# HBO MAX



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Why doesn't everyone subscribe to HBO, thereby getting hbo max for free? I subscribe to hbo max and was thinking I would like to see hbo on my tivos. Then I checked and hbo on Xfinity is 720p so I ain't missing much. But there are times I just want to channel surf without going to streaming. Hence my question...why aren't we all getting hbo on cable (or whatever) and get the streaming service free.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I get the hbo max streaming service for “free” via my ATT mobile account, also I don’t have cable tv service, so those are my personal reasons


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

HBO Max is cheaper than HBO...that's why I switched.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

We've got HBO Max included a couple different ways, but no way to watch it.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

mattyro7878 said:


> Why doesn't everyone subscribe to HBO, thereby getting hbo max for free? I subscribe to hbo max and was thinking I would like to see hbo on my tivos. Then I checked and hbo on Xfinity is 720p so I ain't missing much. But there are times I just want to channel surf without going to streaming. Hence my question...why aren't we all getting hbo on cable (or whatever) and get the streaming service free.


1. Not everyone has that deal.
2. HBO on Fios (or cable) is $15/mo. HBO Max direct is $12/mo. (Only temporarily, but still.)
3. At the time I switched, there was no such deal with Fios, so the _only_ way for me to get the extra content (at a price, mind you, of $-3 a month) was to subscribe directly.

There is also the pleasure of giving less money to Verizon, but that probably wouldn't be enough otherwise.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Still waiting for Roku/HBO Max


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Now that HBO Max is available with Amazon Prime, I looked up my Xfinity package options to see if I could drop all of their movie channels but my brain exploded trying to figure out how to do that online. Seems like everything is bundled to make it hard to do that. I'm beginning to look at my Tivo box and wondering why I'd end up paying extra for HBO Max through Amazon Prime instead of ditching Tivo and getting it for what I'm already paying if I had an Xfinity cable box.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

It is a mess.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Availability of these streaming services is beyond my comprehension. I pay for HBO on Xfinity cable. No idea how to actually watch anything on Max. I just got an email from AT&T saying that yippee, I can now watch Max on FireTV, compliments of AT&T. I can follow the prompts on Fire to get the code, go to the internet site mentioned, enter the code, verify my ownership of AT&T as required but it still doesn't work. FireTV tells me there is some kind of error in processing my request.

I was able to get Max working on an iPad but no idea how I did it. I'd rather watch on my tv but I hate AppleTV so don't use it anymore so apple cast doesn't work. Bah.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Apple TV doesn’t need Apple cast to watch Max. When I launched max on it today, it told me to go to the app on my iPhone and connect it there. Gave very explicit directions on how to do so. 

Funny, I gave up on my fire tv because I liked Apple TV much more.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

efilippi said:


> Availability of these streaming services is beyond my comprehension. I pay for HBO on Xfinity cable. No idea how to actually watch anything on Max. I just got an email from AT&T saying that yippee, I can now watch Max on FireTV, compliments of AT&T. I can follow the prompts on Fire to get the code, go to the internet site mentioned, enter the code, verify my ownership of AT&T as required but it still doesn't work. FireTV tells me there is some kind of error in processing my request.
> 
> I was able to get Max working on an iPad but no idea how I did it. I'd rather watch on my tv but I hate AppleTV so don't use it anymore so apple cast doesn't work. Bah.


If you're paying for HBO w/Xfinity and you have any streaming device except Roku you can use your Xfinity credentials for MAX. Do you have an XG1V4 box as well as your Tivo(s). Xfinity was supposedly adding the app but maybe soon? LOL Have you tried your Xfinity credentials w/Fire device? Which Fire device?


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I see there are plenty of reasons!! Im paying 14.99/MNTH. i WONder if the simple threat of cancellation will lower my cost. Then again I'm paying with my Google account. You know, those surveys ya get .10 to .99 cents? So I am not paying actual currency.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> ...Funny, I gave up on my fire tv because I liked Apple TV much more.


 TV is THE gold standard of streaming boxes (IMO)


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Bierboy said:


>  TV is THE gold standard of streaming boxes (IMO)


I agree. I just wish it had a better remote. Don't like the Siri remote and I don't like universal remotes. I keep hoping they would come out with a new remote design.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I do subscribe to HBO but lack the streaming device to be able to access HBO Max.  I have Tivos and Rokus. It would seem that one of those would have it, but no. Looks like you have to get a new model of Roku or one of a few other devices, including phones. I don't want to watch tv on my phone and I don't have gaming machines.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

I can cast HBO Max to my Vizio TV from my phone, or use the HBO Max app on my Apple TV.

If your TV doesn’t support casting directly, a cheap Fire TV stick or Google Chromecast should do it.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

sharkster said:


> I do subscribe to HBO but lack the streaming device to be able to access HBO Max.  I have Tivos and Rokus. It would seem that one of those would have it, but no. Looks like you have to get a new model of Roku or one of a few other devices, including phones. I don't want to watch tv on my phone and I don't have gaming machines.


This is my situation exactly. I do also have an Apple TV but haven't had it wired up since I moved two years ago. Apple TV is a fine streaming gadget, but the fact that Apple charges a buck or two more for every movie or tv rental drives me nuts. Why pay extra just to be able to support Apple products? I don't get it. I have a very large screen tv but it is not HD so perhaps that's why Apple fans pay a premium?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> HBO Max is cheaper than HBO...that's why I switched.


Same here, plus the video quality is better when streaming, vs the extra compression my cable company applies to everything.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

efilippi said:


> Apple TV is a fine streaming gadget, but the fact that Apple charges a buck or two more for every movie or tv rental drives me nuts. Why pay extra just to be able to support Apple products? I don't get it.


While you're entitled to your own value judgment, this does not seem to be a fair expectation. In days of yore, we didn't expect rentals to be included when we bought a VHS or DVD player. And today we don't expect all TV shows and movies on Amazon, including those not free with Prime, to be included with an Amazon device. Yet rentals should be included with an Apple TV?

Saying that $150-200 for an Apple TV is too steep compared to around $30 for a Fire Stick makes sense to me. Saying that because an Apple TV is expensive therefore the cost should include iTunes rentals does not.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> Saying that $150-200 for an Apple TV is too steep compared to around $30 for a Fire Stick makes sense to me. Saying that because an Apple TV is expensive therefore the cost should include iTunes rentals does not.


I don't own any Apple products (sorry, but IMO they're a bad company and I vote with my $$) so I can't say how accurate the opinion is, but the way I read the comment was not that items cost money instead of being free, but rather that they were a buck or two more expensive than the same thing could be obtained in other ways.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

madscientist said:


> I don't own any Apple products (sorry, but IMO they're a bad company and I vote with my $$) so I can't say how accurate the opinion is, but the way I read the comment was not that items cost money instead of being free, but rather that they were a buck or two more expensive than the same thing could be obtained in other ways.


If that's how it was meant then I agree they shouldn't charge $5 to rent something on iTunes when it's $4 to rent elsewhere. But those other outlets (Amazon, Google, and a few others) are available to be played on an ATV as well, so there's that. Also, while I don't know what every rental price is on iTunes, the few I've seen in the past cost the same there as they did on other platforms.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

tigercat74 said:


> I agree. I just wish it had a better remote. Don't like the Siri remote and I don't like universal remotes. I keep hoping they would come out with a new remote design.


I found a dedicated button remote for Apple TV from a company called function. It does almost everything you can do with the tiny touchy remote they provide. Website is function101.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mlsnyc said:


> While you're entitled to your own value judgment, this does not seem to be a fair expectation. In days of yore, we didn't expect rentals to be included when we bought a VHS or DVD player. And today we don't expect all TV shows and movies on Amazon, including those not free with Prime, to be included with an Amazon device. Yet rentals should be included with an Apple TV?
> 
> Saying that $150-200 for an Apple TV is too steep compared to around $30 for a Fire Stick makes sense to me. Saying that because an Apple TV is expensive therefore the cost should include iTunes rentals does not.


I always forget what Apple TV costs. I got mine free as a first customer to DirectvNow. That deal was worth it just for the device.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I don't own any Apple products (sorry, but IMO they're a bad company and I vote with my $$) so I can't say how accurate the opinion is, but the way I read the comment was not that items cost money instead of being free, but rather that they were a buck or two more expensive than the same thing could be obtained in other ways.


Well. I just checked the New Mutants as an example of a very new movie. Apple TV, Vudu, Prime, Fandango Now and Google all charge $5.99. Only Redbox had it at $4.99 but Redbox didn't offer 4K like all the others did.

This was via Roku search and prices confirmed.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

My free HBO max finally went away after I canceled my AT&T fiber.  now I guess I’ll have to pay for it, but I’ll wait for Wonder Woman 1984.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

tigercat74 said:


> I agree. I just wish it had a better remote. Don't like the Siri remote and I don't like universal remotes. I keep hoping they would come out with a new remote design.


There are a few after-market remotes (specifically for the Apple TV) that are MUCH better from what I've read. I don't even use the  remote; I just continued using my Harmony 650 which is more than adequate.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> There are a few after-market remotes (specifically for the Apple TV) that are MUCH better from what I've read. I don't even use the  remote; I just continued using my Harmony 650 which is more than adequate.


I use a universal as well. Apple TV has a reverse learning capability that you can assign functions to preset buttons on remotes.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

My complaint about AppleTV, re costs of content, was as Madscientist thought: I have no quibble with paying for a gadget, as I did, but I resented the fact that Apple then always overpriced rentals and purchases compared to what Amazon and others charged. TonyD79 now points out that my quibble is no longer valid so that complaint no longer applies. Maybe I helped level the playing field? :>}


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I have had an HBO sub on DirectTV for years. I like the convenience of being able to watch HBO either streaming or via "normal" means via HBO channels. If it cost me a dollar or two a month it's worth it to me. Heck, sometimes I just record it and then watch it on HBO Max since the resolution is better, and my recording serves as a reminder.

I was looking at ATV and I see it's on "sale for $179. So ATV fans, what makes ATV 6x better than a 4K Firestick or even a $70 Roku Ultra (of which I have both). Is the resolution or sound better? Both support Atmos and 4K Dolby Vision (if your TV supports it), depending on the App.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> ...I was looking at ATV and I see it's on "sale for $179. So ATV fans, what makes ATV 6x better than a 4K Firestick or even a $70 Roku Ultra (of which I have both). Is the resolution or sound better? Both support Atmos and 4K Dolby Vision (if your TV supports it), depending on the App.


First of all, that's definitely NOT on sale. My  TV is SO much faster than a Roku Ultra (which I also have; I don't have a firestick), it's not even worth comparing; MUCH quicker to respond. Resolution/sound are the same. The main reason I like it is the speed plus I'm totally immersed in the  ecosystem. So it may not be for you.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> First of all, that's definitely NOT on sale. My  TV is SO much faster than a Roku Ultra (which I also have; I don't have a firestick), it's not even worth comparing; MUCH quicker to respond. Resolution/sound are the same. The main reason I like it is the speed plus I'm totally immersed in the  ecosystem. So it may not be for you.


Faster? what are we talking about milliseconds? Even a few seconds wouldn't matter to me. Once everything is loaded, the experience shouldn't be any different I would think. That doesn't seem worth 6x the price.

BTW what is this? To me that symbol looks like a box with FB on top of FF, so not sure what that's supposed to be (I'm using Firefox browser, maybe it shows up as something else in another browser?)

I guess if you are an Apple person then it's an Ecosystem thing. I have ZERO Apple devices (my daughter has an iPad), so that's not an enticement for me.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm pretty much  everything except for my TiVo and my Roku (since with a TiVo, my streaming is limited).


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Faster? what are we talking about milliseconds? Even a few seconds wouldn't matter to me. Once everything is loaded, the experience shouldn't be any different I would think. That doesn't seem worth 6x the price.
> 
> BTW what is this? To me that symbol looks like a box with FB on top of FF, so not sure what that's supposed to be (I'm using Firefox browser, maybe it shows up as something else in another browser?)
> 
> I guess if you are an Apple person then it's an Ecosystem thing. I have ZERO Apple devices (my daughter has an iPad), so that's not an enticement for me.


I substituted Apple for the square box and it seems to read correct.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jcondon said:


> I substituted Apple for the square box and it seems to read correct.


Oh, is that supposed to be an Apple? Got it.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> BTW what is this? To me that symbol looks like a box with FB on top of FF, so not sure what that's supposed to be (I'm using Firefox browser, maybe it shows up as something else in another browser?)


Apple uses that for their logo. Which generally works, but U+F8FF is in the Private Use part of Unicode, so there's no standard for it. If it's an apple system, it likely renders correctly. Anything else? It's a crapshoot.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

kaszeta said:


> Apple uses that for their logo. Which generally works, but U+F8FF is in the Private Use part of Unicode, so there's no standard for it. If it's an apple system, it likely renders correctly. Anything else? It's a crapshoot.


thanks for the explanation. That's why it looks funny to me. Funny, because this is the first time I noticed it's use in all the time being here.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Way more than "milliseconds" or even "seconds". I can't put a percentage on it, but I would say significantly. And why so antagonistic? Geez, you asked and I answered...lighten up. Sorry my answer doesn't please you. And you're welcome.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Hah. I had sideloaded Max on my Firestick. I hadn’t watched since 11/18, when the firestick got native support for Max. So I go to fire up the finale of The Undoing and I get error messages! Yikes; so I signed up for the HBO trial on Amazon so I could watch it when I wanted. Today I figured out what was wrong and uninstalled my side load, and then installed the native app. I get HBO Max included in my AT&T fiber, so I definitely didn’t want to pay for HBO in Amazon. While canceling the trial, I noticed that I was paying for CBS All Access, which I tried for Picard but then quickly said nah, but forgot to cancel the autorenewal.


----------



## ThePhoenix (Feb 13, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> I have had an HBO sub on DirectTV for years. I like the convenience of being able to watch HBO either streaming or via "normal" means via HBO channels. If it cost me a dollar or two a month it's worth it to me. Heck, sometimes I just record it and then watch it on HBO Max since the resolution is better, and my recording serves as a reminder.
> 
> I was looking at ATV and I see it's on "sale for $179. So ATV fans, what makes ATV 6x better than a 4K Firestick or even a $70 Roku Ultra (of which I have both). Is the resolution or sound better? Both support Atmos and 4K Dolby Vision (if your TV supports it), depending on the App.


I have an Apple TV and probably 5 or 6 Fire Sticks. I almost never use the Apple TV. I think the one thing it does much better than the Fire Stick is keeping track of the shows I'm watching from different apps (HBO, Netflix, Hulu, etc.). Right now, my use is almost exclusively when I need to mirror my iPad to my TV.

The Fire Sticks are so cheap, I can put them everywhere and keep a spare for traveling. The Fire Sticks also play all the shows recorded on my Recast DVR. If the ATV was only twice as expensive, I'd probably go with it, but with the current pricing, I'm staying with the Fire Sticks.

Speed - my Fire Sticks get really slow after a while. Some apps take as long as 30 seconds to a minute to load; long enough I end up wondering if it's frozen or something.

Another plus on the Fire Stick side - I prefer its remote control.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

ThePhoenix said:


> I have an Apple TV and probably 5 or 6 Fire Sticks. I almost never use the Apple TV. I think the one thing it does much better than the Fire Stick is keeping track of the shows I'm watching from different apps (HBO, Netflix, Hulu, etc.). Right now, my use is almost exclusively when I need to mirror my iPad to my TV.
> 
> The Fire Sticks are so cheap, I can put them everywhere and keep a spare for traveling. The Fire Sticks also play all the shows recorded on my Recast DVR. If the ATV was only twice as expensive, I'd probably go with it, but with the current pricing, I'm staying with the Fire Sticks.
> 
> ...


My 1st Gen firestick got slow like that, but it's in my backpack and I only use it for travel now. I have a newer 4k stick that loads quickly. After a few early quirks, I'm starting to like the TiVo 4k device for some of the reasons you like the ATV, it's easy to find stuff I've watched before. And it was only $50.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Though I stream various shows/movies, I still want the actual cable HBO so that I can tivo documentaries (and Last Week Tonight, when it's in production) so that I can watch them faster than realtime. Lately there have been some interesting documentary series.

Without that, I'd probably get it 'sporadically' and binge on just HBO shows for a while, then cancel it... then wait a while and subscribe again.


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

Should rename this thread "AppleTV featuring HBOMax".


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> Though I stream various shows/movies, I still want the actual cable HBO so that I can tivo documentaries (and Last Week Tonight, when it's in production) so that I can watch them faster than realtime. Lately there have been some interesting documentary series.
> 
> Without that, I'd probably get it 'sporadically' and binge on just HBO shows for a while, then cancel it... then wait a while and subscribe again.


As I said, I like to record the HBO series and then for some, I'll watch on HBO Max because the resolution is better. DirecTV is 1080i and HBO Max is 1080p. So it looks a little better. There are two advantages to watching on DirecTV though. One is that it's there in the interface I watch as my go to, so it's just click and play. And second.....trick play...FF, REW, 30 second skip and so forth just work SO much better than in the HBO Max app. To me, that's the one thing that it still missing in any of these apps, and that's a more convenient, TiVo/DirecTV like trick play.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> As I said, I like to record the HBO series and then for some, I'll watch on HBO Max because the resolution is better. DirecTV is 1080i and HBO Max is 1080p. So it looks a little better. There are two advantages to watching on DirecTV though. One is that it's there in the interface I watch as my go to, so it's just click and play. And second.....trick play...FF, REW, 30 second skip and so forth just work SO much better than in the HBO Max app. To me, that's the one thing that it still missing in any of these apps, and that's a more convenient, TiVo/DirecTV like trick play.


I agree about trick play on apps in general. They are not consistent between apps and some are much better/worse than others.

That said, since all our streaming is commercial free, aside from pause we don't have much need (if any) for FF and only the very occasional REW in case someone missed something. so not much of an issue in that regard.

I also will always watch the streaming version of an aired show for the same improved resolution reason (and if a network show, no FF commercials). I too was recording as a reminder but have forgotten to do so. I should get back to it so I know when new episodes are on, particularly for network shows where weeks get skipped.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> I agree about trick play on apps in general. They are not consistent between apps and some are much better/worse than others.
> 
> That said, since all our streaming is commercial free, aside from pause we don't have much need (if any) for FF and only the very occasional REW in case someone missed something. so not much of an issue in that regard.
> 
> I also will always watch the streaming version of an aired show for the same improved resolution reason (and if a network show, no FF commercials). I too was recording as a reminder but have forgotten to do so. I should get back to it so I know when new episodes are on, particularly for network shows where weeks get skipped.


Another issue I've found, particularly with ATV+ is that when you stop a show and come back to it later, it's very inconsistant where it starts from again. Sometimes it doesn't go back to the exact spot ( a few minutes early usually) and occasionally from the beginning. Watching Long Way Up for example, often I'd have to FF 5 minutes worth of content to get back to where I left off. Other venues have different issues. And often it's hard to pinpoint how far you have to go back. That's fine for streaming like Netflix, but my experience when playing with YTTV was that this functionality on live TV is sorely lacking.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Another issue I've found, particularly with ATV+ is that when you stop a show and come back to it later, it's very inconsistant where it starts from again. Sometimes it doesn't go back to the exact spot ( a few minutes early usually) and occasionally from the beginning. Watching Long Way Up for example, often I'd have to FF 5 minutes worth of content to get back to where I left off. Other venues have different issues. And often it's hard to pinpoint how far you have to go back. That's fine for streaming like Netflix, but my experience when playing with YTTV was that this functionality on live TV is sorely lacking.


Actually yes - the ATV+ app (at least on the 4K Firestick) is about the worst interface of any streaming app I have seen. And shows stopped in the middle of an episode sometimes just start over when you go back to them. I forgot about that.

But even navigating that app is a chore like trying to find the main show page for a specific show you are watching.


----------



## reddice (Mar 6, 2004)

HBO Max app for the Apple TV is better at performance. I also find that from other apps too.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Back to HBO Max itself. 

Warner has announced that all 2021 theatrical releases will be on HBO Max on release date and included in package for one month.


----------



## spear (Oct 11, 2006)

They also announced that "Wonder Woman 1984" will be available in 4k, HDR10, Dolby Vision, and Dolby Atmos. Here's hoping the 2021 releases will be the same.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

zordude said:


> I get the hbo max streaming service for "free" via my ATT mobile account, also I don't have cable tv service, so those are my personal reasons


In the exact same boat as you. Get HBO Max "free" from my AT&T mobile plan, and I don't have cable or satellite service.


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Back to HBO Max itself.
> 
> Warner has announced that all 2021 theatrical releases will be on HBO Max on release date and included in package for one month.


Thats huge. Dune and Matrix 4 from the comfort of my living room will be great. The theater experience has degraded so much over the last 10 years I refuse to go anymore.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I still prefer the theater, especially for big movies, especially in the premium theaters (IMAX, Dolby, etc.). But if it's not an option, seeing it at home for free* on my 75" 4K TV with Atmos sound system is a decent enough consolation prize.

*Yes, I know, I'm paying for HBO Max. But I'm paying for it anyway (thanks a LOT, John Oliver! ), so that makes this effectively free.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

KungFuCow said:


> Thats huge. Dune and Matrix 4 from the comfort of my living room will be great. The theater experience has degraded so much over the last 10 years I refuse to go anymore.


I agree that it has gone down in many respects -- people talking, or worse, using their @%&# phones. Man those screens are bright in a dark theater. But it has also improved in many ways, too. Concessions are not just popcorn, candy, and soda anymore. My local Cinemark has a wide assortment of food, made to order, and bar service on certain days/times.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I still prefer the theater, especially for big movies, especially in the premium theaters (IMAX, Dolby, etc.). But if it's not an option, seeing it at home for free* on my 75" 4K TV with Atmos sound system is a decent enough consolation prize.
> 
> *Yes, I know, I'm paying for HBO Max. But I'm paying for it anyway (thanks a LOT, John Oliver! ), so that makes this effectively free.


I do, too. You can only do so much to replicate the experience at home. A lot of great memories seeing movies with friends and family. I'll be glad when Covid is behind us, and I can feel safe going back to the theater.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> I agree that it has gone down in many respects -- people talking, or worse, using their @%&# phones. Man those screens are bright in a dark theater. But it has also improved in many ways, too. Concessions are not just popcorn, candy, and soda anymore. My local Cinemark has a wide assortment of food, made to order, and bar service on certain days/times.


Also all the theaters around here (other than the discount ones) have recliners and reserved seating. The experience has actually gotten better in the last couple of years.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Also all the theaters around here (other than the discount ones) have recliners and reserved seating. The experience has actually gotten better in the last couple of years.


But I wonder if it's worth the extra cost when my TV / Sound system can make for a very satisfying experience? And I think that's the case for most movies, watching at home is fine. Certain high tech movies, like the Star Wars movies, or some Super Hero movies are usually better in the theater, but even that is less so for me. Now, one thing the theater experience is that stay at home isn't, is exactly that, a night out, so unless you send your kids out of the house, the experience of being in a theater is your night out.


----------



## SteveD (Oct 22, 2002)

If only we still had the IMAX 3D option, an experience that's hard to replicate in the home.


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Back to HBO Max itself.
> 
> Warner has announced that all 2021 theatrical releases will be on HBO Max on release date and included in package for one month.


Via CNBC....
*
Warner Bros. movies launching in 2021 include "The Little Things," "Judas and the Black Messiah," "Tom & Jerry," "Godzilla vs. Kong," "Mortal Kombat," "Those Who Wish Me Dead," "The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It," "In The Heights," "Space Jam: A New Legacy," "The Suicide Squad," "Reminiscence," "Malignant," "Dune," "The Many Saints of Newark," "King Richard," "Cry Macho" and "Matrix 4."*


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

They'll stream these movies, but will they charge additional?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> They'll stream these movies, but will they charge additional?


Apparently not.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> But I wonder if it's worth the extra cost when my TV / Sound system can make for a very satisfying experience? And I think that's the case for most movies, watching at home is fine. Certain high tech movies, like the Star Wars movies, or some Super Hero movies are usually better in the theater, but even that is less so for me. Now, one thing the theater experience is that stay at home isn't, is exactly that, a night out, so unless you send your kids out of the house, the experience of being in a theater is your night out.


I have a great system. Theater is still more immersive. Home theater (unless you have a rock star's setup) is a good substitute but still not as good as a good theater.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> They'll stream these movies, but will they charge additional?


The first 30 days of a release are included in the HBO max subscription as it reads now.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I have a great system. Theater is still more immersive. Home theater (unless you have a rock star's setup) is a good substitute but still not as good as a good theater.


Same here, plus I live in a condo and am a decent human being, so I can't really crank the sound for fear of annoying the neighbors.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I have a great system. Theater is still more immersive. Home theater (unless you have a rock star's setup) is a good substitute but still not as good as a good theater.


Maybe it's because I'm old (actually probably because of that!) but I find the in theater experience too loud. For some reason modern theaters happen to think that loud is good. I do agree, that you can definitely feel an "I'm there" experience better in a theater than in a home theater setup. But really, most movies I don't need that. So one advantage of being home, is that I can regulate volume. Another is that often I fall asleep in a completely dark theater. In fact my wife doesn't go to the theater with me and my kids when we go because she ALWAYS falls asleep. At home, if I fall asleep, I'll just stop the movie and pick it up another time, and I'm not wasting money. As I said, there's a diminishing return for me between going to the movies and and watching from home. But for those movies where it really matters to me, I do the theaters.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

My rule is if the movie interests me and is Imax, then I absolutely go to the theater. Last visit for that was Tenet, I'm afraid.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

I haven't enjoyed going to the movies for a long time. Probably my increasing disdain for people in general!  
Enjoying with my wife, kids (if they are home) or anyone else who's over (during normal times) is all the community experience I need.

I, too, have a couple of nice theater set ups where it's much more enjoyable than having to endure with others and their candy wrappings, chewing, talking, phones, etc. And I come pretty close to replicating movie theater popcorn (thanks in large part to https://www.tivocommunity.com/commu.../popcorn-theater-style-at-home.541810/page-17)!

Then there's the money savings (streaming one movie for the two of us plus food saves almost a month's streaming costs), being able to pause, adjust the sound/volume to our liking, etc.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I haven't been in a movie theater for some 20+ years. I don't like crowds and I can't handle excessive noise, so those are two of the reasons for me. But one thing that, toward the end of my theater-going days, I noticed was that sitting in those seats made my arthritis scream. I have no idea what that's about but it was glaring and I had a hard time being comfortable.

Because of the arthritis in one of my knees, I do struggle with regular 'chair sitting' and need to stretch out that one leg. But for so many years I sat with crossed legs in a chair and that was so comfortable - until I could no longer do it. I really miss that!


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> I have a great system. Theater is still more immersive. Home theater (unless you have a rock star's setup) is a good substitute but still not as good as a good theater.


I'm not disagreeing at all and I completely see where people are coming from about loving the theater experience. I used to go to at least one movie a week back from about 2000-2010 but once phones became prevalent and people forgot what manners are (Talking constantly through the movie) then I quit going. Its not worth the frustration when you got people sitting 4 seats over having phone conversations or even worse, texting constantly.

There are a few upscale theaters here that do dinner and a movie with reclined seating, etc and I do enjoy that but that turns an evening out into a $100.00 affair. I really have to want to see a movie in a theater to go there.

Mixed bag I guess, probably depends a lot on where you live.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I guess I'm lucky, but I've never had problems with people misbehaving in theaters.

Maybe because I live in Minnesota? Maybe because I always go to first shows of the day?


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I guess I'm lucky, but I've never had problems with people misbehaving in theaters.
> 
> Maybe because I live in Minnesota? Maybe because I always go to first shows of the day?


Probably yes and yes


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I guess I'm lucky, but I've never had problems with people misbehaving in theaters.
> 
> Maybe because I live in Minnesota? Maybe because I always go to first shows of the day?


Maybe because everyone exaggerates how bad it is to see a movie in theaters?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

When we go to the movies it's almost always a weekend afternoon showing. And often those are the movies I described above, Star Wars or Superhero movies. So with those come kids, and kids yap and use their phones and are kind of rude. Last "adult" movie I went to was 1917, toward the end of it's run. There were 4 of us in the theater, including my son and I. But with that, the sound was LOUD. I don't think theaters ever adjust the sound depending on who's in the theater. I enjoyed it though. I just thought that was the type of movie that might sound good in a theater. I have the 4K disc and it sounds good there as well.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

sharkster said:


> I haven't been in a movie theater for some 20+ years. I don't like crowds and I can't handle excessive noise, so those are two of the reasons for me. But one thing that, toward the end of my theater-going days, I noticed was that sitting in those seats made my arthritis scream. I have no idea what that's about but it was glaring and I had a hard time being comfortable.


I don't spend a ton on my "home theater"; we have just a simple 42" TV with a basic sound bar + subwoofer and back speakers but nothing fancy. So, I do like to go to the movie theater for the "big movies" but obviously we haven't been since early this year.

As mentioned above, the reclining seats and reserved seating make a HUGE difference (to me). I'm one of those people who needs to sit in the middle, about a third of the way back: if I'm paying theater prices I want the right location. If I can't reserve the seats I want I'll just go to a different showing. I used to have to get there early-ish and rush in, etc. but all of that is a thing of the past.

sharkster I know what you mean about the old seats but I'm telling you these new reclining theater seats are so comfortable! They are very adjustable and the legs lift up almost parallel to the floor if you want. Another reason to only go to the action-packed movies... you won't doze off... 

And because the seats are so much larger, and they need so much more room between rows due to the reclining, there can be only about a third to half as many people in a given showing which means a lot less opportunity for annoying people even for popular movies when the theater is "full".

I do agree with Steveknj though, the theater sound system volumes are sometimes totally ridiculous. I guess they spend so much on them they want to show off or something. Yikes. Usually after 10 minutes or so I'll get used to it and not notice it anymore (or else they adjust it or something).


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I haven't been to a theater since 2002. They had 30 minutes of pre-movie ads + previews, there were phones lit up with people talking, the people sitting behind me were crunching chips, someone else in my row had to push past me to pee during the 2nd best part of the movie, and I had to pee during the best part.

And that was just a typical movie experience, nothing unusual.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe it's because I'm old (actually probably because of that!) but I find the in theater experience too loud. For some reason modern theaters happen to think that loud is good. I do agree, that you can definitely feel an "I'm there" experience better in a theater than in a home theater setup. But really, most movies I don't need that. So one advantage of being home, is that I can regulate volume. Another is that often I fall asleep in a completely dark theater. In fact my wife doesn't go to the theater with me and my kids when we go because she ALWAYS falls asleep. At home, if I fall asleep, I'll just stop the movie and pick it up another time, and I'm not wasting money. As I said, there's a diminishing return for me between going to the movies and and watching from home. But for those movies where it really matters to me, I do the theaters.


Can't play the old card with me. I will be 63 in two weeks.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jr461 said:


> I haven't enjoyed going to the movies for a long time. Probably my increasing disdain for people in general!
> Enjoying with my wife, kids (if they are home) or anyone else who's over (during normal times) is all the community experience I need.
> 
> I, too, have a couple of nice theater set ups where it's much more enjoyable than having to endure with others and their candy wrappings, chewing, talking, phones, etc. And I come pretty close to replicating movie theater popcorn (thanks in large part to https://www.tivocommunity.com/commu.../popcorn-theater-style-at-home.541810/page-17)!
> ...


You go to some bad theaters. Where I go, it isn't noisy or dirty or wherever. Or you have a stereotype feeling about theaters from the 1970s.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I don't spend a ton on my "home theater"; we have just a simple 42" TV with a basic sound bar + subwoofer and back speakers but nothing fancy. So, I do like to go to the movie theater for the "big movies" but obviously we haven't been since early this year.
> 
> As mentioned above, the reclining seats and reserved seating make a HUGE difference (to me). I'm one of those people who needs to sit in the middle, about a third of the way back: if I'm paying theater prices I want the right location. If I can't reserve the seats I want I'll just go to a different showing. I used to have to get there early-ish and rush in, etc. but all of that is a thing of the past.
> 
> ...


Pretty much spot on. The theater experience has changed immensely with new seating, many with tables, reserved seating so you can pick your seat, including sitting away from people or even seeing how crowded the theater is before you go.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

I finally tried the temporary drive-in theater that the local Alamo Cinema and Drafthouse put up - that was a couple weeks ago. I'd never been to any kind of drive-in before - it worked pretty well, used the car's FM radio for the audio and they had a adequate screen for a small number of cars. (And you could still order food and refreshment - they ran it over from the actual theater kitchen in insulated containers in a golf cart and then carry it over to your car)

They just added a bunch of drive-in showings of WW85 for the end of the month. So now I have to decide if I'll enjoy seeing that more from my car with freshly delivered theater food or sitting at home on HBO Max. (Plus make sure I've got a way to stream HBO Max to the TV). It'll likely be chillier after Christmas than it was mid-November, but will it be enough chillier to be better of staying home?


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

So, does anyone else frequently play things on HBO Max in a web browser on their computer? And if so, is there any way to set the content to fill the browser, but *not* be full screen? Every (almost) other web viewing platform lets me play the content in a window that I can resize and place anywhere I want. On HBO Max, unless it's full screen, it only uses ~25% of the browser window for content, and the rest is Cast & Crew, More like This, synopsis, etc... is there a button/setting I'm missing?

(Tivo Online had the same problem, and it's one of the reasons I never used it)


----------



## spear (Oct 11, 2006)

I think it depends on the aspect ratio of your browser window. If it's more tall and narrow, it changes the video to the width of the window.

Firefox lets you detach the video to a separate window that can be resized independently. Subtitles and controls remain in the parent browser window but if you don't care about that, it might work well for you.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

kdmorse said:


> So, does anyone else frequently play things on HBO Max in a web browser on their computer? And if so, is there any way to set the content to fill the browser, but *not* be full screen? Every (almost) other web viewing platform lets me play the content in a window that I can resize and place anywhere I want. On HBO Max, unless it's full screen, it only uses ~25% of the browser window for content, and the rest is Cast & Crew, More like This, synopsis, etc... is there a button/setting I'm missing?
> 
> (Tivo Online had the same problem, and it's one of the reasons I never used it)


I use the Picture-in-Picture Extension for the Google Chrome Browser. Other browsers have similar extensions.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> You go to some bad theaters. Where I go, it isn't noisy or dirty or wherever. Or you have a stereotype feeling about theaters from the 1970s.


The theaters are fine, modern and clean. It's the other movie-goers that annoy me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jr461 said:


> The theaters are fine, modern and clean. It's the other movie-goers that annoy me.


And with reserved seating, you can tell if the theater will be full or empty in advance and plan accordingly.

But the behavior issues are probably geographic to some extend. I don't get noisy or annoying crowds near me.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> And with reserved seating, you can tell if the theater will be full or empty in advance and plan accordingly.


Not always as that just shows you what seems have been reserved at that time.

Also in my local theater, I've found that unless the theater is full, people tend to not sit in their assigned seats. That or the reserved seating map is wrong.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

morac said:


> Not always as that just shows you what seems have been reserved at that time.
> 
> Also in my local theater, I've found that unless the theater is full, people tend to not sit in their assigned seats. That or the reserved seating map is wrong.


It still gives you an idea and trends. In my area it seems few people do walk up anymore. They reserve in line ahead of time.

I have never seen a bad map.

As for people not sitting in their reserved seats, I've seen little of that. Once again, I live in a pretty civilized area.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Very cool that Wonder Woman 84 will be 4K. Bad thing is I'll be at family's, and they don't have 4K or all that big a TV. I will want to watch it right then, and will have to wait to see it in 4K when I get home.


----------



## jdfs (Oct 21, 2002)

jay_man2 said:


> I can cast HBO Max to my Vizio TV from my phone, or use the HBO Max app on my Apple TV.
> 
> If your TV doesn't support casting directly, a cheap Fire TV stick or Google Chromecast should do it.


Or just use the Fire Stick and download hbo max. Use your cable or other credentials to log in.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Also all the theaters around here (other than the discount ones) have recliners and reserved seating. The experience has actually gotten better in the last couple of years.


Especially when you can pay ~$20-~25 (depending on area) for up to 3 movies/week and the premium theaters are included. (AMC A list)


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

HBO Max Seals Deal With Roku, Making Streaming Distribution Footprint Complete - Deadline

Wish they would create an app for my Vizio Smartcast TV, I hate having to cast from another device.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Allanon said:


> HBO Max Seals Deal With Roku, Making Streaming Distribution Footprint Complete - Deadline
> 
> Wish they would create an app for my Vizio Smartcast TV, I hate having to cast from another device.


Same here. I can use my TiVo Stream 4K on that TV, but it would be nice to have a native app. (Could use my Xbox Series X, or PS5 as well, but same deal. Native app on the TV would be very welcome)


----------



## reddice (Mar 6, 2004)

Roku app is more reliable than the ATV. Doctor who kept dropping to low definition so I loaded it on the Roku and it stayed in HD.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

What’s up with Wonder Woman 1984? It says it should be streaming at 12 AM on December 25, EST. I tried to watch it, but I only got the trailer. So I stay up another hour, figuring because I am on central time it will be available at 12 AM my time. Nope. Just the three minute opening scene in the trailer. I’m pretty disappointed.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> What's up with Wonder Woman 1984? It says it should be streaming at 12 AM on December 25, EST. I tried to watch it, but I only got the trailer. So I stay up another hour, figuring because I am on central time it will be available at 12 AM my time. Nope. Just the three minute opening scene in the trailer. I'm pretty disappointed.


9am Pacific. 12*PM* (Noon) Eastern. Or so sayeth twitter.

Edit: Added twitter reference


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341082882933096448


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, according to my AV system it's sending 720p and DD 5.1 instead of 4K and Atmos. I'm not sure the AV player actually knows what the video is, although from what I'm seeing I wouldn't be surprised if it is 720p upscaled by the TV. Unfortunately I can't check for sure because every streaming app disables the TV's Display function, which tells me what format the sound and video is (only Netflix supplies its own version of this). I can't find anything in the HBO Max app to tell it what kind of system I have.

Now I have to wonder if I should watch the bowdlerized version now, or wait for it to arrive at a local theater or on 4K Blu-ray...


----------



## spear (Oct 11, 2006)

I'm getting Dolby Vision and Atmos on my AppleTV 4k.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe it's because I'm old (actually probably because of that!) but I find the in theater experience too loud. For some reason modern theaters happen to think that loud is good. I do agree, that you can definitely feel an "I'm there" experience better in a theater than in a home theater setup. But really, most movies I don't need that. So one advantage of being home, is that I can regulate volume. Another is that often I fall asleep in a completely dark theater. In fact my wife doesn't go to the theater with me and my kids when we go because she ALWAYS falls asleep. At home, if I fall asleep, I'll just stop the movie and pick it up another time, and I'm not wasting money. As I said, there's a diminishing return for me between going to the movies and and watching from home. But for those movies where it really matters to me, I do the theaters.


I'm with you on several counts here... I can't go to indoor rock concerts because they're simply too loud. Imagine I actually walked out of a Springsteen concert about 10-15 years ago at the Meadowlands Arena. Several years later I was able to see him again at Giant's Stadium, for some reason outdoor acoustics work better for me. Broadway has also become a waste of my time and money for similar reasons. And while movie theaters aren't yet overwhelming to me, I can see that eventually being the case.

I also suffer from falling asleep while watching movies or even theater. I fell asleep during HAIR, only to wake up at the point of seeing everyone naked for about half a second and then the lights went completely off. At home, I can always rewind. Lately the only movies we go to in the theater is something that calls for big screen. Star Wars, Star Trek type films, James Bond perhaps, things like that. Otherwise I'll wait for the home theater experience.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Can't play the old card with me. I will be 63 in two weeks.


I can.... I'll be 64 in April.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

These are the only devices that do 4k:


Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K and Fire TV Cube

Android TVs, including: AT&T Streaming Box

Apple TV 4K

Google Chromecast Ultra

Chromecast with Google TV (no Atmos audio)

Roku Ultra 4800x, Roku 4k TVs,

Roku Premiere and Roku Streaming Stick+ (No Dolby Vision HDR or Atmos)

Xfinity X1 (Xi6) and Flex

It took my Vizio Smartcast TV about a minute to go from 480p to 4k.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I have an Android TV, and it's not getting 4K or Atmos. For kicks, I downloaded a bootleg copy, and it's showing up as both 4K and Atmos (and you can really see the difference!).


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

kdmorse said:


> 9am Pacific. 12*PM* (Noon) Eastern. Or so sayeth twitter.
> 
> Edit: Added twitter reference
> 
> ...


Half way through and it's as bad as the reviews say it is. 
At least it's free with my HBO subscription.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Dolby Vision & 4K out of the Sony 85X950H Android TV HBO MAX app.

Major shame there's no filter to make the movie have a good story, though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MScottC said:


> I'm with you on several counts here... I can't go to indoor rock concerts because they're simply too loud. Imagine I actually walked out of a Springsteen concert about 10-15 years ago at the Meadowlands Arena. Several years later I was able to see him again at Giant's Stadium, for some reason outdoor acoustics work better for me. Broadway has also become a waste of my time and money for similar reasons. And while movie theaters aren't yet overwhelming to me, I can see that eventually being the case.
> 
> I also suffer from falling asleep while watching movies or even theater. I fell asleep during HAIR, only to wake up at the point of seeing everyone naked for about half a second and then the lights went completely off. At home, I can always rewind. Lately the only movies we go to in the theater is something that calls for big screen. Star Wars, Star Trek type films, James Bond perhaps, things like that. Otherwise I'll wait for the home theater experience.


Concerts for some reason, I still like to go to, though I do have quite the DVD/BD collection of rock concerts. I haven't been to an inside concert in years though. Usually I go to the Arts Center in Holmdel or for Springsteen, last two times have been at Giants Stadium and then MetLife. But I love live music. Broadway? I've been to probably a show or two in the last 20 years. It's just too expensive at this point, and I'd rather spend my money on a concert or a sporting event.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

dswallow said:


> Major shame there's no filter to make the movie have a good story, though.


True. Pinocchio wishing on a star made more sense.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max's 'Wonder Woman 1984' audience helps fast-track a sequel


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> HBO Max's 'Wonder Woman 1984' audience helps fast-track a sequel


Releasing on HBO Max helped them as I doubt the movie would have had the number of views that it did if it was only released to theaters. It would have probably had a good opening weekend and then the numbers would likely have dropped off dramatically.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> Releasing on HBO Max helped them as I doubt the movie would have had the number of views that it did if it was only released to theaters. It would have probably had a good opening weekend and then the numbers would likely have dropped off dramatically.


The thing is, views don't matter if it doesn't translate into $$. Would they have made more money with a theatrical release only or was this the best way? Normally, you want to release to theaters, but not this year with everything going on. So did releasing it to HBO Max, offset the lost revenue it would have gotten otherwise? Did it increase subscriptions enough to make it worthwhile? If the answer is yes, than this was a smart thing to do.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Would have helped even more if the movie had a good story.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> HBO Max's 'Wonder Woman 1984' audience helps fast-track a sequel


From that article:


> The movie will only be available on HBO Max for a month.


 I didn't realize this.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, views don't matter if it doesn't translate into $$. Would they have made more money with a theatrical release only or was this the best way? Normally, you want to release to theaters, but not this year with everything going on. So did releasing it to HBO Max, offset the lost revenue it would have gotten otherwise? Did it increase subscriptions enough to make it worthwhile? If the answer is yes, than this was a smart thing to do.


I meant in a normal year I don't think it would have done as "well". In this year $16.7 million in box office revenue and 6.3 million "watches" (half their subscribers) on day 1 is considered very good. Who knows how many people subscribed to HBO Max just for WW84.

If you take 6.3 million "watches" and assume an average of around 3 people watching and translate that into box office revenue that would have been a one day total of over $200 million which would be record breaking.

In a normal year I think word of mouth would have kept a lot of people who watched it day 1 this year from seeing it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> I meant in a normal year I don't think it would have done as "well". In this year $16.7 million in box office revenue and 6.3 million "watches" (half their subscribers) on day 1 is considered very good. Who knows how many people subscribed to HBO Max just for WW84.
> 
> If you take 6.3 million "watches" and assume an average of around 3 people watching and translate that into box office revenue that would have been a one day total of over $200 million which would be record breaking.
> 
> In a normal year I think word of mouth would have kept a lot of people who watched it day 1 this year from seeing it.


But there are a lot of people, like me, who wouldn't have gone to the theater to see it and only watched because it came with my sub. So you have to figure that's at least a third of the people.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I wonder how much money Gal Gadot missed out on by the movie being released during the pandemic. With potential blockbusters like this, the actors generally agree to less upfront with a piece of the back-end.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> But there are a lot of people, like me, who wouldn't have gone to the theater to see it and only watched because it came with my sub. So you have to figure that's at least a third of the people.


That's my point. Warner is touting how well (relatively speaking) WW84 did, but it only did well because of how it was released.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

gweempose said:


> I wonder how much money Gal Gadot missed out on by the movie being released during the pandemic. With potential blockbusters like this, the actors generally agree to less upfront with a piece of the back-end.


I'm not sure that's true? I've heard that very, very few actors have the power to get gross points, and very, very few other actors are dumb enough to take net points (which are generally worth less than the paper the contract is printed out on) in lieu of hard, cold cash...

E.g., the Lord of the Rings movies famously never "turned a profit," and thus never paid off on potential net points. Same with the Babylon 5 TV show. Those are the two whose lawsuits pop immediately into mind, but there are many other vastly successful movies that never "turned a profit."


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

gweempose said:


> I wonder how much money Gal Gadot missed out on by the movie being released during the pandemic. With potential blockbusters like this, the actors generally agree to less upfront with a piece of the back-end.


There was reporting that both Gadot and Jenkins received $10M paychecks with the move to HBO Max.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure that's true? I've heard that very, very few actors have the power to get gross points, and very, very few other actors are dumb enough to take net points (which are generally worth less than the paper the contract is printed out on) in lieu of hard, cold cash...


I agree that I don't think it's very common for studios to give out gross points anymore, but I've read articles about actors in the MCU movies that ended up making a TON of money because of back-end percentage points. Those movies are so unbelievably profitable that even a small piece of the back-end can equal tens of millions. I think Robert Downey Jr. made something like $100M each on the last two Avengers movies. I just assumed that the sequel to Wonder Woman probably gave Gadot some serious bargaining power since the first film was such a huge worldwide hit.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

GoPackGo said:


> There was reporting that both Gadot and Jenkins received $10M paychecks with the move to HBO Max.


That's interesting. So perhaps they had a clause in their contracts that gave them a $10M bonus instead of back-end points if the movie didn't open on a certain number of screens.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

According to this article, it looks like the $10M was negotiated *after* the decision to move the film to HBO Max ...

Gal Gadot Got Over $10 Million Due to Wonder Woman 1984 Going to HBO Max


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

If they want to make WW3 they had to keep the talent happy with this move...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Haven't seen it (and did I not see the first one), but everyone I've spoken with who has seen it says it's a big disappointment.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

madscientist said:


> If they want to make WW3 they had to keep the talent happy with this move...


Not really, because if they weren't happy, maybe they could've hired a bunch of new folks who could do better.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

dswallow said:


> Not really, because if they weren't happy, maybe they could've hired a bunch of new folks who could do better.


It was not the acting that was the problem. It was the writing, possibly the directing, and maybe the producers.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I just assumed that the sequel to Wonder Woman probably gave Gadot some serious bargaining power since the first film was such a huge worldwide hit.


I think I saw her name as an Exec Producer. That's points right there.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> I think I saw her name as an Exec Producer. That's points right there.


Not always. Producer credits can mean whatever they want them to mean...as much or as little.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Not really, because if they weren't happy, maybe they could've hired a bunch of new folks who could do better.


You could do #3 without Jenkins, probably, but you definitely won't have any success doing it without Gadot.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I agree that I don't think it's very common for studios to give out gross points anymore, but I've read articles about actors in the MCU movies that ended up making a TON of money because of back-end percentage points. Those movies are so unbelievably profitable that even a small piece of the back-end can equal tens of millions.* I think Robert Downey Jr. made something like $100M each on the last two Avengers movies.* I just assumed that the sequel to Wonder Woman probably gave Gadot some serious bargaining power since the first film was such a huge worldwide hit.


A bit off topic, but when I see numbers like that, it make me wonder why people get so bent out of shape when an athlete makes that kind of money but never says a word about movie stars making that kind of money?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not always. Producer credits can mean whatever they want them to mean...as much or as little.


Exactly.

Doug Swallow - IMDb


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Doug Swallow - IMDb


So... you're rich! Points, baby, points!!


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> A bit off topic, but when I see numbers like that, it make me wonder why people get so bent out of shape when an athlete makes that kind of money but never says a word about movie stars making that kind of money?


My theory that the people that get mad played the sport as a kid and don't think it is fair that someone gets paid to play a "game"


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tigercat74 said:


> My theory that the people that get mad played the sport as a kid and don't think it is fair that someone gets paid to play a "game"


So in that vein, if you acted in a school play, should you think it's not fair that an actor makes $100M per movie for something you did for free in 5th grade?


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> So in that vein, if you acted in a school play, should you think it's not fair that an actor makes $100M per movie for something you did for free in 5th grade?


Maybe except more dream about being an athlete than an actor.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tigercat74 said:


> Maybe except more dream about being an athlete than an actor.


Maybe, but other are absurd in the scheme of things. But then again, how many of either have the talent to get that much money? Not many in either vocation. Still more important jobs make far less money. Just the way it is. I'm not complaining.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

tigercat74 said:


> My theory that the people that get mad played the sport as a kid and don't think it is fair that someone gets paid to play a "game"


Alternatively some of the complaint may be that a team with more money can (barring league rules to the contrary) can simply buy their way to victory by outbidding everyone else for all the best talent.

People don't generally care that actor A was too expensive for a given movie[1] but boy do they seem to be pissed if their rival team is seen to win because they could spend more on players.

[1] And sometimes even major A-list actors will work cheap in order take a role they really love. Don't really get that for sports.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> [1] And sometimes even major A-list actors will work cheap in order take a role they really love. Don't really get that for sports.


Of course, in sports they don't get paid by the game...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Or maybe it’s because the papers are full of salary info for sports but very little for entertainment.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Alternatively some of the complaint may be that a team with more money can (barring league rules to the contrary) can simply buy their way to victory by outbidding everyone else for all the best talent.
> 
> People don't generally care that actor A was too expensive for a given movie[1] but boy do they seem to be pissed if their rival team is seen to win because they could spend more on players.
> 
> [1] And sometimes even major A-list actors will work cheap in order take a role they really love. Don't really get that for sports.


The only problem with your theory is that fans generally get pissed at the players who get the money, not the billionaire owners who spend it. And it only seems to happen in SOME sports. How many people are pissed that James is making $40M a year or whatever and picks and chooses where he wants to play? Or that Tiger Woods was raking in millions playing golf? But A-Rod is paid a fortune to play for the Texas Rangers and suddenly people are up in arms. I think it's more baseball than anything else. And I think that's more because we all played baseball as a kid, you tend not to have to be a "freak" physically to play it, so it just doesn't seem right.

And on your actor working "cheap" to make a movie they want to make, by cheap you mean $10M instead of $100M? You think they would work for scale?


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Steveknj said:


> And on your actor working "cheap" to make a movie they want to make, by cheap you mean $10M instead of $100M? You think they would work for scale?


Are there even 100 actors who can command $10 million for a single film? To date, there have been 4 who have reached $100 million, and that's upfront salary plus back-end deals. Tom Cruise is the only who to have done it twice, for War of the Worlds and Mission Impossible 2.

The vast majority of actors do indeed work for scale.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hapster85 said:


> The vast majority of actors do indeed work for scale.


The vast majority of actors don't work at all...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Are there even 100 actors who can command $10 million for a single film? To date, there have been 4 who have reached $100 million, and that's upfront salary plus back-end deals. Tom Cruise is the only who to have done it twice, for War of the Worlds and Mission Impossible 2.
> 
> The vast majority of actors do indeed work for scale.


The comment was A+ actors who worked "cheap" because they wanted to do the movie. What is cheap for an A+ actor? $1M? Cheap to them isn't cheap to most of us. Plus they can afford to work "cheap" for one movie because they did 2 other movies that they didn't work "cheap".


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Steveknj said:


> The comment was A+ actors who worked "cheap" because they wanted to do the movie. What is cheap for an A+ actor? $1M? Cheap to them isn't cheap to most of us. Plus they can afford to work "cheap" for one movie because they did 2 other movies that they didn't work "cheap".


Oh, I know. I was trying to make the point that the number of actors who can afford to work "cheap" for a passion project is pretty small. Today's A-listers being tomorrow's has-beens, keeps that a pretty exclusive club.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Oh, I know. I was trying to make the point that the number of actors who can afford to work "cheap" for a passion project is pretty small. Today's A-listers being tomorrow's has-beens, keeps that a pretty exclusive club.


That's very true. It's the same for an Athlete. The BEST of them generally don't have careers longer than 20 years, most who are considered "successful" last 5-10. And just like movie stars, today's star is tomorrow's has been. But again, people get bent out of shape when an athlete makes a lot of money but not actors.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> That's very true. It's the same for an Athlete. The BEST of them generally don't have careers longer than 20 years, most who are considered "successful" last 5-10. And just like movie stars, today's star is tomorrow's has been. But again, people get bent out of shape when an athlete makes a lot of money but not actors.


Who are these people you talk of? I've never heard anyone mad about an athlete getting paid. I've never heard someone hate on Tiger Woods for making as much money as possible. But what people do complain about is teams paying players so much that they get all the best players and other teams don't have the budget to compete. That is the only criticism I've head about player's pay. But I don't hang out in sport forums so I could be wrong.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Allanon said:


> Who are these people you talk of? I've never heard anyone mad about an athlete getting paid. I've never heard someone hate on Tiger Woods for making as much money as possible. But what people do complain about is teams paying players so much that they get all the best players and other teams don't have the budget to compete. That is the only criticism I've head about player's pay. But I don't hang out in sport forums so I could be wrong.


Anytime there's a players strike (or lockout) fans complain...how can those rich athletes strike? They are making millions of dollars!! Or when someone signs a multimillon dollar deal, you'll hear those kinds of complaints. Athletes in individual sports like Golf, you hear it less. For one, the money is less public. For another, athletes like Tiger make a lot of money outside of the sport. So in a sense they are "actors" endorsing products. Team sports, you hear it more often. The worst is among those who don't like baseball, who can't understand why someone playing baseball should make that much money. You do hear less about it in other sports, like Football or Basketball, and maybe that's because the athletes are much more public figures? I'm not sure (and I will say you hear it less these days).


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Anytime there's a players strike (or lockout) fans complain...how can those rich athletes strike? They are making millions of dollars!! Or when someone signs a multimillon dollar deal, you'll hear those kinds of complaints. Athletes in individual sports like Golf, you hear it less. For one, the money is less public. For another, athletes like Tiger make a lot of money outside of the sport. So in a sense they are "actors" endorsing products. Team sports, you hear it more often. The worst is among those who don't like baseball, who can't understand why someone playing baseball should make that much money. You do hear less about it in other sports, like Football or Basketball, and maybe that's because the athletes are much more public figures? I'm not sure (and I will say you hear it less these days).


Basketball has max contracts so a top 5 player can make the same amount as a top 20 player as long as they have the same amount of time in the league.

The big thing you hear in basketball is that the stars should take less money if they really care about winning.

Baseball has no salary cap and no max contracts.

Football has a salary cap.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Hockey has a salary cap, and I follow it pretty closely. You don't often see players with substantially lesser skills making the same amount of money just because "they have the same amount of time in the league."

And, FWIW, I hear a lot of sports fans complain about the amount of money athletes make (and not just because the teams pay them that exorbitant amount).


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

I'm not a sports fan, and I'm not mad at the athletes for making the money they're making, just like I'm not angry at entertainment stars making the money they're making. 

I am however saddened by the fact that our society puts so much emphasis on sports that so much money flows to the entire sports infrastructure. 

And the one issue that angers me is that I'm forced to help pay for all of this through higher cable bills when I don't benefit from it at all. I would be a bit more satisfied if I wasn't paying a $20 a month "tax" on my entertainment bill to support sports channels and that whole stream of money.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Hockey has a salary cap, and I follow it pretty closely. You don't often see players with substantially lesser skills making the same amount of money just because "they have the same amount of time in the league."
> 
> And, FWIW, I hear a lot of sports fans complain about the amount of money athletes make (and not just because the teams pay them that exorbitant amount).


I don't really follow hockey so I don't know how their system works but that is how it works in basketball.

Player A has been in the league for 10 years. He has made 9 All Star games, he is a league MVP, makes playoffs every year, is considered a top 5 player. and he has one a championship.

Player B also in league for 10 years. 5 All Star games and his team rarely makes the playoffs and is considered a borderline top 15 player.

They would both be eligible for the same exact max contract though player A might be eligible for the super max.

It is convoluted to try to keep players on teams. There should be no salary caps and no max contract. If a team wants to play LeBron, Durant or Curry $100 million a year, they should.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tigercat74 said:


> It is convoluted to try to keep players on teams. There should be no salary caps and no max contract. If a team wants to play LeBron, Durant or Curry $100 million a year, they should.


And then you end up with certain teams with geographic advantages having all the top players, because they (and only they) can afford them...


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And then you end up with certain teams with geographic advantages having all the top players, because they (and only they) can afford them...


I don't believe that because the players are going to want their next contract. Do you think a superstar will want to be the 4th or 5th option on a team? It would hurt him in his next contract negotiation.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

HBO Max getting ad-supported option that won't include theatrical releases


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Allanon said:


> HBO Max getting ad-supported option that won't include theatrical releases


I'd rather not watch it at all if there are commercials. And then you still have to pay for the privilege of watching commercials?


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I'd rather not watch it at all if there are commercials. And then you still have to pay for the privilege of watching commercials?


But all HBO original content will be ad free.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

It's a terrible idea. It's just going to ruin their brand. HBO has been on for, gosh, almost 50 years, without commercials. It's their thing.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

I watch HBO for the original content not the 6 or more month old movies. So a cheaper ad supported tier would be welcomed as long as the HBO original content doesn't have ads. It would be nice to drop them from cable and pay less.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Yes, may be what gets me to drop HBO from my Cable and subscribe to HBO Max streaming


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

HBO Max With Ads: Pricing, Availability Announced - Variety


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Allanon said:


> HBO Max With Ads: Pricing, Availability Announced - Variety


My concern over this trend is HBO and others paying more attention to advertisers than consumers.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

My $11.99 deal ended this month, so I may do it.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> My $11.99 deal ended this month, so I may do it.


Yup... Mine ended... I just saw the $14.99 hit my credit card account yesterday...


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I think we should all remember the sports teams with low salaries that went very far as well as the "cute little movie" that grosses 300 million with no big name actors.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Allanon said:


> HBO Max With Ads: Pricing, Availability Announced - Variety





> Also, the version of HBO Max with ads will not run commercials against HBO's original programming.


Well at least this will be a cheaper option for me when I want to watch an HBO original show. Since it still won't have commercials. There is no way I am going to watch commercials on HBO max.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

My fear is that those of us who have subscriptions because we sub to other things will wind up being put on the "ad" tier and we'll have to pony up if we want more. I have an HBO sub with my streamer for a year. We'll see what happens. That's what's happened with the "free" subs to Netflix, Hulu or whatever. They throw you on the lowest tier and you have to pay for more.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

HBO Max down for anyone here?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> HBO Max down for anyone here?


Yep. I was watching something less than an hour ago, but just went to resume it and I can't connect.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Back up now.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Even though I have HBO Max on my Roku I'm still recording most HBO shows on my TiVo... I guess my Luddite ways payed off here


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Does anyone use the iPad app and notice that after watching a while you can't control playback (e.g. pause, scrub back and forth, etc)? Either the interface won't respond or it won't respond properly; like if I tried to scrub forward or backward, instead of going where I want it to go it just moves along slowly and doesn't stop. Killing and restarting the app fixes it but then the problem reappears later. I've tried reinstalling but that doesn't permanently fix the problem. I don't see this or any kind of problems with the other streaming apps. Problems with the app working properly, that is, not problems related to poor UX or design.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

HBO Max crashes during 'Mare of Easttown' finale

(I haven't read beyond the first paragraph of that story so I don't know if it contains any spoilers for the finale.)


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

It also crashed for me Saturday morning when I was trying to watch the Friends Reunion. I had to wait several hours before watching it.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Even though I have HBO Max on my Roku I'm still recording most HBO shows on my TiVo... I guess my Luddite ways payed off here


I do the same, except I'm using a FIOS DVR. What I watch on HBOMAX is almost exclusively on HBOMAX. Although I do watch new theatrical Warner's films on HBOMAX instead of waiting for them to show up on regular HBO. If that even counts as an exception.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I'm watching Zapped on HBO Max right now. British comedy, that looks to have run from 2016 thru 2018.

No, it is not the 1982 film Zapped! starring Scott Baio. The film young me watched many times, because it had boobs.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> I do the same, except I'm using a FIOS DVR. What I watch on HBOMAX is almost exclusively on HBOMAX. Although I do watch new theatrical Warner's films on HBOMAX instead of waiting for them to show up on regular HBO. If that even counts as an exception.


The fact is that control of a TiVo (not as much the Fios DVR) is so much better than the app. So I tend to use the DVR when I can.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> The fact is that control of a TiVo (not as much the Fios DVR) is so much better than the app. So I tend to use the DVR when I can.


But the problem is, at least with FiOS and Comcast, the quality of their HBO channels is crap. Compared to the quality from the HBO Max app. Which is why before HBO MAx, when I had the HBO cable channel, I always watched the content from their app. Now I'm just subscribing to HBO max as needed.

I subscribed a couple of weeks ago for one month. So I could watch Mortal Kombat, Those Who Wish Me Dead, and The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

aaronwt said:


> But the problem is, at least with FiOS and Comcast, the quality of their HBO channels is crap. Compared to the quality from the HBO Max app. Which is why before HBO MAx, when I had the HBO cable channel, I always watched the content from their app. Now I'm just subscribing to HBO max as needed.
> 
> I subscribed a couple of weeks ago for one month. So I could watch Mortal Kombat, Those Who Wish Me Dead, and The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It.


My Comcast/Xfinity $$$ off expires I believe in October. After October I might very well do as you do and just occasionally subscribe a month or two at a time.

I'm a bit undecided as to 'through what distribution'. Any suggestion? Cable provider or maybe Apple?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> But the problem is, at least with FiOS and Comcast, the quality of their HBO channels is crap. Compared to the quality from the HBO Max app. Which is why before HBO MAx, when I had the HBO cable channel, I always watched the content from their app. Now I'm just subscribing to HBO max as needed.
> 
> I subscribed a couple of weeks ago for one month. So I could watch Mortal Kombat, Those Who Wish Me Dead, and The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It.


Maybe I just have old man eyes but I have never had any issues with Comcast video quality. Streaming, on the other hand, is terrible. IMHO


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

efilippi said:


> Maybe I just have old man eyes but I have never had any issues with Comcast video quality. Streaming, on the other hand, is terrible. IMHO


Comcast downrezzes their channels to 720P and then they also re-encode them to a low bitrate.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

HBO broke the Apple TV app.

HBO Max update for tvOS breaks key features on Apple TV - 9to5Mac


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> Comcast downrezzes their channels to 720P and then they also re-encode them to a low bitrate.


Yeah, my old man eyes doesn't care about downrezzing. All looks a bit blurry to me.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Watched The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It. All was fine for the first half hour. Then the picture would freeze for a second every so often. This happened more frequently in the last 15 minutes of the film and was quite annoying. Has this happened to anyone else?
I experienced the same issue with the Friends reunion. But had no problem watching the latest episode of Hack.


----------



## SteveD (Oct 22, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> Watched The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It. All was fine for the first half hour. Then the picture would freeze for a second every so often. This happened more frequently in the last 15 minutes of the film and was quite annoying. Has this happened to anyone else?
> I experienced the same issue with the Friends reunion. But had no problem watching the latest episode of Hack.


That happened to me this week trying to watch the first episode of _Mare of Easttown_. I finally gave up and scheduled the marathon to record off HBO2 this weekend. I never had any issues with HBO Max before this week.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

SteveD said:


> That happened to me this week trying to watch the first episode of _Mare of Easttown_. I finally gave up and scheduled the marathon to record off HBO2 this weekend. I never had any issues with HBO Max before this week.


I went to HBOMAX's Facebook page and there were complaints about not being able to watch The Conjuring. At least I know it's not just me. HBOMAX says you need at least 5 Mbps download speed. I checked mine and it was 75 Mbps so I doubt that's the issue. I get the feeling HBOMAX doesn't have enough servers to handle the traffic.


----------



## SteveD (Oct 22, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> I went to HBOMAX's Facebook page and there were complaints about not being able to watch The Conjuring. At least I know it's not just me. HBOMAX says you need at least 5 Mbps download speed. I checked mine and it was 75 Mbps so I doubt that's the issue. I get the feeling HBOMAX doesn't have enough servers to handle the traffic.


Maybe with the lower price tier, they have a lot of new subscriptions? Or maybe they just broke something?


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Many complaints about the latest version of the tvOS app in https://twitter.com/HBOMaxHelp/with_replies. I voiced my displeasure to add to the cacophony.

They did tweet they're working on a fix. Hope they truly are and that it comes out soon.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

jamesbobo said:


> Watched The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It. All was fine for the first half hour. Then the picture would freeze for a second every so often. This happened more frequently in the last 15 minutes of the film and was quite annoying. Has this happened to anyone else?
> I experienced the same issue with the Friends reunion. But had no problem watching the latest episode of Hack.


This sort of experience is exactly what I was talking about when I said I preferred cable shows to streams. And my most recent problem occurred on HBOMAX's app on my iPad, not on something from TIVO.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> Many complaints about the latest version of the tvOS app in https://twitter.com/HBOMaxHelp/with_replies. I voiced my displeasure to add to the cacophony.
> 
> They did tweet they're working on a fix. Hope they truly are and that it comes out soon.


There was a new update today. Everything is still broken.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

morac said:


> There was a new update today. Everything is still broken.


This is some b***sh**!


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

I just cancelled my HBO Max subscription a couple days ago. I think it expires tomorrow. This will be the first time I've been without HBO since, well, seemingly forever.

With the ending of Mare of Eastown, I was looking at their upcoming series and nothing interests me at all. Of course I'll resubscribe in the future once a show or two interests me again.

a couple side notes...

I also was annoyed (admittedly not much) at not being able to watch Mare of Eastown last week due to their outage that night. I've also had several occasions in the past where the app's search function doesn't work. When this happens, I've tried another version of the app (i.e., I usually use the app on my Samsung TV, but also have the Android TV version of the app on my Chromecast with Youtube TV dongle) and the search has failed there, too, so I assume it's their servers failing not the app.

And I really just find the app clunky to use; i.e., navigating around in it is not "smooth".

The experience that the app provides doesn't match the premium price of the subscription, imo.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

You know you majorly screwed things up when the head of HBO Max has to apologize on Twitter.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1401228825791401984


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

morac said:


> You know you majorly screwed things up when the head of HBO Max has to apologize on Twitter.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1401228825791401984


Has anyone checked if there's an update and if the UX has improved? Just curious as I won't be able to check until tonight at the earliest.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I’ve not experienced any problems with the Roku HBO Max app (mainly because i don’t use it much as I still have cable, and record most HBO content), but the Roku App interface is slow, and appears to be bloated.
(…and why do I have to select a profile every time I load the App when there is only one? Hulu does it correctly)


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Tony_T said:


> I've not experienced any problems with the Roku HBO Max app (mainly because i don't use it much as I still have cable, and record most HBO content), but the Roku App interface is slow, and appears to be bloated.
> (&#8230;and why do I have to select a profile every time I load the App when there is only one? Hulu does it correctly)


From the Twitter thread it looks like the known problems are specific to the Apple TV app. And I've even seen the same issues in the iPad app, but there I can restart it and fix the problems. When I use a desktop browser to stream, I haven't seen any issues with playback or anything else.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Tony_T said:


> I've not experienced any problems with the Roku HBO Max app (mainly because i don't use it much as I still have cable, and record most HBO content), but the Roku App interface is slow, and appears to be bloated.
> (&#8230;and why do I have to select a profile every time I load the App when there is only one? Hulu does it correctly)


I agree on the Roku app. Slow.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

There aren’t “fixes” coming because they replaced the system video player with their own custom one that doesn’t have any of the features. It’s not like it’s not working; they just didn’t implement most of what they got for free by using the system player. They can start putting some of the missing pieces back, but because they’ve chosen to write it all custom it’s never going to be as good as what we had.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

cmontyburns said:


> There aren't "fixes" coming because they replaced the system video player with their own custom one that doesn't have any of the features. It's not like it's not working; they just didn't implement most of what they got for free by using the system player. They can start putting some of the missing pieces back, but because they've chosen to write it all custom it's never going to be as good as what we had.


I'm not sure what you mean by them not implementing functionality. They did implement their own scrubbing forward and back and that is one of the things that are not working properly. Actually, it does work properly for me when the app first starts up, but then as something keeps playing the broken behavior surfaces. It either won't respond, or will scrub in the direction you intentionally or accidentally went to and not stop. It won't even stop if I hit menu to stop the stream; I need to hit home so I exit the app completely. This seems, to me, something they absolutely can fix if they choose to.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I mean support for circular scrubbing with the new Apple TV remote, various Siri commands, etc. Those things aren’t there but broken, they are simply not there.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

cmontyburns said:


> I mean support for circular scrubbing with the new Apple TV remote, various Siri commands, etc. Those things aren't there but broken, they are simply not there.


Okay this clarifies it, but the earlier post didn't specifically mention these things and sounded more about the playback controls in general in the updated app. Whatever the case, yes it's unlikely they'll implement UI features specific to the Apple TV. And while I have seen complaints related to those features, most are about plain old scrubbing which they've admitted to breaking and are supposedly fixing.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1401633077105987594


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Anyone going to switch to the new lower priced subscription?

I hate commercials, but with every other streaming service I subscribe to, I end up taking the "ad version" to keep my over all costs down...especially since many of these services go unused for weeks or months at a time...

I am tempted...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> Anyone going to switch to the new lower priced subscription?
> 
> I hate commercials, but with every other streaming service I subscribe to, I end up taking the "ad version" to keep my over all costs down...especially since many of these services go unused for weeks or months at a time...
> 
> I am tempted...


I'm getting the ad-free plan with my mobile plan, so no.

Right now I'm primarily using HBO for watching the free same day as in-theater movies, which aren't available on the "with ads" version, so I wouldn't pick that anyway.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

If I keep the service, it will definitely be the ad-free tier. We've been watching quite a bit, so I'm inclined to keep it. Just wish I could find another 20% off promo like the one I have currently. I'd sign up for a full year to get it, if I had to.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I always go for the ad free version. I just can not handle ads anymore.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Hoffer said:


> I always go for the ad free version. I just can not handle ads anymore.


Ditto - If I am going to subscribe its ad-free! My big concern as I have said before. HBO will start to have another large scale customer called the advertiser and have less interest in the consumer.
I DONT like that idea!


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

hapster85 said:


> If I keep the service, it will definitely be the ad-free tier. We've been watching quite a bit, so I'm inclined to keep it. Just wish I could find another 20% off promo like the one I have currently. I'd sign up for a full year to get it, if I had to.


I just signed up for the annual ad-free. $150 for the 12 month subscription. That works out to be nearly the 20% discount you are looking for.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> Anyone going to switch to the new lower priced subscription?
> 
> I hate commercials, but with every other streaming service I subscribe to, I end up taking the "ad version" to keep my over all costs down...especially since many of these services go unused for weeks or months at a time...
> 
> I am tempted...


I'm getting a year for "free" with my AT&T TV sub, which started in March, so have a ways to go before I decide. The only thing I really watch on there are movies and HBO linear content and HBO Max exclusives. I think those will continue to be ad free regardless. I almost never watch existing series that weren't on premium to begin with so I might do the ad supported tier since I get very little usage from the stuff that would be ad supported.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

lparsons21 said:


> I just signed up for the annual ad-free. $150 for the 12 month subscription. That works out to be nearly the 20% discount you are looking for.


Was that on the Max website? I'll have to take a look. Haven't looked at it in a while.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hapster85 said:


> Was that on the Max website? I'll have to take a look. Haven't looked at it in a while.


I got an email with that offer.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I got an email with that offer.


I just checked my account. The yearly option wasn't there last time I looked, but is now. I just switched over, and it gave me credit for the month remaining on my previous 6 month promo. So, I'm in for another year. Before Max, I'd never been an HBO subscriber. Liking it a lot more than I thought I would.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

hapster85 said:


> I just checked my account. The yearly option wasn't there last time I looked, but is now. I just switched over, and it gave me credit for the month remaining on my previous 6 month promo. So, I'm in for another year. Before Max, I'd never been an HBO subscriber. Liking it a lot more than I thought I would.


Yeah, the offer for existing subs didn't show up for a day or so after the announcement. Like you, I checked early and it wasn't there.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I get the ad free version free with my AT&T Gig internet service. I think I'd pay extra for the ad free version even if I didn't get it free already, as I hate ads, too. That is if they fix the Apple TV app problems they're having now.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

I was paying the $11.99/mo promo for one year... And now it is up to $14.99/mo...

But yeah...the annual subscription of $12.50/mo is not a far cry away from my former promotion, so I might jump on that... Though it does commit me for the year...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> I was paying the $11.99/mo promo for one year... And now it is up to $14.99/mo...
> 
> But yeah...the annual subscription of $12.50/mo is not a far cry away from my former promotion, so I might jump on that... *Though it does commit me for the year...*


I expect that to be the norm, not the exception at some point, or, they will give most people enough incentive to sign up for a year and make it worth it, until month to month fades away. I can't imagine that many content streamers like the idea of people jumping on for a month every year and dropping the service.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> Anyone going to switch to the new lower priced subscription?
> 
> I hate commercials, but with every other streaming service I subscribe to, I end up taking the "ad version" to keep my over all costs down...especially since many of these services go unused for weeks or months at a time...
> 
> I am tempted...


In the future I might try it. Since they are not supposed to have advertisements for their original shows. So when Westworld comes back on I would subscribe to that for a few months. Assuming I still have access to UHD/HDR and Atmos.

Right now I am just subscribing when there are some movies released I want to watch. Since the theatrical movies are available on HBO Max during the first 30 days of theatrical release. But the commercial free version is not supposed to have access to it.

And this past weekend the HBO Max app was borked on every streaming device I tried in both of my UHD setups. So it had DV but in 1080P and no Atmos, like on my SHield TVs. Or it had Atmos and only SDR like on my ATV 4K boxes. FireTV 4K sticks, Rokus, Chromecasts etc. No streamer or TV app I tried played everything properly. Compared to two weeks ago when I had zero issues when I watched two movies.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

MikeekiM said:


> I was paying the $11.99/mo promo for one year... And now it is up to $14.99/mo...
> 
> But yeah...the annual subscription of $12.50/mo is not a far cry away from my former promotion, so I might jump on that... Though it does commit me for the year...


I too am now paying $14.99. Going for the year plan. And BTW the Ad plan is HD, not 4K, not that there's much in 4K.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> I too am now paying $14.99. Going for the year plan. And BTW the Ad plan is HD, not 4K, not that there's much in 4K.


Yeah... At $12.50/mo and the addition of the theatrical releases, 4K and no ads, that's likely enough to keep me on the current plan...

BTW, isn't the theatrical releases straight to streaming only apply to their 2021 lineup?


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

MikeekiM said:


> BTW, isn't the theatrical releases straight to streaming only apply to their 2021 lineup?


Yes, it's supposed to, but with the spinoff/merger on the horizon, there's been talk of it ending sooner. As you probably know, the same day streaming plan ruffled a lot of feathers in Hollywood.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

MikeekiM said:


> Yeah... At $12.50/mo and the addition of the theatrical releases, 4K and no ads, that's likely enough to keep me on the current plan...
> 
> BTW, isn't the theatrical releases straight to streaming only apply to their 2021 lineup?


Yeah I believe so unless there's another pandemic...god forbid!!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> I too am now paying $14.99. Going for the year plan. And BTW the Ad plan is HD, not 4K, not that there's much in 4K.


SO I guess the ad version will not be an option for me. I'll stick with the no ad option and subscribe when needed. Just about everything I have watched on HBO Max has been in UHD and HDR. But it isn't like I have watched a lot. It's the reason I will not subscribe to HBO Max all year long. Like I do with Netflix. There is just not much content on HBO Max that I want to watch.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hapster85 said:


> Yes, it's supposed to, but with the spinoff/merger on the horizon, there's been talk of it ending sooner. As you probably know, the same day streaming plan ruffled a lot of feathers in Hollywood.


...although that might be...problematic. After all, they've been hyping their 2021 line-up, and they would have a lot of disgruntled people who signed up to get those movies if they then yanked them away. I doubt they'd think bait-and-switch is a good look.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> SO I guess the ad version will not be an option for me. I'll stick with the no ad option and subscribe when needed. Just about everything I have watched on HBO Max has been in UHD and HDR. But it isn't like I have watched a lot. It's the reason I will not subscribe to HBO Max all year long. Like I do with Netflix. There is just not much content on HBO Max that I want to watch.


I have only watched a few of the new movie releases and those have been UHD/HDR and Atmos. I'm not aware of any other content other than those specials that have had that. I know the last two seasons of GoT was released on disc in Atmos, but I don't think they are on HBO Max. As far as UHD, I don't think I've seen anything else (but I really haven't seeked out older releases). I have multiple boxes that have HBO Max, including Roku, Firestcik, TiVo 4K streaming stick that all support 4K and Atmos.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I know the last two seasons of GoT was released on disc in Atmos, but I don't think they are on HBO Max.


Actually, all of GoT is on 4K/Atmos disc...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Actually, all of GoT is on 4K/Atmos disc...


Ahhh, that's great. My son bought the whole series as the seasons ended and only the last two were 4K/Atmos at the time. Good to know in case he wants to replace at some point. But, unfortunately it doesn't look like HBO Max is streaming it that way.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Ahhh, that's great. My son bought the whole series as the seasons ended and only the last two were 4K/Atmos at the time.


Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I've been watching the prices on the 4K set, and if there's a great deal I'll jump on it. But so far the best I've seen is $145...which wouldn't be unreasonable for a first-time buy, but not for an upgrade!


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I bought the Game of Thrones series on 4K Blu-ray a couple months ago. I only watched the first 2-3 seasons. I always thought I'd go back and watch the entire series, and figured I'd do it the best way possible.

I also have the first three seasons of Westworld on 4K Blu-ray. I only watched the first season of that.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I tried to watch Hacks yesterday and it drove me nuts. Three or four video stutters of five seconds each, all audio gone during them. I don't know why I should have unusual problems as I have really good internet service. This was on an HBOMAX app on a Samsung TV. Maybe I'll try it on my computer and see if that is better.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

efilippi said:


> I tried to watch Hacks yesterday and it drove me nuts. Three or four video stutters of five seconds each, all audio gone during them. I don't know why I should have unusual problems as I have really good internet service. This was on an HBOMAX app on a Samsung TV. Maybe I'll try it on my computer and see if that is better.


Well, I just rewatched that Hacks episode, did it sitting at my computer. Transmission was flawless. Perhaps the problem is with the Samsung iteration of the Max App?

That was the final episode of Hacks, really good.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

efilippi said:


> Well, I just rewatched that Hacks episode, did it sitting at my computer. Transmission was flawless. Perhaps the problem is with the Samsung iteration of the Max App?
> 
> That was the final episode of Hacks, really good.


I also have a Samsung TV and had a stuttering problem watching The Conjuring. It started around the half hour mark. It wasn't too bad until the last 20 minutes. Hacks, on the other hand, gave me no issues.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

efilippi said:


> Well, I just rewatched that Hacks episode, did it sitting at my computer. Transmission was flawless. Perhaps the problem is with the Samsung iteration of the Max App?
> 
> That was the final episode of Hacks, really good.


There are two more episodes coming this week.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

efilippi said:


> Well, I just rewatched that Hacks episode, did it sitting at my computer. Transmission was flawless. Perhaps the problem is with the Samsung iteration of the Max App?
> 
> That was the final episode of Hacks, really good.


I never like spending other people's money, but get yourself an inexpensive streaming device, even as just a backup. I saw the TiVo stick and the least expensive 4k Roku sticks are available for $30 this week. I HATE watching content on my computer or phone if I have a TV standing by. I also find that the Smart TV apps are always the last to be upgraded.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I have a Roku, a firetv thingy, and an appletv. I use the fire thing to watch bosch but that's about it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

efilippi said:


> I have a Roku, a firetv thingy, and an appletv. I use the fire thing to watch bosch but that's about it.


Were you having any better luck with those on HBO Max? I watched HBO Max last on Saturday I believe on my new Roku Premiere/Ultra, whatever it's called and it seemed to work fine


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

It never crossed my mind to try it. I will next time. I just hate having to fiddle with various inputs. I remember fondly the days of 2,5,7, and 9...


----------



## spear (Oct 11, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I have only watched a few of the new movie releases and those have been UHD/HDR and Atmos. I'm not aware of any other content other than those specials that have had that. [...]


So far, other than the new movies, it looks like only "Wonder Woman" (the first movie) and "Batman vs. Superman" are UHD/HDR + Atmos.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

While I never used it, it dawned on me that the TV has it's own browser. Couldn't you just Google HBOMAX like you would on your computer and watch it on the TV? Not having a mouse would be cumbersome, though.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

efilippi said:


> It never crossed my mind to try it. I will next time. I just hate having to fiddle with various inputs. I remember fondly the days of 2,5,7, and 9...


Damn... I had to deal with those four plus 4, 11, and 13... plus some higher numbers as well.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Having never watched Mare of Eastown, I watched the first episode on HBOMAX on my Samsung TV without any problems.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max update fixes the worst of its Apple TV woes


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> HBO Max update fixes the worst of its Apple TV woes


Seems they need to address problems with the Samsung TV app. Is there anyone using the HBOMAX app on a Samsung TV without any problems? Is anyone, other than Apple TV users, having problems with the HBOMAX app on a TV other than Samsung?


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> While I never used it, it dawned on me that the TV has it's own browser. Couldn't you just Google HBOMAX like you would on your computer and watch it on the TV? Not having a mouse would be cumbersome, though.


Perhaps... it really depends on how full-featured the browser is.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

I watched In the Heights on Friday, and the I thought the audio levels were a little messed up. If I adjusted the volume so I could comfortably hear the dialog, the music was too loud.


----------



## klj (Feb 26, 2010)

markb said:


> I watched In the Heights on Friday, and the I thought the audio levels were a little messed up. If I adjusted the volume so I could comfortably hear the dialog, the music was too loud.


that is about 75% of the shows/movies i watch. very frustrating.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

klj said:


> that is about 75% of the shows/movies i watch. very frustrating.


Maybe the system you're watching on needs to be adjusted..? I know before I went to a 5.1 system I had problems with some DVDs, because the center-speaker sound (which contains most of the dialog) was getting drowned out in the stereo speakers of my TV. And that was a long time ago, before 5.1 sound was universal...

And even a good 5.1 system needs to be calibrated to adjust to your environment.


----------



## klj (Feb 26, 2010)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And even a good 5.1 system needs to be calibrated to adjust to your environment.


i have a 5.1 system and have tried adjusting and adjusting. i can never seem to get it right. it just varies from show to show..


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Maybe the system you're watching on needs to be adjusted..? I know before I went to a 5.1 system I had problems with some DVDs, because the center-speaker sound (which contains most of the dialog) was getting drowned out in the stereo speakers of my TV. And that was a long time ago, before 5.1 sound was universal...
> 
> And even a good 5.1 system needs to be calibrated to adjust to your environment.


My system is pretty well adjusted for Blu-ray and other streaming services, and even some other stuff on HBO Max (all using the same device). I think sometimes the content is just mixed poorly, or maybe something got screwed up when it was transcoded.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Just watched In The Heights and did not have any audio issues, except for one scene when


Spoiler



Abuelita dies.


 But that was a very quiet dialogue there, so maybe it was intentional.

Loved it, overall. And I am sure that being a Hispanic immigrant, I appreciated things that my wife did not. But she liked it too. The post credits scene was very cute too.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

klj said:


> that is about 75% of the shows/movies i watch. very frustrating.


We have a 5.1 system but we also have a pair of giant old school stereo speakers and I find it's often better to switch audio to stereo and use them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

markb said:


> I watched In the Heights on Friday, and the I thought the audio levels were a little messed up. If I adjusted the volume so I could comfortably hear the dialog, the music was too loud.


No issues for me, I watched it too. The only issue I had with dialog was when they "rapped" the dialog. It went too fast for my ears to handle.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Just watched In The Heights and did not have any audio issues, except for one scene when
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I missed the post credit scenes!! Now I will have to go watch again!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Well, they may have fixed the Apple TV App, but now my Roku HBO Max App is f-upd


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Well, they may have fixed the Apple TV App, but now my Roku HBO Max App is f-upd


What's it doing? I didn't have a problem this morning.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

The App loads, I select a show, press play and I get sound and a black screen. Restarting Roku fixes the problem. Same issues on 2 different Rokus started after they fixed the Apple TV App.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Last night of the free weekend on Xfinity.

I have time for one more movie. Recs, please!

I have watched Tenet, Deadwood Movie, and Greenland.

In the Heights and Zachs JL are not available. No Friends, either.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I'm still having trouble with the video stopping for a second or two. This usually happens after about an hour of trouble free viewing. Reinstalling the app didn't help. It's set to auto update and says the last update was June 2.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I have HBOMax on my pc, on an app on my Samsung TV, on my Firestick, and on an iPad. I have Xfinity internet that tells me I get "up to" 100 Mbps but my experience on Speedtest is usually about 40, still adequate for streaming, I think. Yet HBO fails on all my apps at various times, sometimes the stutter and pauses that I think you are referring to, but most often a halt that gets a screen that tells me " something has gone wrong, try refreshing the page.." or something. Frustrating but I don't know how to fix it.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max is the Windows Vista of streaming


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> HBO Max is the Windows Vista of streaming


Maybe Windows ME or Microsoft Bob thrown in for good measure.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

jay_man2 said:


> Tony_T said:
> 
> 
> > HBO Max is the Windows Vista of streaming
> ...


Lol. What platform are you guys using? Runs pretty smooth on my Android TV.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Lol. What platform are you guys using? Runs pretty smooth on my Android TV.


Apple TV.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I don’t think the problems being discussed are on Apple TV. The issue there was the crappy in-house player they rolled out and then reverted.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

HBO Max was crappy on Apple TV for about a week, when HBO pushed out an update that replaced Apple's excellent video player (that most other major streamers use, e.g., Netflix) with a custom UI. The custom code was fundamentally broken (simple things like rewind and fast forward didn't work reliably) and HBO pulled it after a few days. They reverted back to the stock Apple UI for video playback and it's back to working great.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I find it a bit ironic that HBO Max runs terribly on Apple TV, and Apple TV+ runs horribly on non Apple TV. Things like stopping a show in the middle and it NEVER remembering where you left off correctly, either reverting back to the beginning or some other random previous time. I just think it's just difficult to get a platform that works well on lots of different interfaces.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

HBOMax and AppleTV+ both run well enough on our Roku. I mean, they're not TiVo, but they're not appreciably worse than anything else on the Roku and they're better than some (YoutubeTV, I'm looking at you).


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

They’re both bloated Apps. They should note how well Hulu is from a UI perspective


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Today, 6/29, I noticed the app received an update. Unfortunately while watching episode 3 of I Hate Susie it got stuck near the end of the episode and played like a...played like a...played like a broken record. I had to exit the show and play it again. It started where I left off and I was able to watch the last few minutes. Before this update I had no problems watching the first 2 episodes since they are only about 30 minutes and the problem didn't usually occur until after about an hour of viewing.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

*Oct 1st in Theaters and HBO Max:




*


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Maybe I need to subscribe to HBO Max now. 'Gossip Girl' remake/reboot is coming soon!

xoxo


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Only if KB is narrating again! (She's not.)


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Just a heads up for those with an Amex card. Check your offers page.

I got an offer of $25 cash back for the annual subscription ($99.99 ad-supported or $149.99 ad-free), making it $75 or $125 respectively. This works out to $10.40/Mo for the ad free version, an effective saving of over $4.50/Mo over the monthly pricing. I had just (yesterday) renewed for the month, so my outgoing was $135.

Make sure you load the offer to your card before buying.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Only if KB is narrating again! (She's not.)


She actually is.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

realityboy said:


> She actually is.


I saw that she did VO for the teaser trailer but assumed based on this story that she's not carrying into the new show:

Don't expect any 'Gossip Girl' OGs to show up on reboot just yet

Of course she wasn't on-screen cast, so I may have assumed too much.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> I saw that she did VO for the teaser trailer but assumed based on this story that she's not carrying into the new show:
> 
> Don't expect any 'Gossip Girl' OGs to show up on reboot just yet
> 
> Of course she wasn't on-screen cast, so I may have assumed too much.


I did read that article yesterday. It is odd that they don't include her as part of the cast. The creators actually were going to drop the idea if Bell declined.

Gossip Girl Reboot Cast and Creators Say Kristen Bell's Return as Iconic Narrator Was a 'Necessity'


----------



## ericlhyman (May 19, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> HBOMax and AppleTV+ both run well enough on our Roku. I mean, they're not TiVo, but they're not appreciably worse than anything else on the Roku and they're better than some (YoutubeTV, I'm looking at you).


When is Tivo going to put HBO Max on the Edge DVR?


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

ericlhyman said:


> When is Tivo going to put HBO Max on the Edge DVR?


The proper question is, "When is HBO going to write an app that runs on the TiVo platform?"

And the answer is, "never".


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

cwoody222 said:


> The proper question is, "When is HBO going to write an app that runs on the TiVo platform?"
> 
> And the answer is, "never".


Yea I think it's time from a streaming point at least people start forgetting about Tivo. There are so many other streamers with big money and install bases behind them. And many of them are dirt cheap.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I’ve given up on my TiVo for streaming. Use Rokus and Apple TV. TiVo is selling a streaming box to stay alive in the market.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I have never used TiVo for steaming.
Roku 

…and the HBO Max App is a slow bloated slug on my Roku. Works fine once the show starts, but the UI sucks. The old HBO App worked fine.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Yes. It is extremely slow to launch then requires a profile selection then is slow to load the Home Screen for the profile. Seems okay after that.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> I've given up on my TiVo for streaming. Use Rokus and Apple TV. TiVo is selling a streaming box to stay alive in the market.


A game changer would be a Tivo 4K Stream with a Tivo Mini built in and a seamless interface.


----------



## ericlhyman (May 19, 2001)

cwoody222 said:


> The proper question is, "When is HBO going to write an app that runs on the TiVo platform?"
> 
> And the answer is, "never".


Why not on the Tivo DVR since it runs on the Tivo stream?


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

ericlhyman said:


> Why not on the Tivo DVR since it runs on the Tivo stream?


Because the TiVo DVR runs a proprietary OS and has a small user base which makes it not worth HBO's time to bother.

The TiVo Stream 4k is an Android TV device and therefore can run any of the thousands of apps that already exist for that platform.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> &#8230;and the HBO Max App is a slow bloated slug on my Roku. Works fine once the show starts, but the UI sucks.


After watching a bunch of Disney+ shows recently, I went back to HBO-Max for the first time in a while, to continue Hacks (great show, BTW). I'd forgotten how bad the UI is. Agree, once it's streaming, you're fine. But both the loading, and trying to do anything else, is a POS. Even something as simple as trying to see the other episodes available becomes a painful exercise in button-clicking.

And don't even _think _that using the back button on HBO-MAX/Roku will give you the same results as any other app or streaming service.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> After watching a bunch of Disney+ shows recently, I went back to HBO-Max for the first time in a while, to continue Hacks (great show, BTW). I'd forgotten how bad the UI is. Agree, once it's streaming, you're fine. But both the loading, and trying to do anything else, is a POS. Even something as simple as trying to see the other episodes available becomes a painful exercise in button-clicking.
> 
> And don't even _think _that using the back button on HBO-MAX/Roku will give you the same results as any other app or streaming service.


I think it is a problem with streaming in general and one place where old school cable/sat/Tivo has it beat. When you record a show on a "traditional" platform, be it DirecTV or Cable, or TiVo, you know that anything you get is going to work the same way no matter what you recorded. Button pushes will give you the same result no matter what. The problem with streaming services, each has a different interface, and even THOSE interfaces can be different depending on the device you are using works. I don't think there's a way around that unless all of these services come up with a streaming standard, which works the same no matter what service you are using and which device you are streaming on. But I doubt that will ever happen. So we have to remember how to do things in Netflix, Disney+ HBO Max, Amazon Prime and also how each of these work on the device or devices you are using.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Hulu knows how to do the UI (on my Roku)


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think it is a problem with streaming in general and one place where old school cable/sat/Tivo has it beat. When you record a show on a "traditional" platform, be it DirecTV or Cable, or TiVo, you know that anything you get is going to work the same way no matter what you recorded. Button pushes will give you the same result no matter what. The problem with streaming services, each has a different interface, and even THOSE interfaces can be different depending on the device you are using works. I don't think there's a way around that unless all of these services come up with a streaming standard, which works the same no matter what service you are using and which device you are streaming on. But I doubt that will ever happen. So we have to remember how to do things in Netflix, Disney+ HBO Max, Amazon Prime and also how each of these work on the device or devices you are using.


Someone should make a DVR box for streaming. I'm thinking something like an old school TiVo, with an IR blaster, which can control your streaming box and record its output.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Since streaming is On Demand, and has no-commercial options, there is little demand for recording streams.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

markb said:


> Someone should make a DVR box for streaming. I'm thinking something like an old school TiVo, with an IR blaster, which can control your streaming box and record its output.


The Kodi media center has add-ons for most major streaming services and it's interface is consistent and configurable. It has many different skins if you don't like the default menu system. Plus it doesn't require a super computer, I run it on a Raspberry Pi 3B.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I think it is a problem with streaming in general and one place where old school cable/sat/Tivo has it beat. When you record a show on a "traditional" platform, be it DirecTV or Cable, or TiVo, you know that anything you get is going to work the same way no matter what you recorded. Button pushes will give you the same result no matter what. The problem with streaming services, each has a different interface, and even THOSE interfaces can be different depending on the device you are using works. I don't think there's a way around that unless all of these services come up with a streaming standard, which works the same no matter what service you are using and which device you are streaming on. But I doubt that will ever happen. So we have to remember how to do things in Netflix, Disney+ HBO Max, Amazon Prime and also how each of these work on the device or devices you are using.


That has been my primary gripe with streaming all along, the total inconsistency of behavior throughout the entire experience. Whether it's navigation in terms of finding content, navigation while watching a show (including lack of full screen visual), response time to commands, and, finding the controls to turn on options such as captioning and other viewing enhancements, it's a very distracting experience vs the whole TiVo (and other linear TV viewing options) experience. Then add in the whole intermittent buffering and or quitting out of the show issues that we experience, and lest one forget, the original setup and signing in issues, and I really hate the whole streaming experience. The only upside, is much wider on demand availability of different material.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MScottC said:


> That has been my primary gripe with streaming all along, the total inconsistency of behavior throughout the entire experience. Whether it's navigation in terms of finding content, navigation while watching a show (including lack of full screen visual), response time to commands, and, finding the controls to turn on options such as captioning and other viewing enhancements, it's a very distracting experience vs the whole TiVo (and other linear TV viewing options) experience. Then add in the whole intermittent buffering and or quitting out of the show issues that we experience, and lest one forget, the original setup and signing in issues, and I really hate the whole streaming experience. The only upside, is much wider on demand availability of different material.


I'm with you, but to be honest, having a large on demand library is a huge draw and why most of us have been drawn to streaming. I figure that at some point we are going to see a lot of consolidation in the streaming sphere and that might make for a more universal experience. I can't imagine that these services can continue to throw money at content forever, or they will go broke or make it so expensive people will drop. But we'll see. My gut tells me that were are still in the infancy of streaming and that right now there's a desire to have it, despite it's foibles. But once there's so much competition, people will want a better experience and move on if there's doesn't give it to them.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I'm with you, but to be honest, having a large on demand library is a huge draw and why most of us have been drawn to streaming. I figure that at some point we are going to see a lot of consolidation in the streaming sphere and that might make for a more universal experience. I can't imagine that these services can continue to throw money at content forever, or they will go broke or make it so expensive people will drop. But we'll see. My gut tells me that were are still in the infancy of streaming and that right now there's a desire to have it, despite it's foibles. But once there's so much competition, people will want a better experience and move on if there's doesn't give it to them.


On the other hand, I suspect the competition will work against any kind of interface integration...the services will want to make sure you know you're in THEIR service. Which is kind of a shame...having an overarching interface would be great, but I doubt it's too likely. They'll remember what the networks learned in the DVR age...that eventually, specific networks didn't matter to people (which is why we now have those annoying bugs everywhere).


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Allanon said:


> The Kodi media center has add-ons for most major streaming services and it's interface is consistent and configurable. It has many different skins if you don't like the default menu system. Plus it doesn't require a super computer, I run it on a Raspberry Pi 3B.


But that doesn't seem to do what I'm suggesting. You would need decent computing power for encoding to take the decoded output from a streaming box and reencode and store it. Saving it would be useful because not everything sticks around. And YouTube TV (which doesn't seem to have a plugin for Kodi?) only keeps your recording for 9 months. On the other hand, a lot of content does stick around on streaming services, and 9 months of recordings isn't that bad. But I feel something TiVo-like, but for streaming services, might find a niche market.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

markb said:


> But that doesn't seem to do what I'm suggesting. You would need decent computing power for encoding to take the decoded output from a streaming box and reencode and store it. Saving it would be useful because not everything sticks around. And YouTube TV (which doesn't seem to have a plugin for Kodi?) only keeps your recording for 9 months. On the other hand, a lot of content does stick around on streaming services, and 9 months of recordings isn't that bad. But I feel something TiVo-like, but for streaming services, might find a niche market.


It's illegal or against the terms of service to record streams from streaming services so if you want that then just download the many pirate addons that allow downloading of the movies and TV shows.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Allanon said:


> It's illegal or against the terms of service to record streams from streaming services so if you want that then just download the many pirate addons that allow downloading of the movies and TV shows.


Are you sure it's illegal to record a stream for personal use? I'm sure you're correct that it's against the TOS, but that applies to me, the subscriber, not someone who makes a box that records the output of another box.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

markb said:


> Are you sure it's illegal to record a stream for personal use?


Different places have different laws but it may be legal to download for personal use since PlayOn allows it and they haven't been sued out of existence. I haven't heard of a court case deciding either way.

Also thinking of PlayOn they allow recording of some streaming services and Kodi has a PlayOn addon.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Technically, doesn’t play on do screen scrapes?


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Technically, doesn't play on do screen scrapes?


That's not altogether different than recording the output of a Roku (or whatever streaming box). Those are probably the only ways to record of lot of these streaming services, because of DRM.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Pretty much any embedded video player on the major OS’es respects DRM and won’t let you screen capture it when it’s playing protected content.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, I suspect the competition will work against any kind of interface integration...the services will want to make sure you know you're in THEIR service. Which is kind of a shame...having an overarching interface would be great, but I doubt it's too likely. They'll remember what the networks learned in the DVR age...that eventually, specific networks didn't matter to people (which is why we now have those annoying bugs everywhere).


I think Apple has come the closest to "interface integration". Most apps on the Apple TV work the same way. So much so that when HBO went off on their own (horribly) the outcry forced them to change.

Combine that with the aggregate service that all but Netflix use and it's a pleasant to use experience. You still have to jump apps to watch stuff, but it's less of an issue.

Android/Google TV is similar, but I find their UI ugly. Fire TV recently updated their UI, but they primarily still integrate only with Amazon.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Getting back to HBOMAX, a few days ago I watched Hitchcock's 1936 film Sabotage. The good news is that I had no stuttering or buffering issues. But it's a short movie, about 80 minutes. A few weeks before that I watched the nearly 2 hour No Sudden Move. After about 70 minutes the stuttering started. So I simply exited the film by pressing Return on the Samsung remote, and then hit play. The film starts where it left off and the rest played without a problem. One hiccup in a nearly 2 hour film is something I can deal with and an improvement over how it was over the past few months. So Sabotage with no problem at all gives me hope that the problem has been resolved. I guess the real test will come when I watch Space Jam tonight.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Their app sucks. I watched HACKS on HBO-MAX, via Roku, and it is the only app that makes you think about it. The others just work, seamlessly.

Issues:
* I watched over a few days. Every time I returned, *every time*, it started on E8, for some reason.
* More than once, when I hit the end, but just as the credits were rolling, it would jump out to the Hacks main screen. Did it a couple times, didn't do it a couple times.
* When I started watching the finale (E10), it started about 28 minutes in. WTF? So I jumped back, started replay. Then after 10-15 seconds, I had a weird stutter problem (again, ONLY app that ever has an issue), jumped back again, only to have it lock up. Dead. So I hit the Home button on the Roku remote, restarted HBO-Max, restarted Hacks, only to have it start E10 at 28 minutes again.

No other app even makes it presence felt, they just work.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

FWIW, I haven't had any trouble with the Firestick 4K app.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I get the "OOOPS, Something went wrong screen" every couple days. Usually as a show ends. Odd.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> Pretty much any embedded video player on the major OS'es respects DRM and won't let you screen capture it when it's playing protected content.


PlayOn can record most streaming services, somehow. Though when I tried it, I wasn't happy with the video quality. Also, web-based streaming doesn't typically have 5.1 surround, and stereo kind of sucks in my home theater setup.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

astrohip said:


> No other app even makes it presence felt, they just work.


While I think the app sucks, I cannot agree with this sentence. Every app makes one think because they are all different and inconsistent in how they save stop points and handle series. Amazon Prime often thinks you are still watching an episode when you stop during the credits, for example. But sometimes assumes you want to start over when you watched halfway.

Streaming apps suck overall. None of them are reliable or user friendly. The best may be Plex. The rest are horrific.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max, the Windows Vista of Streaming


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I had the same experience watching Space Jam as I did with No Sudden Move. Everything was fine for about 70 minutes, then the video would stutter. Exiting the film and playing where it left off "fixed" the problem. I can deal with one hiccup in a nearly 2 hour movie. 
As far as the movie goes, it could have been shorter. It doesn't help that I don't care anything about basketball. I watched it just to see if I could watch it.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I have not had a single issue streaming HBOMAX on my RokuTV. I feel pretty fortunate! Sorry you guys are having trouble. Frustrating!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I have no problems on my Roku _once_ the show starts.
It's the UI that's takes too long to load on start, and is then sluggish.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Yes. Streaming wise, HBO max has been fine for me on every platform. I've been able to watch a full movie in UHD. Without any buffering issues or falling back to a lower resolution.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Anyone who experiences buffering or stuttering likely has something besides the HBOMax service (exclusive of the app on their chosen platform) to blame. Modern CDN networks are so effective that almost everyone is getting their media sent to them from somewhere relatively nearby, as fast as their pipe can take it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Anyone who experiences buffering or stuttering likely has something besides the HBOMax service (exclusive of the app on their chosen platform) to blame. Modern CDN networks are so effective that almost everyone is getting their media sent to them from somewhere relatively nearby, as fast as their pipe can take it.


True. Usually problems like that are caused by using a third party DNS which confuses the CDN into serving content from a far away server.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

cmontyburns said:


> Anyone who experiences buffering or stuttering likely has something besides the HBOMax service (exclusive of the app on their chosen platform) to blame. Modern CDN networks are so effective that almost everyone is getting their media sent to them from somewhere relatively nearby, as fast as their pipe can take it.


But if that were the case, wouldn't it happen from the onset? I installed HBOMAX in July of last year, which is when I bought my first smart TV. Everything was running smoothly until a few months ago. This seems to be the same time HBOMAX did some upgrade that affected Apple TV and apparently other applications as well. I don't know what CDN means so I can't comment on that.


----------



## reddice (Mar 6, 2004)

HBO Max app will sometimes buffer on Fire TV and Apple TV or randomly drop to SD. Only the Roku app is the most reliable. No buffering or dropping to SD. So I use HBO Max for the Roku.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

reddice said:


> HBO Max app will sometimes buffer on Fire TV and Apple TV or randomly drop to SD.


I've never had that in the HBO Max app (on either Apple TV or PS4). I've had the Netflix app drop to SD a few times on TiVo and PS4.

The only problems I've had with HBO Max was that week or so when they'd put a custom video player in their Apple TV app which made it unusable. But they backtracked pretty quick on that and went back to what works (Apple's standard video player UI).


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Took 5 attempts (exit app) to get a show to stream last night on my Roku.
No problems with any other app (Netflix, Hulu, etc)
This app sucks.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I'm a minute in to the new Suicide Squad, when I realize the subtitles/captions aren't appearing. Does the intro not have them? Skip ahead, still nothing. Go into settings, they are turned off.

I have never had a streaming app turn off subtitles, or forget the setting. Ever. Until now.

This app sucks.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max will reportedly overhaul its smart TV apps in the next few months | Engadget
_An anonymous WarnerMedia executive talking to Vulture claims the HBO Max team will replace all its smart TV apps with brand new versions inside of the "next four or five months." Roku and PlayStation owners would receive the overhauled apps first, followed by Apple TV users near the end of 2021. Mobile and web viewers would have to wait until early 2022.
The existing apps have suffered from a number of serious flaws, ranging from broken playback controls to forgotten settings and sluggishness. *Roku users have faced more problems than most*, with lockups and crashes sometimes making the HBO Max app unusable._


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Tony_T said:


> HBO Max will reportedly overhaul its smart TV apps in the next few months | Engadget
> _An anonymous WarnerMedia executive talking to Vulture claims the HBO Max team will replace all its smart TV apps with brand new versions inside of the "next four or five months." Roku and PlayStation owners would receive the overhauled apps first, followed by Apple TV users near the end of 2021. Mobile and web viewers would have to wait until early 2022.
> The existing apps have suffered from a number of serious flaws, ranging from broken playback controls to forgotten settings and sluggishness. *Roku users have faced more problems than most*, with lockups and crashes sometimes making the HBO Max app unusable._


Wish they would make an app for the Vizio Smartcast TVs, instead we are stuck casting from a phone, tablet, or PC. They are the only major streaming service that doesn't have an app on my TV.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Is anyone having issues with HBO Max losing audio in the stream requiring having to get out and get back in? That's happened to me a couple of times and I don't recall it happening on my other Apps.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Is anyone having issues with HBO Max losing audio in the stream requiring having to get out and get back in? That's happened to me a couple of times and I don't recall it happening on my other Apps.


I haven't had a problem with audio. I noticed the article didn't mention the Samsung TV app, which is what I use. The good thing is that I managed to work around the problem. When watching a movie, once I get to the 70 minute mark (more of less) the video will start to stutter. Pressing "return" on the remote takes me to the previous screen, which is the movie's description page. There I press "play" and the film starts at the same point where it left off. I can then finish it without anymore issues. It's no big deal, just a minor annoyance. And since series are usually 30-60 minutes long I don't encounter this problem.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Tony_T said:


> Roku and PlayStation owners would receive the overhauled apps first, followed by Apple TV users near the end of 2021. Mobile and web viewers would have to wait until early 2022.


I'm seeing lots of issues on the FireTV and Android TV apps too.


Complaint #1: Title / Media Bar doesn't go away automatically. (AndroidTV, FireTV)
Complaint #2: 4K HDR/DV not triggered on premium titles. (FireTV)
Complaint #3: Android TV app very sluggish navigating through selections, prone to crashes.
Reminds me a lot of the headaches with the Now/Go apps five years ago.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I don't have a lot of issues with the app, but my kids were complaining about it last night. Both have Roku TVs. I think they were glad to hear that they would revamp the app.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I went to The Suicide Squad again on Sunday. I didn't want to stay for the end credit scene. Thought I'd watch it when I got home. Well, that certainly didn't happen on my Apple TV. You can't scrub through anything with the stupid HBO Max app.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Just wanted to report that they finally added a HBO Max app to the Vizio Smartcast TV. I haven't put it through it's paces but it seems responsive and an easy to use interface.

HBO Max now has a dedicated app on Vizio SmartCast TVs


----------



## jryken99 (Mar 28, 2003)

Allanon said:


> Wish they would make an app for the Vizio Smartcast TVs, instead we are stuck casting from a phone, tablet, or PC. They are the only major streaming service that doesn't have an app on my TV.


As of yesterday your wish has been granted. Pleasant surprise to boot up the TV and see the app out there.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Allanon said:


> Just wanted to report that they finally added a HBO Max app to the Vizio Smartcast TV. I haven't put it through it's paces but it seems responsive and an easy to use interface.
> 
> HBO Max now has a dedicated app on Vizio SmartCast TVs


I hope it works better than the app on Samsung TV's. After watching a movie for about 70 minutes the picture starts to stutter. It wasn't always like this, it worked perfectly for months when I first used it. Then they decided to make some updates and it hasn't been the same since. The quick fix for me is to exit the movie then play it again. It starts where it left off and I can watch the rest without incident.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max Slashes Price In Half After HBO Leaves Amazon Channels, In Bid To Stem Expected Subscriber Losses - Deadline

_WarnerMedia is offering a half-off discount on HBO Max now that HBO is no longer available on Amazon Prime Video Channels.
Today through September 26, the monthly subscription cost will be $7.49 for up to six months for anyone who had accessed HBO via the Channels platform. The discount is available to both new and returning subscribers._​


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

New Roku App, loads a lot faster.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

And my profile pic shows up. Previously, Roku just showed the blue/purple circle while the mobile app showed my chosen icon.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

The Samsung TV app was updated not too long ago and it looks like they finally got it right. The last two films I watched, Cry Macho and Malignant, played without any video issues.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Tony_T said:


> New Roku App, loads a lot faster.


&#8230;but takes awhile (and sometimes locks up) if stopping a show and backing up to the main screen.

Either HBO has one intern testing this, or we're the beta testers.


----------



## amcanzo (Nov 12, 2004)

jamesbobo said:


> The Samsung TV app was updated not too long ago and it looks like they finally got it right. The last two films I watched, Cry Macho and Malignant, played without any video issues.


I can not seem to get Dolby Surround. Receiver shows Dolby Digital but only comes thru as stereo. Dolby Digital Surround works on all other apps that support it This is on a Samsung TV (Tizen)


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

amcanzo said:


> I can not seem to get Dolby Surround. Receiver shows Dolby Digital but only comes thru as stereo. Dolby Digital Surround works on all other apps that support it This is on a Samsung TV (Tizen)


I can't say anything about that. I only use the speakers on the TV and never used a receiver for TV sound.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

They can't even get an ad to work properly...


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

I was halfway through Laetitia, and now the only audio option available is “English AD”.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> I was halfway through Laetitia, and now the only audio option available is "English AD".


Apple TV? Google tells me that English AD is an Apple thing, something about Accessibility Audio. All I remember about Laetitia was that it was in the native language and had english subtitles. Has that changed?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

efilippi said:


> Apple TV? Google tells me that English AD is an Apple thing, something about Accessibility Audio. All I remember about Laetitia was that it was in the native language and had english subtitles. Has that changed?


Yeah, Apple TV (but I see the same problem on iOS, I haven't tried my Chromecast with Google TV yet)

I was watching this as French with English subtitles with no problem, and now the only language available is "English AD":

1. There's an audible English-language description of events (e.g. "Car door slamming", or "Detective enters the room"), but it's on top of the existing French audio.
2. The subtitles are low-quality yellow bitmapped fonts.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I can't find it, but I remember reading that some were complaining that they can't turn off auto play, at least with Roku. I was able to turn off auto play on Samsung's app by going to settings--->EXPERIENCE. I realize menus are different on other apps, but if you have a Samsung TV you can do it that way. And while the app had its issues last year, it's now working better than ever.

EDIT: I found it. It's in the Happy Hour forum under "Can't turn off auto-play on several streaming apps."


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

kaszeta said:


> Yeah, Apple TV (but I see the same problem on iOS, I haven't tried my Chromecast with Google TV yet)
> 
> I was watching this as French with English subtitles with no problem, and now the only language available is "English AD":
> 
> ...


And this is the case with my Chromecast, too: there's only a single audio option: "English AD".

So for some reason they removed the other audio feeds.

Too bad, I was enjoying the show.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

And Beforeigners is now similar: only options are dubbed English and dubbed Swedish (close, but no cigar)

Web interface is really weird, showing more options…. But the only ones that work are Swedish and English.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

And talking with HBO support, first by email, and then by phone, show that this was a deliberate decision by HBO to focus on English language versions of their programming. 

That got me to give a big “sigh”.

This pushed me over into anger, the phone support telling me that since they offer “Swedish” for Beforeigners, that should be good enough, since “they are basically the same language.”

Sigh. Makes me wish I could hack all their stuff to only display Afrikaans, since that is “close enough”


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

I'm watching Season 2, Episode 1 of "Beforeigners" via the Apple TV app right now, and the audio options are English and Norwegian. (That said, even in the Norwegian audio track, this episode begins with Hebrew, and then English.)

Although then there's the bad word wrapping on some of these subtitles...


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

They tell me now:

1. They fixed Laetitia. Not really… they added French audio back, but still no subtitles.

2. They restored Norwegian Bokmål to Beforeigners S1 and S2e1 and e2. But S2e3 is still borked.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Okay, now they’ve mostly fixed Laetitia, the Français soundtrack has subtitles again.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

And just heard from HBO Support that they've fixed Beforeigners as well.

Apparently, once this got to the right people, they were able to fix it correctly.


----------



## roccorocco (Jan 9, 2021)

I am down to seven days left on my subscription and I am going to put it on hiatus for a while. I've milked it pretty hard, knowing my days on it are numbered, at this point, I just can't justify the full monthly price. Maybe I will use HBO Max addon on my Firestick (https://www.firesticktricks.cоm/hbo-max-kodi-addon.html ). Keep you updated on how it works


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Having seen the promos for Peacemaker, it looks like fun and clearly doesn't take itself seriously. I'm going to give it a try. Plus, I'm still watching And Just Like That every Thursday.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jamesbobo said:


> Having seen the promos for Peacemaker, it looks like fun and clearly doesn't take itself seriously. I'm going to give it a try. Plus, I'm still watching And Just Like That every Thursday.


I've seen a couple of reviews that were very positive...and seemed to be surprised that they liked it.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Promo for HBO Max runs through 1/25/2022

20% off both "With Ads" ($7.99/mo) and "Ad-Free" ($11.99/mo)4

Also for those who use Rakuten - They are offering up to $16 cash back


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

So I'm kinda new to HBO Max. Signed up for a 3 month trial in Dec. I've watched a few things, including the new Matrix movie. Hadn't seen the new Suicide Squad, so didn't really know much about Peacemaker. But I saw a clip of Cena on The Tonight Show with Fallon and it intrigued me. I went out there to watch the new SS movie (watched last night) and to add Peacemaker to my watch list. Only there isn't anything to add. I guess it's not like other apps/channels were you can add it prior to it being released.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

bryhamm said:


> So I'm kinda new to HBO Max. Signed up for a 3 month trial in Dec. I've watched a few things, including the new Matrix movie. Hadn't seen the new Suicide Squad, so didn't really know much about Peacemaker. But I saw a clip of Cena on The Tonight Show with Fallon and it intrigued me. I went out there to watch the new SS movie (watched last night) and to add Peacemaker to my watch list. Only there isn't anything to add. I guess it's not like other apps/channels were you can add it prior to it being released.


Should watch Raised By Wolves because the second season starts Feb 3.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

HBO Max and Discovery+ will be merging.









HBO Max, Discovery+ to Combine for “Blowout” Product, CFO Says


The streamers will be bundled early on as part of the merger, before both services become a single direct-to-consumer platform.




www.hollywoodreporter.com


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Allanon said:


> HBO Max and Discovery+ will be merging.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm curious how that will play out for me. I get HBO Max compliments of subscribing to HBO via Verizon FiOS. I have the suite of Discovery channels from the same cable sub.

I have signed up for an annual sub for Discovery+ that I prepaid on. Haven't paid anything to HBO Max.

I'd be happy to get Discovery+ as part of the HBO Max sub, since that would save me a few $$

Discovery+ has been pretty week for me, all told. Motortrend has given me some value, but when I try to watch something on Discovery+ that I might have missed on one of the Discovery channels, I find that it isn't available there (yet, if ever....) and instead I get to look through a bunch of stuff that never made it on the cable channels, or some really old stuff that was on the cable side.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

I tried Discovery+ but didn't subscribe because there were only a couple shows that interested me but not enough to pay. Adding Discovery+ to HBO Max is just a bonus because I get HBO Max for free through my cable company because I pay for HBO.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I first read that as Disney+ and I was "WHAT!"

Too many "+" things. It's like the "i" things back before the dotcom bubble burst.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Last time I looked at Discovery+ it was mostly old stuff and not the newer live stuff. If they would go the route of at most 1 day behind for everything Discovery on cable it might be a little more compelling in that its another way to cut cable.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Last time I looked at Discovery+ it was mostly old stuff and not the newer live stuff. If they would go the route of at most 1 day behind for everything Discovery on cable it might be a little more compelling in that its another way to cut cable.


That was my thought on this ^^
I don't mind having to wait a day, or even if necessary a week, to catch something via streaming that I could have caught on cable, but with most new content not available at all, it just isn't worth it.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

This was expected with the divestiture from AT&T. I get HBOMax with my AT&T unlimited cell phone plan. I remain curious whether that will continue with AT&T no longer owning it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> This was expected with the divestiture from AT&T. I get HBOMax with my AT&T unlimited cell phone plan. I remain curious whether that will continue with AT&T no longer owning it.


I’m curious as well, but usually AT&T grandfathers you in so you won’t lose HBOMax. They may jack up the price like they did for the original unlimited data plan to drive people off it though.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Allanon said:


> HBO Max and Discovery+ will be merging.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Discovery CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels "argued that combining the subscriber acquisition power of HBO Max with the customer retention power of Discovery+ content will “make for a blowout DTC (direct-to-consumer) product and that should certainly drive very healthy revenue growth for years to come.”

Discovery has customer retention power? I know. It's marketing puffery. Everyone, including Wiedenfels, knows that the driving force behind this merger will be WarnerMedia and HBO Max. The Discovery content will be more or less an afterthought. Let's just hope they don't screw it up.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

The should make it a “hub” in Max like cartoon network and burry it.
But I fear that this will destroy HBO.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

hapster85 said:


> Discovery has customer retention power? I know. It's marketing puffery. Everyone, including Wiedenfels, knows that the driving force behind this merger will be WarnerMedia and HBO Max. The Discovery content will be more or less an afterthought. Let's just hope they don't screw it up.


You have it backwards, actually. AT&T already screwed up Warner/HBO (though Max has found its footing). It was being spun off to Discovery to save it.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

cmontyburns said:


> You have it backwards, actually. AT&T already screwed up Warner/HBO (though Max has found its footing). It was being spun off to Discovery to save it.


Like you said, that was AT&T not having a clue how to run a media company. They made similar mistakes with DirecTV, but that's gone too. They nearly screwed up HBO Max by naming it that. I think a lot of people are still confused by what it actually is, and isn't. But at least AT&T came to their senses before it was too late.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

hapster85 said:


> Like you said, that was AT&T not having a clue how to run a media company. They made similar mistakes with DirecTV, but that's gone too. They nearly screwed up HBO Max by naming it that. I think a lot of people are still confused by what it actually is, and isn't. But at least AT&T came to their senses before it was too late.


at&t didn't have much of a choice - their debt load is staggering, so they're actively working to shed as much of it as possible to build out 5g - they hope to have a better outlook by the end of 2023.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

HBO Max admits terrible launch experience, says revamped Android TV app cuts load time by 50%


Thanks to major updates behind the scenes, HBO Max says that load times on its Android TV app have dropped by 50%.




9to5google.com




_
HBO Max launched amid the pandemic with a great library and the perk of same-day theatrical releases for a while, but it was notorious for slow performance and bugs. Now, as its revamped app has been made available on Android TV, Apple TV, and elsewhere, HBO Max is owning up to that rough start.

In a conversation with the folks over at Protocol, HBO Max’s head of Product Experience, Sarah Lyons, said that HBO Max knew that its apps weren’t ready for the scale of the service, but they were pushed anyway as a result of the incoming competition from Disney+ and others.
_


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

astrohip said:


> HBO Max admits terrible launch experience, says revamped Android TV app cuts load time by 50%
> 
> 
> Thanks to major updates behind the scenes, HBO Max says that load times on its Android TV app have dropped by 50%.
> ...


It was definitely pretty sad/bad when I first tried on my Sony TV (with Google TV/Android TV, whatever you want to call it). Lots of buffering, fits and starts, etc. It worked considerably better, by memory, on my Roku.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> It was definitely pretty sad/bad when I first tried on my Sony TV (with Google TV/Android TV, whatever you want to call it). Lots of buffering, fits and starts, etc. It worked considerably better, by memory, on my Roku.


Other than the one week when they pushed out a horribly broken Apple TV app which they reverted, it’s worked nearly perfectly on my Apple TV.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I still have the problem with their app that closed captions are on any time I start any video, regardless of what I have them set to. They can be set to “off” and they still show. I have to redundantly turn them off to get rid of them. Then next video, even if I roll automatically right into a next episode, they are back on. Happens on both iOS and Apple TV.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> I still have the problem with their app that closed captions are on any time I start any video, regardless of what I have them set to. They can be set to “off” and they still show. I have to redundantly turn them off to get rid of them. Then next video, even if I roll automatically right into a next episode, they are back on. Happens on both iOS and Apple TV.


Set them to Auto, even if they are already set to auto.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

morac said:


> Set them to Auto, even if they are already set to auto.


It doesn't matter what they are set to, including Auto.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

cmontyburns said:


> It doesn't matter what they are set to, including Auto.


i've noticed this behavior with the xfinity stream app, but only on a vizio tv - you must turn captioning off with each new video/channel change - it remembers the current setting with samsung and mitsubishi, though. ❔


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> I still have the problem with their app that closed captions are on any time I start any video, regardless of what I have them set to. They can be set to “off” and they still show. I have to redundantly turn them off to get rid of them. Then next video, even if I roll automatically right into a next episode, they are back on. Happens on both iOS and Apple TV.


Yeah, I have all sorts of problems with subtitles and audio prefs. I think their app has some AI that automatically picks the least desirable set of options, no matter what I previously had set.

If watching Beforeigners, it was tending to default to no subtitles, and some random audio track _other_ that English or Norwegian, both of which would be tolerable. But then shift to Watchmen, and it decides to turn on Spanish subtitles.

Sigh.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

They’re starting to roll out a new version of the app. I’m hoping such issues will have been addressed.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> They’re starting to roll out a new version of the app. I’m hoping such issues will have been addressed.


So far, so good. Streamed the latest episode of Julia with no unusual subtitle or audio track selections.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Meanwhile, I'd never had the issue with the subtitles being on at the start of every video... until I got the new version of the app! They must have sent me the version that was supposed to go to kaszeta.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Is there anything new about the new app? What I have looks the same as it always has...


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

There's a new app?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

hapster85 said:


> There's a new app?


TvOS only. Mostly minor tweaks.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> So far, so good. Streamed the latest episode of Julia with no unusual subtitle or audio track selections.


No luck here. New version, subtitles still always on. 😡


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

My sub is coming up for renewal and tempted to go with the ad version for an annual savings of $50. How are the ads? Only in the beginning or several during a show/movie?


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

FINALLY they've added the ability to turn off auto-play.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I just signed up for HBO Max through Hulu. Since Hulu has a 7-day free trial for HBO Max. I signed up to watch Westworld, Peacemaker, and Chernobyl.
Plus, since Amex gives me $20 each month to spend on certain streaming services, with Hulu being one of them, part of HBO Max will be covered for my by AMEX.
So hopefully I will only need to be subscribed for two months, to be able to watch season 4 of Westworld.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I just signed up for HBO Max through Hulu. Since Hulu has a 7-day free trial for HBO Max. I signed up to watch Westworld, Peacemaker, and Chernobyl.
> Plus, since Amex gives me $20 each month to spend on certain streaming services, with Hulu being one of them, part of HBO Max will be covered for my by AMEX.
> So hopefully I will only need to be subscribed for two months, to be able to watch season 4 of Westworld.


Season 4 finally will be on August 14, 2022.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Allanon said:


> Season 4 finally will be on August 14, 2022.


I see season 4 episode 1 on HBO Max today. Or did you mean finale?


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> I see season 4 episode 1 on HBO Max today. Or did you mean finale?


I meant finale, auto correct at it's finest.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Allanon said:


> I meant finale, auto correct at it's finest.


Gotta love it.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

trainman said:


> Meanwhile, I'd never had the issue with the subtitles being on at the start of every video... until I got the new version of the app! They must have sent me the version that was supposed to go to kaszeta.


This finally got fixed for me within the last couple weeks (i.e., between the last episode of "Barry" and the first episode of "Westworld").


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max halts original productions across large parts of Europe
Parent Warner Bros. Discovery continues cost-cutting following its split from AT&T.



https://www.engadget.com/hbo-max-halts-original-productions-across-large-parts-of-europe-130226456.html?src=rss


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Just a note for anyone renewing for a year. The ad-free option is $149.99 (saving about $30 over the monthly rate of $14.99).

However, if you have the offer on your Amex card, there is a $25 reward for spending $99 or over at HBOMax, effectively bringing it down to $125! That works out to a little over $10/mo, which isn't bad! The ad supported option comes down to $75, or $6.5/mo.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Just a note for anyone renewing for a year. The ad-free option is $149.99 (saving about $30 over the monthly rate of $14.99).
> 
> However, if you have the offer on your Amex card, there is a $25 reward for spending $99 or over at HBOMax, effectively bringing it down to $125! That works out to a little over $10/mo, which isn't bad! The ad supported option comes down to $75, or $6.5/mo.


I recently renewed to the ad tier for $99. It hasn't been that bad. A movie or an episode has one or two ads at the start and that's it.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

(Nevermind)


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Current rumor is Discovery will announce Thursday that it’s shutting down HBOMax and reverting HBO back to a premium channel with all the scripted shows being axed and unscripted shows being added to Discovery+. 

That sounds insane, but considering a bunch of shows and movies were just canned, it’s now sounding plausible.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> Current rumor is Discovery will announce Thursday that it’s shutting down HBOMax and reverting HBO back to a premium channel with all the scripted shows being axed and unscripted shows being added to Discovery+.
> 
> That sounds insane, but considering a bunch of shows and movies were just canned, it’s now sounding plausible.


Where are you seeing this rumor. That still makes zero sense to me. More likely, if they are going to do anything, they will roll it into Discovery+ (and perhaps change the name, so it doesn't sound so much like a documentary channel). HBO Max just announced they will be showing the whole Game of Thrones series in 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos sound, and the new series will be shown that way as well. Why would they announce that if they were canning the platform. Then again, they killed CNN+ after a month or two and nixed a show on TBS hours before it was going to air, so who knows with these people?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

According to this, HBO Max has 77 million subscribers, and Discovery+ just 24. Makes no sense.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> According to this, HBO Max has 77 million subscribers, and Discovery+ just 24. Makes no sense.


While I agree, Discovery is clearly putting their imprint on the "new" company and running things their way and do not seem afraid to make any drastic changes. So nothing with this company surprises me anymore. Can't say I'm happy with what they are doing so far, but it's early.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, but abandoning their own streaming service and letting the HBO profits fall more into the coffers of the cable companies sounds pretty insane. This sounds less like a rumor and more like mindless speculation...

They killed CNN+ because it was a service nobody wanted and which had nothing to offer.


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

I recently finished a very good book on the inner workings\history of HBO. Seems timely.

Tinderbox: HBO's Ruthless Pursuit of New Frontiers









Amazon.com: Tinderbox: HBO's Ruthless Pursuit of New Frontiers (Audible Audio Edition): James Andrew Miller, James Andrew Miller, Amy McFadden, Robert Petkoff, Macmillan Audio: Books


Amazon.com: Tinderbox: HBO's Ruthless Pursuit of New Frontiers (Audible Audio Edition): James Andrew Miller, James Andrew Miller, Amy McFadden, Robert Petkoff, Macmillan Audio: Books



www.amazon.com


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

eddyj said:


> According to this, HBO Max has 77 million subscribers, and Discovery+ just 24. Makes no sense.


That includes HBO cable subscribers though. It doesn’t break down how many subscribe through cable and how many subscribe directly to HBOMax. 

There’s some writing on the wall. The Batgirl movie which was already almost totally completed was just canceled for a $70 million loss. 









‘Irredeemable’ Batgirl movie unexpectedly cancelled despite being in final stages


Warner Bros confirms film starring Leslie Grace as Barbara Gordon, Michael Keaton, JK Simmons and Brendan Fraser won’t ever be released




www.theguardian.com













'Batgirl' Cancellation Causes Flurry of Questions About HBO Max's Future


The film will reportedly not be released on any platform or in theaters, despite already having been completed.




www.newsweek.com





The rumor came from Grace Randolph who knows a lot of people in the industry and tends to get leaks on industry news. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1554556706839052289


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Odd: I blocked Grace Randolph on twitter, lol. I don't remember why.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lambertman said:


> Odd: I blocked Grace Randolph on twitter, lol. I don't remember why.


Maybe it's that voice? So annoying it even comes through in text?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> That includes HBO cable subscribers though. It doesn’t break down how many subscribe through cable and how many subscribe directly to HBOMax.
> 
> There’s some writing on the wall. The Batgirl movie which was already almost totally completed was just canceled for a $70 million loss.
> 
> ...


Well, that's what I said, if anything the subscription services will merge, which really has been rumored for awhile. So rather than take the Disney route of keeping three streamers of different genres, they are going to consolidate into one. The thing is, Discovery has no real experience with scripted dramas/comedies and such (yeah, they probably have had a few over the years, but it's not their bread and butter) and this is what they seem to be trying to do. Has anyone noticed the plethora of non-fiction and especially true crime series on HBO recently? I suspect that has to do with the new ownership. Perhaps that's their vision for HBO moving forward? At one time HBO was unique in showing scripted adult content, but now there's a LOT of competition. Heck, HBO doesn't even win all the Emmys like they used to!

So we'll see. I don't necessarily trust rumors on Twitter.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

I've been doing the annual subscription, which just renewed in June, so I'm in for the ride. But what I'm reading doesn't exactly sound promising.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> I've been doing the annual subscription, which just renewed in June, so I'm in for the ride. But what I'm reading doesn't exactly sound promising.


I get my HBOMax subscription through my AT&T wireless plan. AT&T updated their plans to remove HBOMax shortly after they sold off WB, but I’m grandfathered in. If HBOMax goes away, I’m not sure what will happen.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Mine is through my AT&T Fiber, and I would hate to lose it, since it is a good portion of the monthly cost.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I get that they're trying to grow the Discovery brand, but that name means nothing to me. I've been cordcut since 2009. And I've never watched the reality/competitive reality and unscripted "dramas" they've been hawking for the past 20+ years. I was fan of Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, but that's about it. 

If HBO programming gets folded into a Discovery channel- you better believe they'll insert ads on it. 

It's been seven years since I first subscribed to HBO Now. (aka HBO Go) If scripted programming is going away- I'd probably cut off the scrip.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I eot HBO through AT&T fiber. I run the app on a firestick. The weird problem I have is it will frequently start a show with audio and a black screen. I have to FF/REW to get the picture to show.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> ...The weird problem I have is it will frequently start a show with audio and a black screen. I have to FF/REW to get the picture to show...


I get that too. Either that loading animation plays forever, or a black screen with no running time on the media search bar. 

Glad to know that I'm not the only one. It usually happens with older titles, but I spent a few minutes trying to play the newly remastered Game of Thrones this week. (HDR/Dolby Vision + Dolby Atmos) Bupkis.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Saturn_V said:


> If HBO programming gets folded into a Discovery channel- you better believe they'll insert ads on it.


HBO Max already has a tier with commercials for those who want to pay a little less and don't mind them. I'm on the no-commercial tier.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Where are you seeing this rumor. That still makes zero sense to me. More likely, if they are going to do anything, they will roll it into Discovery+ (and perhaps change the name, so it doesn't sound so much like a documentary channel). HBO Max just announced they will be showing the whole Game of Thrones series in 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos sound, and the new series will be shown that way as well. Why would they announce that if they were canning the platform. Then again, they killed CNN+ after a month or two and nixed a show on TBS hours before it was going to air, so who knows with these people?


They also spent $80 million on a crazy Bat Girl Movie. Only to cancel it this week, and they will never air it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> I get that they're trying to grow the Discovery brand, but that name means nothing to me. I've been cordcut since 2009. And I've never watched the reality/competitive reality and unscripted "dramas" they've been hawking for the past 20+ years. I was fan of Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, but that's about it.
> 
> If HBO programming gets folded into a Discovery channel- you better believe they'll insert ads on it.
> 
> It's been seven years since I first subscribed to HBO Now. (aka HBO Go) If scripted programming is going away- I'd probably cut off the scrip.


If they do that then I will never subscribe. I have no desire to see any commercials. I would rather watch nothing than have commercials.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> If HBO programming gets folded into a Discovery channel- you better believe they'll insert ads on it.


The current incarnation of Discovery+ has an ad-free tier, so I'm reasonably certain a combined "Discovery Plus, Plus HBO" would have one as well.



> It's been seven years since I first subscribed to HBO Now. (aka HBO Go) If scripted programming is going away- I'd probably cut off the scrip.


Indications are that they'll be continuing original scripted programming on the HBO linear channel, which will also be available for streaming somehow -- there just won't be any new scripted programming that's exclusive to streaming.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

trainman said:


> Indications are that they'll be continuing original scripted programming on the HBO linear channel, which will also be available for streaming somehow -- there just won't be any new scripted programming that's exclusive to streaming.


It's a shame, I really liked HBOMAX's original content: Hacks, Raised by Wolves, Station Eleven, Tokyo Vice, Flight Attendant. It didn't have the same vibe as the linear channel's originals, and felt genuine to the service. 



aaronwt said:


> If they do that then I will never subscribe. I have no desire to see any commercials. I would rather watch nothing than have commercials.


I think Discovery programming turned me off commercials forever. It's still a 45min program- but the ads are interspersed in unconventional timings. And it seems 5-8 mins of the program is spend recapping what happened earlier in the episode. It's constructed to move advertising. 

May be I am over-reacting. Just not at all comfy about HBO being deprecated in any way.


----------



## wspencerjr60 (Jan 13, 2022)

morac said:


> Current rumor is Discovery will announce Thursday that it’s shutting down HBOMax and reverting HBO back to a premium channel with all the scripted shows being axed and unscripted shows being added to Discovery+.
> 
> That sounds insane, but considering a bunch of shows and movies were just canned, it’s now sounding plausible.


Makes plenty of sense to me, as I have already stopped my HBO Max subscription. I haven't watched anything on there for 2 months. No same time theater releases, the Perry Mason season 2 is delayed. I don't like much of the modern stuff that they have, so I'm not paying for it anymore..I watch Disney(Star Wars), Paramount(Star Trek), Prime(Movies,etc), Peacock(Indycar, IMSA, etc racing and some same time theater releases). 

So, HBO Max, who needs it?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

wspencerjr60 said:


> Perry Mason season 2 is delayed


I know it's delayed, but I didn't realize it was on HBO-MAX. I thought it was HBO.


----------



## wspencerjr60 (Jan 13, 2022)

astrohip said:


> I know it's delayed, but I didn't realize it was on HBO-MAX. I thought it was HBO.


You could be right, as when I did see it I only had HBO, but I downsized my TV package a year ago and got HBO Max as my premium channel.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Zazlov is ruthlessly cutting costs, so I guess we can’t rule anything out. But I would still be stunned. “Let’s invest in linear” is a strategy precisely no one is following.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

wspencerjr60 said:


> So, HBO Max, who needs it?


It's the main thing I watch besides Netflix. Euphoria, Hacks, Westworld, The Flight Attendant, Minx, Last Week Tonight, His Dark Materials, Barry, Gentleman Jack, etc. Ok, some of those are HBO, not HBO Max, but I watch them on HBO Max so what's the difference, really? I've watched a bunch of other non-HBO content on HBO Max too. (Adventure Time, Infinity Train, the UK version of Ghosts)

I assume they'll merge HBO Max with Discovery+. I have no idea what they'd call it; the HBO Max name was kinda dumb but it's not as bland and generic as Discovery+. Maybe raise the price slightly for an ad-free combo.

I imagine they might cut back on the production of new scripted stuff; during the AT&T era they really focused on quantity over quality (but still managed to make a lot of great shows). But they won't axe it entirely. That would be an incredibly dumb way to mismanage their new property.


----------



## wspencerjr60 (Jan 13, 2022)

tim1724 said:


> It's the main thing I watch besides Netflix. Euphoria, Hacks, Westworld, The Flight Attendant, Minx, Last Week Tonight, His Dark Materials, Barry, Gentleman Jack, etc. Ok, some of those are HBO, not HBO Max, but I watch them on HBO Max so what's the difference, really? I've watched a bunch of other non-HBO content on HBO Max too. (Adventure Time, Infinity Train, the UK version of Ghosts)
> 
> I assume they'll merge HBO Max with Discovery+. I have no idea what they'd call it; the HBO Max name was kinda dumb but it's not as bland and generic as Discovery+. Maybe raise the price slightly for an ad-free combo.
> 
> I imagine they might cut back on the production of new scripted stuff; during the AT&T era they really focused on quantity over quality (but still managed to make a lot of great shows). But they won't axe it entirely. That would be an incredibly dumb way to mismanage their new property.


I dumped Netflix too. I'll come back to it when the next season of Drive To Survive arrives.

I had Netflix to get DVD's regularly and the streaming was free, back in the 90's. I canceled when they had nothing but garbage to watch, just like HBO Max now.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

HBOMax has been quietly purging WB exclusive films from their service and layoffs are expected. The writing definitely looks like it’s on the wall.









HBO Max Quietly Removed Six Warner Bros. Streaming-Exclusive Movies


Warner Bros. Discovery has been quietly culling content from HBO Max — including several Warner Bros. movies that were exclusively streaming on the service — in what appears to be an ef…




variety.com







https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-questions-ahead-of-earnings-211645018.html









I guess we’ll find out today what’s happening. News breaks at 4:30 pm Eastern. 









Home


Warner Bros. Discovery, a premier global media and entertainment company, offers audiences the world's most differentiated and complete portfolio of content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming and gaming. The new company combines WarnerMedia's premium entertainment, sports...



wbd.com


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

wspencerjr60 said:


> I had Netflix to get DVD's regularly *and the streaming was free, back in the 90's.* I canceled when they had nothing but garbage to watch, just like HBO Max now.


Jumping the gun a bit there, they didn't start streaming until 2007


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

This whole thing feels like typical corporate raiding, a la 1980s. Buy a company from a bigger company desperate to sell. Cut costs, lay off staff, and then flip the company for a tidy profit. What's strange is that it wasn't an investment firm that bought them, but another media company. But I get the feeling that at some point they might look to sell the whole thing (perhaps even Discovery itself) for a LOT of money, once they've gutted as many expenses as possible. The danger here, of course is that they might upset enough subscribers that they ruin the business completely.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I’m also concerned about the HBO Max back catalogs. Love watching older shows like the Flintstones or Young Justice.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

tim1724 said:


> I assume they'll merge HBO Max with Discovery+. I have no idea what they'd call it; the HBO Max name was kinda dumb but it's not as bland and generic as Discovery+. Maybe raise the price slightly for an ad-free combo.


I get HBO-MAX free with my HBO subscription. I'm okay with a merger, but not if they decide to start charging HBO subscribers for the combined package. I'm not paying for another streaming service, especially since Discovery+ has zero appeal for me.

I'd really miss Hacks though. 😢


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I get HBO-MAX free with my HBO subscription. I'm okay with a merger, but not if they decide to start charging HBO subscribers for the combined package. I'm not paying for another streaming service, especially since Discovery+ has zero appeal for me.
> 
> I'd really miss Hacks though. 😢


It sounds to me (and again this is all rumors) that with the merger of the two platforms, there will be no more exclusive to streaming HBO material. So either Hacks will wind up on linear HBO, or be cancelled. If you have an HBO sub with your cable/sat/OTT system, then you should be OK.

I also wonder if they will grandfather anyone with current HBO subs who get HBOMax into the new sub service (maybe for a year?)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I also wonder if they will grandfather anyone with current HBO subs who get HBOMax into the new sub service (maybe for a year?)


Well, if they stop doing scripted content then I'm cancelling my subscription. I love John Oliver, but not enough to pay for an entire streaming service!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, if they stop doing scripted content then I'm cancelling my subscription. I love John Oliver, but not enough to pay for an entire streaming service!


If that's the case, I'll cancel on my Sat service too. HBO without the scripted shows and just out of theater movies is worthless to me. They already got rid of boxing a few years ago which I enjoyed. I do wonder if J.O. and Bill Maher too will still stay there, or if they'd want to move them to something like CNN?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Almost all of the services have gone to creating unique to them content. I would be shocked if HBO basically became a service rebroadcasting content created elsewhere. They would destroy any incentive to sign up directly which most likely gives them the most profit. 

I almost always watch shows through the streaming vehicle rather than trying record stuff through the linear vehicle. Fortunately I get HBOMAX free through my fiber subscription but if they destroy it’s value add then I might consider downgrading my gigabit service to 300//500 speed.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> HBO without the scripted shows and just out of theater movies is worthless to me.


I don't think they're saying HBO won't have scripted series. Just not HBO-MAX. [Aside: They haven't made an announcement as of now, so this is still all conjecture.]

If HBO were to stop scripted content, it wouldn't be HBO. Subscriptions would drop 98%.

Without Westworld, Succession, Euphoria, The Nevers, House of the Dragon, Curb, Barry, yada yada... it's not a premium channel.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Weird, though, that HBO Max would be so much less than HBO...

Maybe they'll rebrand it HBO Min!


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

HBO Max to Stream Magnolia Network Content Beginning in September


HBO Max is bringing things a little closer to home as it expands its library with content from the Magnolia Network. Chip and Joanna Gaines, co-founders of the network, struck a deal to bring select shows exclusively …




thestreamable.com


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, if they stop doing scripted content then I'm cancelling my subscription. I love John Oliver, but not enough to pay for an entire streaming service!


Speaking of John Oliver, I wonder if he'll have anything to say about this in his next show?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I don't think they're saying HBO won't have scripted series. Just not HBO-MAX. [Aside: They haven't made an announcement as of now, so this is still all conjecture.]
> 
> If HBO were to stop scripted content, it wouldn't be HBO. Subscriptions would drop 98%.
> 
> Without Westworld, Succession, Euphoria, The Nevers, House of the Dragon, Curb, Barry, yada yada... it's not a premium channel.


It will be like it used to be back when Game of Thrones was airing. They had one or two big shows and that was enough to get people to subscribe to HBO. 

Those shows will be on HBO and their back catalog and unscripted shows will be on Discovery BO or whatever they call their new streaming service. If you want both, you’ll need to subscribe to both. At least that’s what all signs are pointing to.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Speaking of John Oliver, I wonder if he'll have anything to say about this in his next show?


I’m not sure he wants to upset “business daddy” considering how cancel happy WB Discovery seems to be at the moment. Especially not if he wants to keep spending “dragon money”.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I don't think they're saying HBO won't have scripted series. Just not HBO-MAX. [Aside: They haven't made an announcement as of now, so this is still all conjecture.]
> 
> If HBO were to stop scripted content, it wouldn't be HBO. Subscriptions would drop 98%.
> 
> Without Westworld, Succession, Euphoria, The Nevers, House of the Dragon, Curb, Barry, yada yada... it's not a premium channel.


If HBOMAX becomes a strict equivalence of what is broadcast on the linear HBO it greatly reduces the amount of content produced and to some extent available. It also reduces their profit in that the stand alone service does not have to bribe anybody to take them. Other than Showtime which is similar but is associated to Paramount+ everybody else has streaming services with extra content.

Peacock(NBC) and Paramount+(CBS) both have linear associations and have unique shows in addition to brought from overseas shows (British/Aussie).
Even Netflix brings in shows from overseas a lot.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO: Free Streaming Service in the Works, Possibly for Classic Movies


As Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav continues tinkering with the streaming landscape, a FAST service is in the works. Zaslav confirmed this in the company’s Q2 earnings call today. One possible option could …




thestreamable.com


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Mike Lang said:


> HBO Max to Stream Magnolia Network Content Beginning in September
> 
> 
> HBO Max is bringing things a little closer to home as it expands its library with content from the Magnolia Network. Chip and Joanna Gaines, co-founders of the network, struck a deal to bring select shows exclusively …
> ...


Talk about your bad omens. If this is a sign of things to come, Max won't be worth subscribing to much longer. I choose to take the pessimistic view and hope it turns out better than expected.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

They're putting a CNN hub on Discovery Plus. Some expect HBO to just be another hub alongside it by the time this all shakes aout.









CNN Content Hub to Launch on discovery+ This Month


A series of news stories in recent days have indicated that Warner Bros. Discovery is planning dramatic cuts to original content for HBO Max, possibly favoring discovery+ content over fare from the WarnerMedia side of …




thestreamable.com


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I get free HBOMAX with my ATT Fiber subscription. From what I can tell I will continue to get it but new subscribers will not However with this repackaging(IE an HBO hub) I wonder if that will remain true?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

zalusky said:


> I get free HBOMAX with my ATT Fiber subscription. From what I can tell I will continue to get it but new subscribers will not However with this repackaging(IE an HBO hub) I wonder if that will remain true?


I figured it would eventually go away after the merger. But not this quickly!


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1554949864848596992


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

My annual $149.00 renewal is coming up on August 9th...

Trying to figure out if I want to commit to the year, and save the 20%... Or go month to month...

I know that I want to finish up Westworld S4 (which I am really enjoying)... And I definitely want to watch the Game of Thrones prequel series...


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

MikeekiM said:


> My annual $149.00 renewal is coming up on August 9th...
> 
> Trying to figure out if I want to commit to the year, and save the 20%... Or go month to month...
> 
> I know that I want to finish up Westworld S4 (which I am really enjoying)... And I definitely want to watch the Game of Thrones prequel series...


Damn. Westworld. I keep forgetting to watch Season 4. Thx. Lol


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mike Lang said:


> Warner Bros. Discovery CEO: Free Streaming Service in the Works, Possibly for Classic Movies
> 
> 
> As Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav continues tinkering with the streaming landscape, a FAST service is in the works. Zaslav confirmed this in the company’s Q2 earnings call today. One possible option could …
> ...


Funny reading that article and them talking about watching an old movie with ads, like it's something new and quaint!! I have been watching movies like that for more than 50 years!


----------



## wspencerjr60 (Jan 13, 2022)

dianebrat said:


> Jumping the gun a bit there, they didn't start streaming until 2007


'97,....2007, what the heck, I'm old. Point is, I've had Netflix a longtime and now I had to cancel them because they weren't entertaining me.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

So Discovery isn’t even breaking out the subscriber numbers between HBOMax and Discover+ now. They are saying they gained 1.7 million subscribers. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555289691246714880


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Damn. Westworld. I keep forgetting to watch Season 4. Thx. Lol


According to the earning call, the new service won’t launch till next summer, so you have time.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> So Discovery isn’t even breaking out the subscriber numbers between HBOMax and Discover+ now. They are saying they gained 1.7 million subscribers.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555289691246714880


Hell, they're not even breaking down numbers between HBO Max and HBO!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hell, they're not even breaking down numbers between HBO Max and HBO!


Well to be fair AT&T never did that either.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

So they're combining the two (what everyone has predicted since before the merger) and they're going to use the tech behind the Discovery+ app. I've never used the Discovery+ app but the HBO app has had a lot of problems across many platforms, so it makes sense to me to abandon that if the Discovery+ app works.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

tim1724 said:


> So they're combining the two (what everyone has predicted since before the merger) and they're going to use the tech behind the Discovery+ app. I've never used the Discovery+ app but the HBO app has had a lot of problems across many platforms, so it makes sense to me to abandon that if the Discovery+ app works.


They are combining them, but they made it clear that the new streaming service (which they called SVOD) is just part of their plan. 

It sounds like the idea of going to one streaming service for all your WB needs like it now is basically dead. They basically stated on the call that they are not going to follow the Disney+ model, without naming names. 

They said they plan to make some of their content available on other services, which has already happened as things have been disappearing off HBOMax lately. One of the big franchises they mentioned on the call, Harry Potter, is moving to Peacock. 

Then there’s the free ad-based service they are making on the lines of Pluto or Crackle.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

morac said:


> They are combining them, but they made it clear that the new streaming service (which they called SVOD) is just part of their plan.
> 
> It sounds like the idea of going to one streaming service for all your WB needs like it now is basically dead. They basically stated on the call that they are not going to follow the Disney+ model, without naming names.
> 
> ...


Just what we need MORE confusion in the streaming world. A combined app is great, syndicating (as it were) various well known WB owned entities to other services is how it's been done for years, but again, adds to the confusion (Where do I watch THIS WB show?) Are they still doing scripted material for HBO proper?

Yeah, get off my lawn, but to me, watching TV over the last 10 years has gotten so complicated that it's impossible to even find ALL the content anyone could watch. These companies are forgetting the KISS method. Keep it simple stupid. It's far from that now.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Grace Randolph has a good breakdown, if you can stand her persona/voice. (I kinda like it, reminds me of Rona Barrett from the 70s)





TLDW, HBOMax is being gutted personnel-wise; the service will be re-branded (yet to be named) and they're prioritizing theatrical releases over OTT-content.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Her voice is VERY annoying. Basically she told me nothing that I didn't find out by reading a couple of general articles on the subject and that anyone who knows anything about TV and follows this stuff would surmise. I don't think she told us anything new and interesting....And I just sat through 20 minutes or so of fingers on a chalk board.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Her voice is VERY annoying. Basically she told me nothing that I didn't find out by reading a couple of general articles on the subject and that anyone who knows anything about TV and follows this stuff would surmise. I don't think she told us anything new and interesting....And I just sat through 20 minutes or so of fingers on a chalk board.


I like Grace Randolph... Yes, her voice is a bit grating... But she does know her stuff... She's in the industry as a comic writer herself, and she always has fair insights on her reviews of the various movies and series content...


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> My annual $149.00 renewal is coming up on August 9th...
> 
> Trying to figure out if I want to commit to the year, and save the 20%... Or go month to month...
> 
> I know that I want to finish up Westworld S4 (which I am really enjoying)... And I definitely want to watch the Game of Thrones prequel series...


I cancelled my annual subscription this morning... Too much uncertainty for me to confidently prepay for a full year...

I may end up subbing monthly...and may go with the limited ads version to keep my costs down...

But for now... I am out...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Funny reading that article and them talking about watching an old movie with ads, like it's something new and quaint!! I have been watching movies like that for more than 50 years!


I specifically will not watch it if there are Ads. I stopped watching the advertisements in the 80's. When I started time shifting my TV watching. And I have no desire to go back to the way I watched TV in the 70's and first half of the 80's.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wspencerjr60 said:


> '97,....2007, what the heck, I'm old. Point is, I've had Netflix a longtime and now I had to cancel them because they weren't entertaining me.


Netflix is the one service(and I guess Amazon too because of free shipping) that I am the least likely to cancel. Because there is so much content on Netflix that I will never be able to watch all the content I want. My Netflix list is consistently above 150 titles. I will never be able to watch it all. And I keep adding more and more titles each quarter.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Unless I missed it, nowhere in his presentation did he talk about killing all the HBO-MAX scripted series, as was rumored.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

astrohip said:


> Unless I missed it, nowhere in his presentation did he talk about killing all the HBO-MAX scripted series, as was rumored.


No, but he strongly implied he doesn’t believe in the ROI of original streaming scripted content.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

cwoody222 said:


> No, but he strongly implied he doesn’t believe in the ROI of original streaming scripted content.


Thanks for that, I missed it. I did see his comments on feature films, something like we're never making a streaming only film again, only theatrical releases (I think I have that correct). I need to go back and read closer.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Unless I missed it, nowhere in his presentation did he talk about killing all the HBO-MAX scripted series, as was rumored.


It looks they’re spending more, not less.









Warner Bros. Discovery To “Spend Dramatically More” On HBO/HBO Max & “Lock Up” Majority Of Casey Bloys’ Top Team


Warner Bros. Discovery is doubling down on HBO and HBO Max. Speaking of HBO & HBO Max Chief Content Officer Casey Bloys and his team, WBD President and CEO David Zaslav revealed that “we&…



deadline.com


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

realityboy said:


> It looks they’re spending more, not less.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spending more on less. Basically going for quality over quantity. No more streaming movies. All movies will only go to theaters.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

morac said:


> Spending more on less. Basically going for quality over quantity. No more streaming movies. All movies will only go to theaters.


That would seem to favor the scripted shows over the non-scripted. I’m not sure any of the HBO Max movies really made an impact. Even mediocre movies do gain some prestige by opening in theaters. Batgirl should’ve been a theatrical release all along.

I do wonder what this means for the DC animated movies. They’re not Max originals, but they’re not theatrical releases either.

(Also dreading the new Discovery overlords eventually realizing that their company still publishes comics.)


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

morac said:


> Spending more on less. Basically going for quality over quantity. No more streaming movies. All movies will only go to theaters.


I can't imagine this lasting more than a year. Americans viewing habits have changed. We don't go to theaters like the old days. For me the choice of going to the theater to see a movie or just not seeing it; not seeing it wins out.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DouglasPHill said:


> I can't imagine this lasting more than a year. Americans viewing habits have changed. We don't go to theaters like the old days. For me the choice of going to the theater to see a movie or just not seeing it; not seeing it wins out.


I’m not sure WBD will care since they will make more money with this model.

The movies will eventually end up on streaming, it will just take awhile. It will be like the old model where it goes to theaters, then for sale on Bluray & VOD, then to whatever service pays the most of tier-1 viewing (HBO, Starz, etc) and finally the new streaming service. Instead of seeing it immediately or after 45 days, you may have to wait a year. 

A good example of how this will work is Spider-Man No Way Home. It wasn’t available on a subscription service until in the last month or two and it’s now on the Starz premium channel. It’s still not on any streaming only service and won’t be till next year, over a year after it was released to theaters.

Also people are still going to movie theaters. It’s usually packed any time I go. By bypassing all that and going directly to streaming WBD would be giving up a lot of revenue, which is really all they care about.

The days of WB movies showing up in 45 days on streaming is over.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

MikeekiM said:


> My annual $149.00 renewal is coming up on August 9th...
> 
> Trying to figure out if I want to commit to the year, and save the 20%... Or go month to month...
> 
> I know that I want to finish up Westworld S4 (which I am really enjoying)... And I definitely want to watch the Game of Thrones prequel series...


If you have Amex rewards, there's a $25 statement credit available for spending $99 or more on HBOMax.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

TonyTheTiger said:


> If you have Amex rewards, there's a $25 statement credit available for spending $99 or more on HBOMax.


Oh nice! Unfortunately, I ended up cancelling my Amex Platinum... Saved $690 in the process... I just don't travel as much as I used to, and couldn't take advantage of the benefits...

I would love to save $25.00... But saving $690.00 trumped that!


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

MikeekiM said:


> Oh nice! Unfortunately, I ended up cancelling my Amex Platinum... Saved $690 in the process... I just don't travel as much as I used to, and couldn't take advantage of the benefits...
> 
> I would love to save $25.00... But saving $690.00 trumped that!


You might want to look at the AMEX Blue Cash Preferred. Only $99 a year


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

tigercat74 said:


> You might want to look at the AMEX Blue Cash Preferred. Only $99 a year


Thanks... I will definitely need to look in to that!


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

MikeekiM said:


> Thanks... I will definitely need to look in to that!


Here is a link that shows which services get the 6% back.








Streaming Subscription List for the Amex Blue Cash Preferred Card


The Amex Blue Cash Preferred card offers a whopping 6% back on select streaming services. Here is a full list of all the eligible services.




upgradedpoints.com


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

tigercat74 said:


> Here is a link that shows which services get the 6% back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have that card, because the 6% on groceries adds up. I never realized the 6% is for streaming also. I'm changing the billing now on applicable accounts.

Thanks @tigercat74


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I have that card, because the 6% on groceries adds up. I never realized the 6% is for streaming also. I'm changing the billing now on applicable accounts.
> 
> Thanks @tigercat74


It's select streaming though. I get Netflix through T-Mobile and HBO through ATT FIber. Amazon video is through AmazonPrime So my list is

Paramount+ bundle
Hulu 
YTTV
YT Premium


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

zalusky said:


> It's select streaming though. I get Netflix through T-Mobile and HBO through ATT FIber. Amazon video is through AmazonPrime So my list is
> 
> Paramount+ bundle
> Hulu
> ...


I only pay for Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Disney+ (HBO-MAX is free to me). Amazon is on their card, so it was just NF & D+. But it's still not bad!


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I just have the regular Blue Cash card. 3% on groceries, 2%on gas and 1%on everything else, plus many offers (including the above HBOMax one), and NO annual fee!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I just have the regular Blue Cash card. 3% on groceries, 2%on gas and 1%on everything else, plus many offers (including the above HBOMax one), and NO annual fee!


It's simple math, and that will show whether it makes sense for each individual:

Fee is $95/yr. You get an extra 3% on groceries (capped at $6K of purchases), 5% on streaming, and 1% on gas. For me, that's $237 more than the regular card, for $95. My total rebate has been $490 L12M. My mistake is I passed the $6K grocery limit, and kept using the card. I should have switched to another card for groceries at that point.😡

It's worth it to do the math.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> I’m not sure [John Oliver] wants to upset “business daddy” considering how cancel happy WB Discovery seems to be at the moment. Especially not if he wants to keep spending “dragon money”.


Well, he definitely went there!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> I like Grace Randolph... Yes, her voice is a bit grating... But she does know her stuff... She's in the industry as a comic writer herself, and she always has fair insights on her reviews of the various movies and series content...


Being a comic writer doesn't necessarily give her incite on the industry, at least not as a whole. Second, I'm going off this one article, as I don't spend a whole lot of time caring much about this stuff (HBO Max interests me because I have a subscription, otherwise I'd not even be paying attention), and as I said, she gave little information that I either didn't know before or had speculated myself in various threads here and other places (does that make ME an insider? I figured it out without any "inside" information. I don't know if her information in other spots is good or not because this is the only one I ever watched, so I'll take your word for it. It's clear to me, just by reading the CEO's comments that his goal is gutting the company and changing the direction of where they are going. AT&T so mismanaged everything about WB and DIrecTV for that matter, that it was clear changes needed to be made. Do I agree with this direction? Time will tell.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I specifically will not watch it if there are Ads. I stopped watching the advertisements in the 80's. When I started time shifting my TV watching. And I have no desire to go back to the way I watched TV in the 70's and first half of the 80's.


I had this discussion on our sister board, but I think eventually we may not have a choice (with streaming services at least). Sure we have the "pay a premium and get no ads" tier, but how soon before these streamers realize that they can make much more money by forcing us to watch ads? They may lose a few of us who say "F No, I'm not subscribing any more if I have to watch ads". But if the bean counters figure out that it would be worth it to lose those few, to make MORE selling ads, they'll do it. For one, content is king. What happens if your favorite streaming show, whatever that might be, is now ad only? Will you give it up just to NOT watch an ad? Content will drive whatever the streamers do. If the content is good enough, most people will suffer through ads. I'm not saying YOU will, you might stick to your guns and unsub, but a good portion, probably enough to make it worthwhile, will not.

And I find it interesting that we've gone full circle. In the 1960s and 1970s we had no choice, we watched ads and that was that. The 1980s came along with cable, which gave us channels like HBO with no ads and other channels with minimal ads. But then we got the VCR and figured out a way around commercials, though it was confusing for a lot of folks, but many did it. The 1990s came along and eventually we got TiVO and DVRs and that really screwed up the advertising model. But over time they figured out that they can restrict you from FF them, at least for VOD. Then streaming came along, another model where ads were almost non existent but eventually they figured out how to get ads there to the point where they are going to make a fortune from ads. And once ad revenue passes subscription revenue, or at least the amount made from ads surpassed the amount they can make from selling ad free tiers, those will go away too. I'm sure we'll figure out ways to circumvent those as well, but the "average" viewer (not us techies here). will just grin and bare it. We've come from getting "free TV" with ads and having no choice to now PAYING services to watch ads.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Being a comic writer doesn't necessarily give her incite on the industry, at least not as a whole. Second, I'm going off this one article, as I don't spend a whole lot of time caring much about this stuff (HBO Max interests me because I have a subscription, otherwise I'd not even be paying attention), and as I said, she gave little information that I either didn't know before or had speculated myself in various threads here and other places (does that make ME an insider? I figured it out without any "inside" information. I don't know if her information in other spots is good or not because this is the only one I ever watched, so I'll take your word for it. It's clear to me, just by reading the CEO's comments that his goal is gutting the company and changing the direction of where they are going. AT&T so mismanaged everything about WB and DIrecTV for that matter, that it was clear changes needed to be made. Do I agree with this direction? Time will tell.


She used to have (maybe still does?) an internet show that was basically geek industry gossip. She's had a number of major scoops over the years, not one of which has ever been confirmed by anybody else.

And she's not really a comic writer...she got an indy series on the basis of her internet fame, but that was a decade ago. Liked the series, though!


Steveknj said:


> I had this discussion on our sister board, but I think eventually we may not have a choice (with streaming services at least). Sure we have the "pay a premium and get no ads" tier, but how soon before these streamers realize that they can make much more money by forcing us to watch ads? They may lose a few of us who say "F No, I'm not subscribing any more if I have to watch ads". But if the bean counters figure out that it would be worth it to lose those few, to make MORE selling ads, they'll do it. For one, content is king. What happens if your favorite streaming show, whatever that might be, is now ad only? Will you give it up just to NOT watch an ad? Content will drive whatever the streamers do. If the content is good enough, most people will suffer through ads. I'm not saying YOU will, you might stick to your guns and unsub, but a good portion, probably enough to make it worthwhile, will not.
> 
> And I find it interesting that we've gone full circle. In the 1960s and 1970s we had no choice, we watched ads and that was that. The 1980s came along with cable, which gave us channels like HBO with no ads and other channels with minimal ads. But then we got the VCR and figured out a way around commercials, though it was confusing for a lot of folks, but many did it. The 1990s came along and eventually we got TiVO and DVRs and that really screwed up the advertising model. But over time they figured out that they can restrict you from FF them, at least for VOD. Then streaming came along, another model where ads were almost non existent but eventually they figured out how to get ads there to the point where they are going to make a fortune from ads. And once ad revenue passes subscription revenue, or at least the amount made from ads surpassed the amount they can make from selling ad free tiers, those will go away too. I'm sure we'll figure out ways to circumvent those as well, but the "average" viewer (not us techies here). will just grin and bare it. We've come from getting "free TV" with ads and having no choice to now PAYING services to watch ads.


One other factor, though, is pirating. I pay for a depressingly large number of streaming services, but if they start forcing me to watch ads I will cheerfully cancel the service and get the shows by other means. So it's really in their best interest to let me keep paying them for ad-free streaming.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She used to have (maybe still does?) an internet show that was basically geek industry gossip. She's had a number of major scoops over the years, not one of which has ever been confirmed by anybody else.
> 
> And she's not really a comic writer...she got an indy series on the basis of her internet fame, but that was a decade ago. Liked the series, though!


Like I said, I don't follow her and was referring to the one article posted, which told me nothing I didn't already know or speculate myself. If that was "good insight" then I must be an insider too.



> One other factor, though, is pirating. I pay for a depressingly large number of streaming services, but if they start forcing me to watch ads I will cheerfully cancel the service and get the shows by other means. So it's really in their best interest to let me keep paying them for ad-free streaming.


Yes there are quite a few who say this. But again, what if your favorite show was on one of these streamers that now forced you to watch ads? Would you give up your favorite show? Perhaps you would and I'm sure there are people who would. Enough people for them to maintain that tier when they can make more money by selling you ads? I don't know that for sure, but I suspect there will be a point where A) The cost for consumers of an ad free tier might drive down the number of subs to that tier to the point it's not worth keeping and B) Because selling ads are so lucrative, it might be worth it to force even THOSE users to an ad tier. My fear is that the number of ads will increase, once the ad free option is gone, to the point where they will follow the basic cable model where the number of ads per show is even WORSE than OTA these days. 

I know you mentioned you'd get them by "other means" I guess, since you mentioned pirating, that you'd do it by illegal means. I suspect that a VERY small number of users will go that route. We get fooled here because we are a "techie" community that so many others will do that, but I'd bet it would be so below 1% of users that it wouldn't matter enough for them to change their mind.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I will put up with ads to a point, but they can get to a point that it’s not worth watching the show.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree that we may get to that point and you are probably right that the number of people who would just "not watch" is too small to matter, but I'm one of them for sure. There're a lot of things I could be doing with my time so if my "favorite show" is only available with ads, I just won't watch it. C'est la vie.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> One other factor, though, is pirating. I pay for a depressingly large number of streaming services, but if they start forcing me to watch ads I will cheerfully cancel the service and get the shows by other means. So it's really in their best interest to let me keep paying them for ad-free streaming.





Steveknj said:


> I know you mentioned you'd get them by "other means" I guess, since you mentioned pirating, that you'd do it by illegal means. I suspect that a VERY small number of users will go that route. We get fooled here because we are a "techie" community that so many others will do that, but I'd bet it would be so below 1% of users that it wouldn't matter enough for them to change their mind.


I think most people have no problem paying for content if it's good quality and at a reasonable price. But if they start jacking up the prices of these streaming services too high, or start shoving ads down our throats, I think Rob is correct that a lot of people will start turning to alternate means. You hardly need a PhD to figure out how to torrent TV shows and movies. Sure, it may be a bit more complicated to get that content over to a TV, but things like Plex have made that much easier, and the younger generation doesn't even watch stuff on TVs anyway. They're watching everything on their phones, iPads or laptops.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I think most people have no problem paying for content if it's good quality and at a reasonable price. But if they start jacking up the prices of these streaming services too high, or start shoving ads down our throats, I think Rob is correct that a lot of people will start turning to alternate means. You hardly need a PhD to figure out how to torrent TV shows and movies. Sure, it may be a bit more complicated to get that content over to a TV, but things like Plex have made that much easier, and the younger generation doesn't even watch stuff on TVs anyway. They're watching everything on their phones, iPads or laptops.


I've lost my TV remote, and haven't botheredto order a new one because I'm watching on my laptop.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I think most people have no problem paying for content if it's good quality and at a reasonable price. But if they start jacking up the prices of these streaming services too high, or start shoving ads down our throats, I think Rob is correct that a lot of people will start turning to alternate means. You hardly need a PhD to figure out how to torrent TV shows and movies. Sure, it may be a bit more complicated to get that content over to a TV, but things like Plex have made that much easier, and the younger generation doesn't even watch stuff on TVs anyway. They're watching everything on their phones, iPads or laptops.


Out of every 1000 viewers how many you think even KNOW that any of this is possible? 10? Again, we sit here in our techie world and know about this stuff. And maybe in your circle of friends you know about this stuff. But most people A) Don't know about this stuff B) Are not even technically savvy enough to do do it and C) even if they don't many will not want to illegally steal content. I suspect the vast majority fall in A), and there's a good number who fall into B).


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Being a comic writer doesn't necessarily give her incite on the industry, at least not as a whole.


We are all a sum of our experiences... So yeah... her being a comic writer by itself is not so interesting I suppose... But she has a lot of other experiences that augment her comic writing experience... She seems well networked and well connected... And all of that brings a certain level of experience and background that I do not have... She also spends a lot more time thinking about this stuff than I do...

Not to say her word is gospel... It's just filtered through her experiences and her focus on these matters...

That said, if you look at comments on your YouTube page, there is a LOT of hate out there for her as well... (which begs the question why they are bothering watching her videos and burning calories posting their hate?)...

Anyway... I always find value in what she shares...even if I don't end up agreeing with some of it...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> We are all a sum of our experiences... So yeah... her being a comic writer by itself is not so interesting I suppose... But she has a lot of other experiences that augment her comic writing experience... She seems well networked and well connected... And all of that brings a certain level of experience and background that I do not have... She also spends a lot more time thinking about this stuff than I do...
> 
> Not to say her word is gospel... It's just filtered through her experiences and her focus on these matters...
> 
> ...


Well you go ME to watch her  Or someone did on here anyway.

The problem I have with so many "online" pundits in all areas of the media (and I use that term VERY loosely) Is there are a LOT of people who pass themselves off as "experts" and it's sometimes hard to tell who's legit and who isn't. And people "follow" other people who really have no credentials because they agree with their POV. So when I read tweets posted in place like this forum, I usually look up who they are (if that's even possible sometimes). If they have credentials from Everyone today fashions themselves as a "media star"


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Well you go ME to watch her  Or someone did on here anyway.


LOL... Yeah, it's highly likely it is me... Most can't get past her chalk scratching voice pitch!!! I was one of them until I spent some "quality time" with her content... Now I don't notice it much and have determined that it is her "broadcasting voice"...much like now reporters and anchors have their own broadcast voice... I guess it is part of her "brand", and you can never forget it once you've heard it!



Steveknj said:


> And people "follow" other people who really have no credentials because they agree with their POV.


Yup... It's a phenomenon called "confirmation bias"... And most are guilty of it to some degree... LOL...


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

MikeekiM said:


> Anyway... I always find value in what she shares...even if I don't end up agreeing with some of it...


So do I. She's part of the entertainment press pure and simple. She gets access to press screenings and advanced streaming previews, and is subject to NDA / blackouts just like conventional TV/print media reporters. It's clear that enough in the industry take her seriously. She isn't a rumor mill like AICN was, and I feel she is far more professional than the average YT movie geek spouting rumors and whackjob theories.

But I almost never agree with any of Grace Randolph's actual TV/Film reviews. There's far too much "fan" in them than actual criticism.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> So do I. She's part of the entertainment press pure and simple. She gets access to press screenings and advanced streaming previews, and is subject to NDA / blackouts just like conventional TV/print media reporters. It's clear that enough in the industry take her seriously. She isn't a rumor mill like AICN was, and I feel she is far more professional than the average YT movie geek spouting rumors and whackjob theories.
> 
> But I almost never agree with any of Grace Randolph's actual TV/Film reviews. There's far too much "fan" in them than actual criticism.


I really appreciate her reviews/reactions (even if I sometimes disagree with her opinions)... She always is able to give her viewers historic comic backstory references and Easter Eggs... She often will talk about references in the shows that harken back to a single back issue of a lesser-known comic book title...


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> LOL... Yeah, it's highly likely it is me... Most can't get past her chalk scratching voice pitch!!! I was one of them until I spent some "quality time" with her content... Now I don't notice it much and have determined that it is her "broadcasting voice"...much like now reporters and anchors have their own broadcast voice... I guess it is part of her "brand", and you can never forget it once you've heard it!


Karina Longworth of the "You Must Remember This" podcast is my entry on that list, her podcast voice and inflection are torture, but her content is amazing, so I keep listening. Recently she's done a few episodes where she's lowered the intensity of her "podcast voice" and she's a joy to listen to and has a very nice voice, so I don't get why she does the weird inflection podcast voice.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Edit: Old new you’re all probably aware of by now:

“HBO Max has a competitive feature set, but it has had performance and customer issues,” He went on to claim Discovery Plus has a better tech stack and would become the core of the new service which will combine the content of HBO Max with the content and tech of Discovery Plus.”

Yeah, no customer or service issues on D+ because nobody streams Discovery+😁










HBO Max will be replaced next year by a new service combined with Discovery Plus


Summer 2023 will get a big new streaming service




www.theverge.com


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

astrohip said:


> It's simple math, and that will show whether it makes sense for each individual:
> 
> Fee is $95/yr. You get an extra 3% on groceries (capped at $6K of purchases), 5% on streaming, and 1% on gas. For me, that's $237 more than the regular card, for $95. My total rebate has been $490 L12M. My mistake is I passed the $6K grocery limit, and kept using the card. I should have switched to another card for groceries at that point.😡
> 
> It's worth it to do the math.


I was diddling around on the Amexco site, and I saw this:










I pay $8/m for Disney+. The bundle is $14. $6 more a month. Amex will give me a $7 monthly credit if I bill it thru their card.

I can add Hulu and save $1/month?!? What am I missing?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

‘Ellen’s Next Great Designer’, ‘The Not-Too-Late Show With Elmo’ & ‘My Mom, Your Dad’ Among Unscripted & Animated Titles Pulled From HBO Max


HBO Max is pulling another swathe of titles, particularly in the unscripted and animated fields. It comes after it emerged that the streamer would pull back on those genres ahead of combining the s…




deadline.com





I don’t think these particular shows are a huge loss, but I don’t like the trend if they’re just gone and not available elsewhere. I did like genera+ion, and I might try to catch Infinity Train before it goes away.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

HBO Max Save 40% off HBOMAX when you subscribe for a year


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I just cancelled my HBO Max subscription. It ends in seven days. I already watched Peacemaker and Westworld. Now I just need to watch the Chernobyl mini-series. After that, there is nothing else I want to watch on HBO Max now.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Now I just need to watch the Chernobyl mini-series.


One of the best mini-series I've watched. Don't miss it.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

jamesbobo said:


> HBO Max Save 40% off HBOMAX when you subscribe for a year


Of course this offer appears just after I re-upped for a year!

Combine this with he $25 rebate from Amex nd you're payong $80 for a year ad-free - and they're not removing the channel until after next summer. Of course we don't know what content will be available by then.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I just cancelled my HBO Max subscription. It ends in seven days. I already watched Peacemaker and Westworld. Now I just need to watch the Chernobyl mini-series. *After that, there is nothing else I want to watch on HBO Max now.*


House of the Dragon?


TonyTheTiger said:


> *Of course this offer appears just after I re-upped for a year!*
> 
> Combine this with he $25 rebate from Amex nd you're payong $80 for a year ad-free - and they're not removing the channel until after next summer. Of course we don't know what content will be available by then.


Ugh...same here!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

HBO Max has yanked 200 episodes of 'Sesame Street'
It'd take Count von Count quite a while to tally up all the content Warner Bros. Discovery has removed.

The platform yanked the Sesame Street episodes in the same week it removed dozens of other shows, including 20 original series (such as animated programs). While it's common for titles to cycle in and out of streaming services, it's rare to see exclusives going away. That's becoming increasingly par for the course at HBO Max.



https://www.engadget.com/hbo-max-sesame-street-cost-cutting-183844638.html?src=rss


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561490269262024706


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Official? I'd say it was official when the series was green-lit in 2020...


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Tony_T said:


> HBO Max has yanked 200 episodes of 'Sesame Street'
> It'd take Count von Count quite a while to tally up all the content Warner Bros. Discovery has removed.
> 
> The platform yanked the Sesame Street episodes in the same week it removed dozens of other shows, including 20 original series (such as animated programs). While it's common for titles to cycle in and out of streaming services, it's rare to see exclusives going away. That's becoming increasingly par for the course at HBO Max.
> ...


Oh no. That only leaves 456 episodes of Sesame Street. Pretty much every outlet reporting it used a similar headline to grab attention. For the majority of series out there, removing 200 episodes would mean removing the entire series. But in the case of Sesame Street, it's less than a third. Plus, to my knowledge, Sesame Street is still in production.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Official? I'd say it was official when the series was green-lit in 2020...


But now we know we need to watch it fast!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

trainman said:


> But now we know we need to watch it fast!


Is that official?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

More things we’re not getting on HBO Max:









‘Batman: Caped Crusader’ Series Not Moving Forward At HBO Max


Batman: Caped Crusader, an animated series from executive producers Bruce Timm, J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves, will not be moving forward at HBO Max, sources have confirmed to Deadline. It is among s…




deadline.com


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

realityboy said:


> More things we’re not getting on HBO Max:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> One of the best mini-series I've watched. Don't miss it.


I watched four episodes Saturday night and one on Sunday. I thought the Chernobyl mini-series was Excellent!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> House of the Dragon?................


I never watched Game of Thrones. So House of Dragon doesn't really interest me.

Although, I am looking forward to The Last of US on HBO Max. But I will re-subscribe when it comes on.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Is that official?


Only in the sense that we now have evidence that they're willing to yank their already-released HBO Max original series (and movies) off the service at any time.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

A Christmas Story Sequel, With Original Film Stars, Gets HBO Max Release Date


----------



## ThePhoenix (Feb 13, 2008)

Has anyone with an existing HBO Max account figured out how to access the new deal?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The latest possibility on merger rumors: REPORT: Comcast Wants to Buy Warner Bros. Discovery, Merge With NBCUniversal


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

zalusky said:


> The latest possibility on merger rumors: REPORT: Comcast Wants to Buy Warner Bros. Discovery, Merge With NBCUniversal


No. God plz no.

I'd be OK with Verizon buying Discovery Warner, or Apple doing so, but please not Comcast.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> No. God plz no.
> 
> I'd be OK with Verizon buying Discovery Warner, or Apple doing so, but please not Comcast.


Why do you say that? From a content standpoint NBCUniversal is no better or worse than anyone else. I don't think they'd run it to the ground the way Discovery seems to be doing. And it's pretty obvious to me that the whole reason Discovery bought TW is as a corporate raider. Buy it, reduce expenses and then sell it for a tidy profit. Comcast the cable company, yeah, that's a totally different ball of wax. They aren't good. But as a media company? Not sure I see the difference between what they are doing or Paramount or Disney or any of the others.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Why do you say that?


Comcast is poison. It's a scientifically proven fact that there has never been a happy Comcast customer.

Ever.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Comcast is poison. It's a scientifically proven fact that there has never been a happy Comcast customer.
> 
> Ever.


I get that is somewhat of a joke, but as far as their content goes, as I said, it's no better or worse than anything else these days. Concast the cable company, I agree. Comcast the media content company? Meh.


----------



## ThePhoenix (Feb 13, 2008)

ThePhoenix said:


> Has anyone with an existing HBO Max account figured out how to access the new deal?


I did figure it out. The deal isn’t available to current customers. Fortunately, my annual subscription was set to renew on 9/18. I went into my account and canceled my subscription, which just meant that it wouldn’t automatically renew. Then, on 9/19 I was able to resubscribe and get the deal.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

ThePhoenix said:


> I did figure it out. The deal isn’t available to current customers. Fortunately, my annual subscription was set to renew on 9/18. I went into my account and canceled my subscription, which just meant that it wouldn’t automatically renew. Then, on 9/19 I was able to resubscribe and get the deal.


Awesome! I'm going to try that, too.


----------

