one platform in 2023. Consolidating Warner’s streaming service approach. With the aim of reaching around 130 million subscribers by 2025. A bigger market share than what HBO Max and Discovery+ currently have.

With all of Warner’s media available in one place, this move will undoubtedly provide convenience for potential customers. And the consolidation of technology assets could provide a better quality experience.

However, this merger of different streaming services into a single package resembles how media conglomerates consolidated the number of TV stations they owned which meant cable customers had to have specific network subscriptions in order to get what they wanted. If this move is taken up by other conglomerates it could have bad consequences for consumers as customers will be forced to pay for multiple services to access everything they want. It will mean less major media released on third-party services. Many companies would rather retain their projects as a selling point for their service. And if consolidated services gain market power due to their content access they could begin raising prices as they won’t have to worry about competing with rival services.

The New Cable TV?  

With the success of advert-supported streaming services, the adoption of adverts by already established companies and the consolidation of streaming services owned by bigger companies the streaming market is slowly starting to resemble that of cable TV. These measures are undoubtedly being done to make these businesses more profitable and to increase their hold on the streaming market. And it does offer some benefits to consumers in terms of convenience. But it’s also driving customer-unfriendly practices. Ultimately we shall have to see how audiences react to these changes to see if streaming ends up becoming just like its predecessor.

Also Read: The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants

The post Streaming is Becoming More Like Cable TV appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Let’s take a trip through history and the current media landscape and see if we can begin to understand what led to the decline of the old studios and the rise of the streaming giants.

Where They Are Now?

In Hollywood’s Golden Age (between the 1920s and 1960s) there were eight studios that made up the biggest movie production houses: MGM, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros, 20^th Century Fox, RKO Pictures, United Artists, Columbia Pictures, and Universal Pictures. These companies were responsible for producing some of the greatest films, both of the golden age and of all time. However, after the golden age, these studios had many varying fates.

RKO Pictures was largely folded by the late 1950s. The company was later revived, but it had little success. Its most recent film was 2015’s Barely Lethal. Along with this the other iconic studios are now all owned by other companies. Sony bought Columbia Pictures in 1989; ViacomCBS has owned Paramount since 1994; Comcast owns Universal; Disney purchased 20^th Century Fox in 2019 and rebranded it as 20^th Century Studios; AT&T controls Warner Bros; MGM acquired United Artists in 1981. And despite facing bankruptcy in 2010 MGM survived and is currently being purchased by Amazon.

Several things have contributed to the current Hollywood landscape. For example, the loss of studio control over cinemas and the prevalence of television were major factors in ending the golden age. This left many studios floundering financially and needing to be saved through buyouts. Many of these production houses have managed to recover thanks to buyouts, cinema box office, and distribution deals. But a new market is providing huge competition for them.

The Streaming Wars

Movie streaming platforms have emerged as a huge market force in the past decade. This is because streaming and VoD services offer more flexibility for viewers, allowing them to view a wide range of movies from home for reasonable prices. Which has led to a huge audience frequenting these services.

And with the Covid-19 pandemic forcing cinemas to close, over the last year streaming sites were able to rob big Hollywood studios of their control of the market. Allowing these platforms to effectively become the new Hollywood studios, bringing out big new movies weekly (both original and distributed on behalf of other companies) that captured attention.

The most prominent players in the western world of streaming are Netflix, which has 208 million subscribers worldwide and earned around $25 billion in 2020, Amazon Prime, which has 200 million worldwide subscribers, and Disney+ with over 100 million subscribers. All these companies provide wide catalogues of films and TV shows, new and old, while also having their own brands of original content. However, the way these companies acquire said content is very different.

Netflix and Amazon Prime get their originals through producing and acquiring the distribution rights to various projects. Disney+ similarly produces and has distribution rights for many IP’s. But they also have their own film production studios. Meaning Disney is fully capable of making their own original content to put on their streaming sites. Thus ensuring they keep 100% of the revenue, which makes Disney+ much more like a traditional film studio. This makes it a huge threat to other film companies because of its ability to pivot effortlessly between streaming and cinematic distribution for its movies.

Those that Survived

Streaming has transformed Hollywood and movie production/distribution over the last few years. And even with cinemas reopening big studios will need to take steps to mitigate the financial damage done by the pandemic. This means that studios are now, more than ever, having to consider pivoting to streaming to recoup their losses.

Comcast entered the streaming wars last year with Peacock, made to showcase films from Universal. ViacomCBS also replaced their streaming network, CBS All Access, with Paramount+. But other studios are going to larger lengths to win over audiences.

Through its $8.45 billion purchase of MGM, Amazon hopes to boost the content it can offer. In addition, some also speculate that Amazon will use MGM to produce content for Prime, rather than letting it remain a standalone entity. Similar to what Disney is doing with its studios. And recently AT&T announced that it will merge Warner Media and Discovery into its own streaming platform. This will put the back catalogue of Warner Bros, CNN, Turner, and Discovery (as well as the streaming services HBO Max and Discovery+) into one place. These moves have the potential to really shake up the market.

But while this influx of new streaming platforms from movie studios and the move towards studios making content for streaming may be financially beneficial and offer consumers more content, it also shows that streaming services are slowly moving towards offering content produced exclusively by them and their affiliates. Thus customers may soon have to subscribe to various sites to get everything they want. Rather than having a diverse range of material on various sites.

What do you guys think of the effect the streaming wars is having on the American film industry?

Also Read: The History of Paramount Pictures

The post The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Synopsis

A group of aliens called Nerdlucks come to earth and try to kidnap the Looney Tunes (who live underground) to rescue their boss Swackhammer’s failing theme park, Moron Mountain. Outmatched technologically, the Looney Tunes, challenge the aliens to a basketball game to earn their freedom, expecting an easy victory. But the aliens steal the talent of Earth’s best basketball players, becoming the intimidating Monstars. The Tune’s only hope is to get Michael Jordan (playing himself) to coach and play with them. But with Michael having retired from basketball to play baseball professionally does he still have what it takes to save the Tunes?

What Did I Like?

Space Jam’s best elements are its animation and direction. The animated characters move smoothly and have a great level of energy that feels in keeping with the classic Looney Tunes aesthetic. In addition, their incorporation into live-action settings along with the real actor’s interaction with the animated world feels natural and well done. The eye-lines, framing, use of props, and stage actions gives everyone a feeling of presence and weight in the world, which helps audiences buy into the world being shown.

Another positive is the voice acting which gives every animated character a distinct feel. Billy West is suitably self-assured as Bugs Bunny, Dee Bradley Baker shines as the selfish Daffy Duck, and Kath Soucie is certainly memorable as the sultry Lola Bunny. The voices of the Monstars add a real level of danger to proceedings with their intimidating and maliciously evil tones and Danny DeVito feels truly slimy as Swackhammer.

Then there’s the delightful soundtrack. Full of RnB and hip-hop tracks which are undoubtedly endearing to those who love 90s music. But the subject and emotions communicated by each song fits and adds to the scenes they are used in. And of course, the Quad City DJ’s theme song is infectious; remaining permanently ingrained in many people’s heads to this day.

What Did I Not Like?

Space Jam’s story is incredibly underdeveloped and doesn’t seem to know who it’s aimed at. The excuse to involve the Looney Tunes in the story feels flimsy at best (Swackhammer sees them on TV and decides to make them his star attraction. Why exactly?). Michael’s story also feels lazy. Despite the initial setup of Michael leaving basketball to play baseball the movie spends little to no time with him away from basketball or doubting his ability when the Looney Tunes ask him to play. Thus, it lacks any impact and makes the human’s story feel mostly pointless. With everything else being a cookie-cutter, cliched underdog story. Tonally the film is also inconsistent. With the Looney Tunes’ child-friendly over-the-top slapstick and funny voices contrasting awfully with long stretches showcasing humourless sports drama and Michael’s private/business life.

The human characters also lack interesting dimensions. The actors are written as either bland versions of themselves or stock characters. Which quickly becomes boring. The acting doesn’t help. Wayne Knight aside, all the human actors are clearly putting in no effort. And the athletes featured in the film are terrible at acting. The worst offender is undoubtedly Michael Jordan who just doesn’t have any discernible personality or charisma to latch onto as the main character. Because no characters make an impression and the lack of enthusiasm or talent from the human stars is palpable it also diminishes most of the attempts at comedy. Making large portions of the film a chore to watch.

Finally, because the film’s story, characters and much of its humour fails to engage viewers the blatant product placement for McDonald’s, Nike, Gatorade etc. and the use of the film as a branding exercise for Warner Bros animation properties and a vehicle for NBA players becomes more difficult to stomach. Contrary to films like the Lego Movie, which showed it’s possible to make great movies from merchandising opportunities, this movie feels uninterested in being anything more than a commercial. Which sincerely sours the whole enterprise.

Verdict

Space Jam’s animation and direction which mixes animation with live-action remains incredible. The voice actors are distinct, and the great soundtrack really enhances the viewing experience.

But the poor story, which doesn’t seem to know its audience combined with lazily drawn or stock human characters and mostly bad performances (Michael Jordan being the worst) makes it impossible to invest substantively in the action. While also making many jokes flounder, and the films aggravating use as a vehicle for product placement and branding harder to ignore.

Ultimately, Space Jam doesn’t hold up without the rose-tinted glasses.

Rating: (1.5 / 5)

The post Retro Review: Space Jam appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

While it’s understandable that the cast and crew wanted to release this movie ASAP after its many postponements, the Christmas date seems to be the wrong decision. If we get the chance to go out during Christmas, we probably spend that time with family and not at the movies. That’s why it felt that the company behind Wonder Woman 1984 focussed only on HBO Max. Even more so because another release postponement would have been understandable if that would have meant that more cinemas would be able to show the movie.

This is absolutely no criticism to anyone working on Wonder Woman 1984, because many companies would have made the same decision. Still, it feels like it’s another slap in the face of the cinemas and fans who want to watch this movie in a safe cinema. That’s why I want to send a love letter to every party affected by a decision like that: film companies, cinemas and fans.

…to the film companies

Just as any industry, the film industry needed to adapt, and so I salute you for making the difficult decisions about postponements and skipping the cinema release and going straight to streaming platforms. I also want to applaud the many companies who decided to grace the few cinemas with great new releases (think of Saint Maud, Babyteeth, Saint Frances) and who are planning to do the same for the rest of 2020.

While your goal isn’t only to please the audience, it’s obviously also to make money and try to tip over the scale to the profit side instead of the loss one. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using different media (streaming platforms, cinema, television, etc.) to distribute your movie. However, just remember that there are movie fans out there who are willing to wait for a major release on the big screen, no matter when that will happen. We did it before 2020 and pretty sure we will do it after this year as well.

… the cinemas

Sorry to hear that you had to close your doors again during the last few weeks and that a completely re-opening won’t happen for a very long time. Based on the experience I had before lockdown, cinemas is an extremely safe place—social distancing, hand sanitizers, air-filters, etc. You made sure that it was all there. While there weren’t any new big releases after Tenet, you did bring light into the cinema files lives by programming smaller releases and re-screening movies that need the big screen.

Many of the screenings were sold out. While that was probably because of the limited seats, it was also because film lovers want to go to the cinema to escape from 2020. Understandably, not everyone wants to return to the movies (I respect everyone’s decision), but for the ones who went to a film screening, you as the cinema provided the much-needed escapism, so we thank you for that. Let’s hope that must of you can re-open again soon.

… to the fans

Saying that 2020 was a year that changed the way we watch films would be a massive understatement. While Netflix and Amazon Prime already had many subscribers before this year, they gained even more, and we also saw the rise of Disney+. With every postponement, our heart sank to the floor because we would have to wait much longer to be able to do what we want: watching new movies in the cinemas. It’s the same as game lovers having to wait longer for the release of a new console or game.

If you’ve been to the movies during this pandemic, you know that, while it doesn’t feel, as usual, the big screen makes you forget the world we live in for a moment. If you haven’t been, then I’m glad that you can still enjoy some great releases from the comfort of your home. Fingers crossed that we will meet up in a cinema in the near future.

Also Read: Coronavirus: How It’s Affected The Film Industry

The post A love letter to Cinemas, Film Companies & Movie Fans appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Disney’s Restructuring

Last week Disney announced a huge restructure with its Content creation and distribution being separated. Content creation will now focus on creating big franchise content for theatrical and streaming distribution, as well as general entertainment and sports content for Disney’s streaming platforms and TV networks. Meanwhile the “Media and Entertainment Distribution group” will handle monetisation and distribution of all the company’s projects. And with Disney reporting over 60 million Disney+ subscribers worldwide their efforts have shifted towards creating content for and distributing content on their streaming platforms.

How Will This Affect Cinemas?

Disney movies attract incredibly large cinema audiences. And with Cineworld’s recent closure due to the lack of big releases needed to sustain themselves during the pandemic, this move could be rather damaging. Especially since studios like WarnerMedia and Comcast are seemingly following Disney’s lead. Recently they reorganised to focus on streaming service’s HBO Max and Peacock.

However, despite Disney shifting focus to streaming, analyst Rich Greenfield said, “nothing can achieve the per picture economics that Disney…generate through a global theatrical release”. Showing that Disney still needs cinema distribution to ensure their projects make their money back. This move may be meant to recoup losses further down the line. With projects aimed at attracting new customers to Disney’s subscription services and keeping people subscribed; paying for content, as they proved they could do with Mulan (2020). And as Disney has access to a huge amount of resources, and bankable studios, it’s hard to see this becoming an industry trend. Not every studio has the resources needed to shift towards streaming over cinema. Cinemas still matter but can they remain open without the support of many big tentpole releases?

How Can Cinemas Survive?

There are no concrete answers, but cinemas currently have a lot of avenues available. For example, the largest audience for UK cinema releases is consistently 15-24-year-olds. Other statistics show that BAME and LGBTQ filmgoers, as well as adults with children under 18, make up a high percentage of cinema audiences. Cinemas could target these audiences by providing discounts or exclusive screenings to encourage certain demographics to keep returning (similar to how The Light and Odeon cinemas currently offer discounts for former Cineworld customers). Rewards can also be offered to make customers feel valued. And classic and recent content could be offered to draw in BAME and LGBTQ audiences.

Also, recently smaller movies like After we collided and Unhinged have done relatively well at the UK box office. Showing that smaller films can do well with a bigger platform. And with many smaller releases still on the horizon, cinemas have an opportunity to encourage audiences to try something new. They can do this by increasing social media awareness. Offering discounts/rewards. Or perhaps even organising local cinema clubs, as many of the previously mentioned groups are more likely to respond to the idea of a film club. Plus the localised nature of film clubs could be a great comfort to regions in higher lockdown tiers.

Of course, if cases spike cinemas will have to close. But other options are available. For example, during the lockdown, Sheffield’s Showroom Cinema partnered with various streaming and VoD sites. Offering free trials for their members, and virtual screenings that split the money evenly with the Showroom if you used their site. These options allowed people to watch films safely from home. And helped keep the Showroom on its feet.

Conclusion

Despite Disney’s shift to focus more on streaming, many studios don’t have Disney’s money and resources. So it’s hard to see this becoming an industry trend. Cinema distribution will still be needed to cover big-budget production costs.

But cinemas must adapt to survive without huge tentpole releases. There are many independent productions out there to entice audiences. And offers and rewards, targeted marketing, film clubs, virtual screenings; profit-sharing with VoD, and streaming services are certainly options that can help cinemas to make money. But will they succeed? Only time will tell.

Also Read: What’s Next For Disney?

The post Disney Shifts Its Focus Away From Cinemas To Its Streaming Platform appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.