By TeeJay Small | Published
Warner Bros. has been under non-stop fire from general audiences for the past few years, thanks to a series of decisions by top executives that seem to spit in the face of creative filmmakers and consumers everywhere. As you may already know, the studio has shelved a series of long-awaited films that were already fully completed and ready for release, snagging many beloved projects from their streaming homes. , and gave the WGA and SAG-AFTRA union workers an incredibly hard time in general. During last year’s joint strikes. Now, according to an article in The Guardian, Warner Bros. has knee-jerk Clint Eastwood’s success. Judge No. 2preventing the film from wide release in the United States.
Juror #2 will not receive a wide release.
The situation with Warner Bros. and Judge No. 2 Extremely odd, since the film should be a big winner for the studio, at least on paper. Written and directed by a celebrated filmmaker from decades past in Hollywood, the film features an eye-catching cast, and a shocking narrative centered on a family man serving as a judge. is, presiding over the crime he himself may have committed. .
Despite these positive signs, David Zaslav and company seem determined to prevent the film from succeeding at the box office, limiting it to screenings in fewer than 50 theaters within the country.
Warner Bros. is burying the Clint Eastwood movie.
Despite the slow roll strategy for Judge No. 2 In US theatres, the film has already opened in over 300 cinemas across the UK. Given the film’s unusual American presentation, it seems odd that Warner Bros. would set aside such a large part of it. Judge No. 2The potential audience of To make things even stranger, it looks like the studio won’t even submit the film for Oscar attention, which would indicate a general lack of confidence in the film’s expected performance.
Warner Bros. has also taken the odd and near-unprecedented step of choosing to obfuscate box office earnings. Judge No. 2. Such practice is almost exclusively done by films that premiere direct-to-streaming. To an outside observer, these moves look like loss control from a studio that isn’t exactly sure of the success or quality of its project—but why did Warner Bros. install the film so nervously? Can do?
Eastwood’s long career has consistently churned out financially successful films, even when they’ve lacked critical acclaim, so there really shouldn’t be any reason for Warner Bros. to show such a lack of confidence. . Judge No. 2. Perhaps the 94-year-old filmmaker is having internal problems with Warner Bros. executives, and his film is being punished for it. Fans have theorized ever since Eastwood declined to participate. Judge No. 2‘s early premiere, though neither side has said anything to confirm the existence of behind-the-scenes beef.
Clint Eastwood’s last film
Even now, many fans seem to believe it. Judge No. 2 This will be Clint Eastwood’s last outing, given his advanced age, which means the film should really be treated with some degree of respect. Whether you’re a fan of Eastwood’s work or not, it should be absolutely alarming that Warner Bros. is treating its financial investments. Judge No. 2 very bad. It serves as one of a long list of examples that paint Warner Bros. as an incompetent, money-driven organization led by small investors who have neither the art nor the overall vision. There is an understanding of the film business.
Source: The Guardian
