Do you think that AT&T will have a heavy hand with DC or do you think they'll more or less leave things alone and let the company be? Aside from maybe some DC characters plugging AT&T.
Do you think that AT&T will have a heavy hand with DC or do you think they'll more or less leave things alone and let the company be? Aside from maybe some DC characters plugging AT&T.
Just heard about this. I have no idea what the outcome will be. If it means getting people to embrace the DC movies, I'm all for it.
There'll be some kind of impact, but who's to say what that's actually going to look like? We don't have anywhere near enough information yet. Or at least I dont. And while I know a thing or three about business, this is a level I don't deal with, with concerns I've only tackled as hypotheticals in a classroom.
I suppose it'll depend a lot on what AT&T plan on doing with WB/DC management. We've seen mergers in the fairly recent past where the new owners change virtually nothing. And I very much doubt the publication side of DC is anything AT&T care very much about, so they might not bother doing anything at all. Their interest in DC is going to be in the larger media applications, not print. But the guys in the administrative chain who Didio and co. answer to might make some changes and/or have different expectations.
We'll know soon enough.
[QUOTE=Ascended;3722937]There'll be some kind of impact, but who's to say what that's actually going to look like? We don't have anywhere near enough information yet. Or at least I dont. And while I know a thing or three about business, this is a level I don't deal with, with concerns I've only tackled as hypotheticals in a classroom.
I suppose it'll depend a lot on what AT&T plan on doing with WB/DC management. We've seen mergers in the fairly recent past where the new owners change virtually nothing. And I very much doubt the publication side of DC is anything AT&T care very much about, so they might not bother doing anything at all. Their interest in DC is going to be in the larger media applications, not print. But the guys in the administrative chain who Didio and co. answer to might make some changes and/or have different expectations.
We'll know soon enough.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this.
I imagine AT&T have bigger fish to fry in the short to medium term, and will address DC if it ever comes up big enough on their radar to do so. They're probably more interested in the film side than anything else.
[QUOTE=Skedatz;3723015]Pretty much this.
I imagine AT&T have bigger fish to fry in the short to medium term, and will address DC if it ever comes up big enough on their radar to do so. They're probably more interested in the film side than anything else.[/QUOTE]
Once they realize print is losing money they'll keep only the most marketable media trade marks and dump the rest in Bankruptcy Court to avoid taxes like Trump did and then Major Hoy and Trey Strain will form a company to scoop up what's left.
[QUOTE=Skedatz;3723015]Pretty much this.
I imagine AT&T have bigger fish to fry in the short to medium term, and will address DC if it ever comes up big enough on their radar to do so. [B]They're probably more interested in the film side than anything else.[/B][/QUOTE]
The streaming service too as apparently Hulu is the most prized Fox asset that both Disney and Comcast are vying for the most.
As I said in the DCEU thread, I expect the DC streaming service to become a general WB streaming service, as AT&T would want to stream non-DC WB owned IP too, and keeping two services around is a bit much.
[QUOTE=alton;3723044]Once they realize print is losing money they'll keep only the most marketable media trade marks and dump the rest in Bankruptcy Court to avoid taxes like Trump did and then Major Hoy and Trey Strain will form a company to scoop up what's left.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. The big media conglomerates of today put a great value in holding on to IP rights (whether or not they are correct [for varying values of correct] in doing so is another questions). The publishing side is basically a rounding error on the balance sheet, and it likely brings in decent amount of licensing money. Keeping the titles published gives a very strong trademark defence.
The slash-and-burn approach to corporate mergers and buyouts is quite likely to return, but it's not here yet, and also I believe uncommon on mergers of this scale.
[QUOTE=alton;3723044]Once they realize print is losing money they'll keep only the most marketable media trade marks and dump the rest in Bankruptcy Court to avoid taxes like Trump did and then Major Hoy and Trey Strain will form a company to scoop up what's left.[/QUOTE]
Print isn't "losing money," and DC's comics won't even show up on their radar. DC's movies and television shows will though, and I wonder whether DC's actions re Geoff Johns just a day earlier are related to this. Timing, of course, is everything.
Here's another possible factor, although of course there's no evidence for this being the case -- why did Warner Bros. film chief Toby Emmerich suddenly release a statement yesterday lavishing praise on the Aquaman movie, and in which Johns concurred? (As if they were going to admit it if they thought it was shaky.) Could that be a preemptive strike against rumors that DC might have another flop brewing?
So maybe the merger has already had an impact on the comics, with Johns being moved back into print as a writer.
Anyway I don't think I would work well with Major Hoy. He'd want to launch a slew of "appreciation" comics about very old characters.
Whether Aquaman had anything to do with it or not though, the financial performance of the Green Lantern and Justice League movies made it necessary for Johns to be moved back into comics, especially with new bosses coming in.
I imagine Batgirl using AT&T to coordinate the Birds' strategy in a complex only to have 'signal lost' repeat over and over... Especially around midnight.
And, yes, we have AT&T.
WB's media properties? AT&T might want to review costs.
The comics? AT&T may not even notice that they're there.
[QUOTE=DrNewGod;3723575]WB's media properties? AT&T might want to review costs.
The comics? AT&T may not even notice that they're there.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. They'd see the comics as a proving ground for ideas that might later get used in movies and television.
I don't see what AT&T can want or even do with DC Comics. I mean, aren't they just a phone company? Unless im missing some bigger picture here.
[QUOTE=kjn;3723260]Not necessarily. The big media conglomerates of today put a great value in holding on to IP rights (whether or not they are correct [for varying values of correct] in doing so is another questions). The publishing side is basically a rounding error on the balance sheet, and it likely brings in decent amount of licensing money. Keeping the titles published gives a very strong trademark defence.
The slash-and-burn approach to corporate mergers and buyouts is quite likely to return, but it's not here yet, and also I believe uncommon on mergers of this scale.[/QUOTE]
One more time my last attempt got wiped out. Good analysis here and while I was partly kidding I think your approach makes more sense. Acquiring and retaining IP over slash and burn tactics from the '80s. You keep the IP out of the hands of competition except through licensing and losses if any can be used as a tax write off. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Lee Stone;3723568]I imagine Batgirl using AT&T to coordinate the Birds' strategy in a complex only to have 'signal lost' repeat over and over... Especially around midnight.
And, yes, we have AT&T.[/QUOTE]
Hilarious but probably not to you during loss of signal. And now AT&T is involved with a merger that has nothing to do with fixing that. So it goes I guess.