Using Warner Brothers as an example, does seeing the "Barbie" movie in theatres equate to subscribing to HBO Max for a month and catching it on there?
The theater is almost certainly more profitable. People normally go to the movies in groups, so if a family of four buys tickets to see Barbie in the cinema, that will result in more revenue to Warner than a month of
HBO Max. But, on the other hand, Max is a subscription and the cinema is not, so Max can be profitable even if the studio doesn't have a new hit picture.
It looks like TNT sports stream on Max, though Turner used to run out of Atlanta. Did Time Warner compile all that money? (Do not remember much cross promoting for HBO back then....only sister Turner channels.) For Philo, it seems like they still only carry Discovery content and Discovery Plus operates independently.
Turner does still operate in Atlanta as far as I know.
Philo probably doesn't want to pay the $$$ for TNT/TBS, which are relatively pricey. When the contract is up for the legacy Discovery networks, the combined company will probably try to force Philo to carry all or none of the Warner Bros-Discovery channels.
There is also WB Music record label and video games (I know Muse is signed to them.)Does it all go to the "same place?"
WB Music is no longer a part of Warner Bros-Discovery. Has not been for ~20 years. It was one of the casualties of the ill-fated AOLTimeWarner merger.
WB Games is still a unit of Warner Bros-Discovery.
Yes, all of the money goes to the corporate coffers of Warner Bros.-Discovery, but those are plural. Exactly how the accounts are structured varies a lot from company to company.
