<story><title>The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M</title><url>https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/the-matrix-resurrections-estimated-to-lose-warner-bros-100-million/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>LegitShady</author><text>Do they suddenly make more money streaming?  Do you have any evidence people joined a streaming platform to watch it?&lt;p&gt;This thing bombed everywhere.  People with existing subscriptions watching it doesn&amp;#x27;t make it any. More profitable to Warner Bros</text></item><item><author>Latty</author><text>Quoting box office sales while ignoring the fact this was released simultaneously for streaming really doesn&amp;#x27;t tell the full story.</text></item><item><author>fishtoaster</author><text>Any reason to believe that this is an instance of Hollywood Accounting?  At a glance, wikipedia says the film cost $190m, which seems reasonable for a film like this, and only received $124.5m in box office sales.  Conversely, wikipedia lists Harry Potter OotP as a &amp;quot;150–200 million&amp;quot; budget on $942m in box office sales.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s certainly possible this is a case of Hollywood Accounting, but is there any particular reason we think it is, vs just a film losing a lot of money normally?</text></item><item><author>romwell</author><text>Uh huh. Sure.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a reason they call it Hollywood Accounting[1].&lt;p&gt;Not that Warner Brothers is new to this game either:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;A Warner Bros. receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper after grossing nearly $1 billion.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Hollywood_accounting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Hollywood_accounting&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>PostOnce</author><text>More money isn&amp;#x27;t just new subscriptions, it&amp;#x27;s also revenue from existing subscriptions (which can be cancelled any time).&lt;p&gt;By this logic, platforms will never need new content ever in order to keep existing subscribers happy.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not just new subscriptions, it&amp;#x27;s also retention: do people stay subscribed to platform X because movies like The Matrix Resurrections are on the platform?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;d be rather hard to measure for a single film, it&amp;#x27;s the aggregate of platform content that dictates retention, I would think.&lt;p&gt;If the answer is yes, then the platforms will continue to pay companies like WB to film &amp;quot;box office bombs&amp;quot;.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M</title><url>https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/the-matrix-resurrections-estimated-to-lose-warner-bros-100-million/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>LegitShady</author><text>Do they suddenly make more money streaming?  Do you have any evidence people joined a streaming platform to watch it?&lt;p&gt;This thing bombed everywhere.  People with existing subscriptions watching it doesn&amp;#x27;t make it any. More profitable to Warner Bros</text></item><item><author>Latty</author><text>Quoting box office sales while ignoring the fact this was released simultaneously for streaming really doesn&amp;#x27;t tell the full story.</text></item><item><author>fishtoaster</author><text>Any reason to believe that this is an instance of Hollywood Accounting?  At a glance, wikipedia says the film cost $190m, which seems reasonable for a film like this, and only received $124.5m in box office sales.  Conversely, wikipedia lists Harry Potter OotP as a &amp;quot;150–200 million&amp;quot; budget on $942m in box office sales.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s certainly possible this is a case of Hollywood Accounting, but is there any particular reason we think it is, vs just a film losing a lot of money normally?</text></item><item><author>romwell</author><text>Uh huh. Sure.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a reason they call it Hollywood Accounting[1].&lt;p&gt;Not that Warner Brothers is new to this game either:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;A Warner Bros. receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper after grossing nearly $1 billion.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Hollywood_accounting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Hollywood_accounting&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lilyball</author><text>They had a deal for home streaming simultaneously with the box office release. This means that yes it is highly likely that far more people streamed this movie than movies that do theater-exclusive releases.&lt;p&gt;And people with existing subscriptions don’t matter, because Warner Bros isn’t getting subscription money directly, they’re getting money from deals with subscription services.&lt;p&gt;Edit: HBO is owned by Warner. So even if they don’t do accounting such that HBO pays Warner but just track subscription revenue directly, it still doesn’t matter. Retaining subscribers is hugely important, not just getting brand new subscriptions. It does make it a lot harder to compare box office receipts though.</text></comment>