I have some input on the "leaving soon" mystery that could be (somewhat) illuminating. About a month ago, I got an email out of the blue from a Max publicist asking if I'd be willing to jump on the phone for a few minutes that week to talk about their monthly press releases and how to make them more useful. I immediately said yes, because I have *thoughts* on this issue. And it just so happened that I was hanging out with Scott Tobias at the time, so before I set up the call I asked for his input. He had the exact same complaint you do. Scott maintains a constantly updated recommendation list at the NYT of movies on Max, and he is routinely caught off-guard when movies leave the service with no warning. This isn't an issue with the kind of writing I do about Max's lineup; but I carried Scott's message to the publicist along with my own recommendations and I got an unexpected response. The issue (according to this one person) is that licenses for these movies and series are often being negotiated right down to the wire, and in the past the Max press release has frequently announced something is leaving that ends up getting re-licensed at the last minute. The Max publicists apparently don't always have good information about what's leaving. Now, removing that section from the monthly press release probably isn't the best way to address that issue. (In our conversation, I emphasized how important it was to Scott to know what's leaving as soon as that news is available.) But if you're looking for an explanation as to why that section may be gone... There you go.
That's really interesting! I wonder if that's something that doesn't affect Criterion Channel as much because they're older films? But perhaps there could be some kind of compromise between the "we're putting it in the press release a week before the upcoming month," and "here's a 'Last Chance' section that may or may not include all titles leaving the service."
I have some input on the "leaving soon" mystery that could be (somewhat) illuminating. About a month ago, I got an email out of the blue from a Max publicist asking if I'd be willing to jump on the phone for a few minutes that week to talk about their monthly press releases and how to make them more useful. I immediately said yes, because I have *thoughts* on this issue. And it just so happened that I was hanging out with Scott Tobias at the time, so before I set up the call I asked for his input. He had the exact same complaint you do. Scott maintains a constantly updated recommendation list at the NYT of movies on Max, and he is routinely caught off-guard when movies leave the service with no warning. This isn't an issue with the kind of writing I do about Max's lineup; but I carried Scott's message to the publicist along with my own recommendations and I got an unexpected response. The issue (according to this one person) is that licenses for these movies and series are often being negotiated right down to the wire, and in the past the Max press release has frequently announced something is leaving that ends up getting re-licensed at the last minute. The Max publicists apparently don't always have good information about what's leaving. Now, removing that section from the monthly press release probably isn't the best way to address that issue. (In our conversation, I emphasized how important it was to Scott to know what's leaving as soon as that news is available.) But if you're looking for an explanation as to why that section may be gone... There you go.
That's really interesting! I wonder if that's something that doesn't affect Criterion Channel as much because they're older films? But perhaps there could be some kind of compromise between the "we're putting it in the press release a week before the upcoming month," and "here's a 'Last Chance' section that may or may not include all titles leaving the service."