maqikelefant t1_j9kv2pj wrote
Reply to comment by lightsongtheold in HBO’s Leading Man: Casey Bloys on Perfecting ‘The Last of Us,’ HBO Max Streaming Merger and Axing Shows by misana123
> It is interesting that both Bloys and Orci felt like Max was ordering shows that could easily have been HBO shows and was not broadening the audience of the service enough as a result.
I honestly think this is really stupid and short sighted on their part.
That HBO proper level of quality is precisely the reason so many people viewed HBO Max as the premier streaming service.
And broadening the audience is just another term for diluting your brand. Which is definitely NOT what HBO needs to be doing.
This coming on the heels of the WB takeover makes me think all is not well over there, and this is Bloys doing damage control to make it seem like he's still got a handle on it.
Guess only time will tell.
Czarcasm21 t1_j9lno57 wrote
Read the article, and you get a better sense of the point being made. Bloys is making these decisions to protect the HBO brand, not to dilute it, and nothing he says in the interview sounds much like damage control to me. Quite the opposite, actually, as it seems they've finally chosen a path to delineate the two different production teams:
Max Originals will now focus on tentpole, IP-based projects that wouldn't really feel at home on HBO (Dune: Sisterhood, Welcome to Derry, the DC content, etc.) and content that reaches audiences not typically targeted by HBO original programming (The Sex Lives of College Girls, The Flight Attendant, etc.).
And HBO will just continue what they're doing, but with an increased budget.
TheTrotters t1_j9lsqtt wrote
Yes, even on /r/television people are often confused about the difference between a HBO show and HBO Max show. It must have been even more common among more casual viewers.
notmyrealfarkhandle t1_j9lywq4 wrote
Why does it matter, though? I watch all HBO shows through HBO Max, and all HBO Max shows through HBO Max. I don't have cable and there is functionally no difference in the product to me. If the argument is, "hey, we don't have to make as many high quality shows and we'll still retain that audience that wants high quality shows" - well, I get it, even if I don't agree as a consumer, but trying to lean into the bifurcation like people are going to pay for both HBO and HBO Max as separate entities feels unrealistic, or at least unlikely.
Czarcasm21 t1_j9mjq06 wrote
They aren't trying to separate the two and charge for them independently, though. They're giving each of their 3 major original scripted content divisions - HBO, DC, & Max Originals - a clear programming directive and scheduling goals, which is a positive for all parties involved.
TheBatIsI t1_j9m3fzz wrote
I hope this means that Julia will get another season.
archlector t1_j9pic4p wrote
Your assertion that HBO will have an increased budget is just made up out of thin air - all signs squarely to the opposite.
Czarcasm21 t1_j9qg3fh wrote
Wrong. There are plenty of sources that state as much, including Bloys himself on The Watch podcast.
archlector t1_j9s7rv4 wrote
Lol. You should learn to read PR spin carefully.
f_d t1_j9n1rrf wrote
>content that reaches audiences not typically targeted by HBO original programming
Except they got rid of most of their diversity executives during their big wave of firing after their merger. The headline is a bit sensational but the effects are the same whatever the intent was.
​
>Former HBO Max staffers say there are barely any non-white people left in the upper ranks of content, with one naming Joey Chavez, an executive vice president of drama, as one of the few people of color still there. Because HBO Max and the original HBO channel operate somewhat independently, one former executive conceded that “there may be one Black woman on the HBO side. Maybe.”
>
>The layoffs have “amplified the lack of diversity at HBO,” another former executive told The Daily Beast. “HBO is the most homogenous part of this umbrella. Instead of trying to figure out how to integrate some of the [Max] executives into HBO, they just made this sweeping cut of three divisions: kids, family, and international. A lot of Black and brown people lost their jobs.”
petepro t1_j9o45ld wrote
So it’s HBO has been trying to diversify and it failed evidently. Now they want HBO to focus on what they do best and leave the other demo for Max. Make sense when you think about it, if you don’t fall to the trap HBO=HBO max that WB trying to get rid off.
f_d t1_j9q20fa wrote
That isn't at all what was happening. AT&T wanted a giant streaming service that could appeal to everyone. HBO Max was built from the ground up with a more diverse set of executives and producers than HBO the cable channel. But when AT&T spun off Warner to Discovery, they also spun off over forty billion dollars of debt. Discovery management immediately started cutting across the board, including plenty of content that could have kept going if the new company's financials weren't in such dire shape. The cuts at HBO Max fell hardest on the culturally diverse side of the executives and the programming.
HBO Max's old mission was to be an all-audience first-rate streaming service similar to Disney/Hulu, Netflix, maybe Amazon Prime. They did very well at building that audience when they launched. The new mission is a lot less ambitious, a lot less diverse, and a lot more budget conscious than before. Whether or not it works out in the long run, they are likely to miss out on the opportunity to establish themselves as the undisputed leader of streaming services among today's competition.
maqikelefant t1_j9lu8cj wrote
I read the article before I commented. It's a vapid, worthless puff piece that's more interested in fellating Bloys than actually giving any meaningful insight.
And frankly, his intentions are irrelevant. Just because he says something, that doesn't automatically make it a good idea. This would be far from the first time an exec made absolutely moronic decisions about their product.
Everyone I know saw Max as an extension of HBO proper; the similarities only increased the company's rep and prestige among consumers. I think he's searching for an answer to a problem which doesn't actually exist, while creating new problems in the process.
archlector t1_j9n16no wrote
The problem actually exists, and is obvious in the subtext: He doesn't have enough money to do many of those kinds of shows anymore. So he's putting a PR spin on it in this article. It's fairly obvious, lol.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments