163
I ... don't get it. What is the purpose of a tax writeoff? Suppose it saves them money this year. But they lose a much larger profit. Is it being saved for later when their fortunes are lower?
I assume someone somewhere decided that it was going to net a profit (after already sunk production costs and yet-to-be-spent promoting costs and other obligations) of less than $30 million.
So if given the choice between hoping it maybe makes $20-40 million in net profit vs a guaranteed $30 million as a tax write-off, that's easy math for the number crunchers.
I have no idea but they could also have decided they didn't want to spend to promote it. It costs a fortune in money up front to promote movies these days, even after the movie is 'in the can'. Money is getting more and more expensive with interest rates going up, so financing even promotional costs is more expensive.
Might it also be possible that they're trying this as a method of guerilla marketing? People get angry at the cancellation and spread the word, then they capitulate and uncancel it.
This is the third movie they've shelved in the last couple years, so seems unlikely (for context there have only been like 20 films ever shelved this late into production)
Something else to consider: Chip n Dale and the Tom and Jerry live action/CGI films didn't make a ton of money either.
Why risk it when the risk was already taken numerous times, hell throw the puppet homicide movie in there too, by other companies?
It’s a write off for them, Jerry, they just - pftpftpft - write it off!
I wouldn’t think they could take the write off if it’s ever shown.
Then you've fallen into the exact trap everyone does about "write offs". They can write off the same amount whether they release it or not, because they can write off all expenses for everything.
If they thought they'd make a much larger profit by releasing it, they would. Likely they think it's shit (rightly or wrongly) and isn't worth putting a marketing budget behind before they could see any gains.
Son of a… I was really liking the idea of this movie… what a shit ass move by Warner Bros.
Their CEO (Zaslav) is a total piece of shit
It never occurred to me that he is in charge of Looney Tunes. What a shitty development. And Disney owns about everything else.
Yeah the amount of media consolidation we have right now is an a huge problem and it just keeps getting worse.
Hmmmmm...a whole bunch of articles about a star-studded movie that was canned and is now being praised by critics. I think I smell a hype machine working...
According to reports, the movie cost around $72 million and involved Hollywood personalities like John Cena and James Gunn as producers.
Warner Bros. cited a shift in global strategy towards focusing on theatrical releases as the reason for this decision. The studio expressed respect for the filmmakers, cast, and crew, acknowledging their contributions to the project.
This decision follows similar actions taken with the shelving of Batgirl and Scoobi Holiday Haunt in August 2022, both originally intended for streaming. They were subsequently shelved as a tax write-down amid efforts to find savings within the company.
The problem isn't that they're doing it, the problem is a tax code that not only allows it, but makes it a valuable election.
All the people who worked on it have nothing to show on their CVs, which means that if they are made redundant - and many probably only had contracts for the duration of the project anyway - it will be harder to get another job.
Everything about this screams marketing
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
163 points (96.6% liked)
News
23267 readers
3050 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS