“The site owner” is Warner Brothers, they likely have a department responsible to keep movie-related websites up - and might well do it in-house, after the AOL acquisition. A site like this is basically free to host: a domain registration for 20 or 30 years will attract a massive discount, space on disk is probably less than 50MB, used bandwidth is minuscule... after you set up log rotation by file size and automated domain renewal, you can basically forget it exists.

Its quite possibly literally just a bunch of static html files. There is not much maintenance cost there. They probably run all their static sites from the same webservers. It may very well be the same effort to keep it as to delete it.

I got a cookie notice this time which I think is new in the past couple of years...

there's no way it's being maintained on same software.

so how would you make it bullet proof, just s3 and cloudfront?

so what would you say it costs a year to run?

It's running on a fairly current version of Apache, but aside from keeping the server up to date, it conceivably could be running the same setup for years.

For an organization the size of Warner Bros, it's essentially free, as they are literally doing nothing to the server for that site specifically.

However, it does look like it's running on AWS using their global accelerator (globally optimized traffic) so I assume it's sufficiently robust.

It's just some basic HTML and CSS. You can basically serve it from a Raspberry Pi for free.

Warner is hosting it, it probably cost them almost nothing more than usual.

I would guess because of the trademark: keeping a bunch of static HTML files around is not much cost otherwise, and certainly gathers some attention like this post on HN indicates.

> But I wonder why?

Publicity for Space Jam 2?

It's been up for years, well before Space Jam 2 was even in the works.