Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deleting and destroying finished movies

rogerebert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 369 posts

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#331

Post by qingcharles »

sib wrote: post #66
blincoln wrote: post #14

Seems like a less controversial solution would be to allow the same tax write-off if the studio releases the film for free distribution (e.g. via the Internet Archive), either into the public domain, or under a license like Creative Commons Noncommercial if there's concern about implicitly allowing derivative works by competitors or similar.

Since - as only one example of the complexity involved - the music used in the film is almost certainly licensed and must be paid for, and the studio does not "own" it, there's no way that they can simply release it for free distribution or put it into the public domain...

And having had this issue myself with a Hollywood movie, where the rights for the music in the final cut were too expensive, trying to replace the music is always horrible. Especially, as in this case, where you would likely have to go with public domain music.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#332

Post by qingcharles »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #170

Could we not just skip the 30 years of copy right protection or whatever it is now and just release it to the public domain? No money will be made, but if people should want to they can view it. I am sure Internet Archive or some organization would be willing to host such movies, and not make any attempt at making a profit from it. Even better would be to turn all the assets that went into the creating it into the pu…

As someone stated above, there might be rights issues with the music and other elements used in the movie where the IP creators expect to get paid with every viewing etc.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#333

Post by Dylan16807 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #305
Dylan16807 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn’t saying the tax break is bad, it’s saying that deleting a film is what’s bad. That's a true statement, though. What's wrong with saying that? And if you change the tax breaks, you can get the desired behavior without imposing additional rules.

That is not necessarily true. Studios can still decide that a movie is sufficiently bad that it is a brand risk and will still refuse to release it even if they cannot deduct some or all of the expense to create it.

That would at least make this happen a lot less often.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#334

Post by Dylan16807 »

tpmoney wrote: post #315
Dylan16807 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about advertising. Just distribution. If the theaters won't take it, then streaming services. > that's almost certainly less than the value of the tax write-off Please explain. If the value drops to 1 million dollars, can't you write off the rest? If you can't, then that is exactly the problem here, there's a flaw in tax law causing destruction . > You'll need licensing contracts, lawyer time, account…

Look you’re arguing that they should throw good money after bad. And both of us are just speculating on what the actual numbers are. We all agree that at some point before this, if they cancel the project and write it off, no one cares. So all this boils down to is whether or not you believe their accountants suddenly become wrong or liars about their expected expenses and returns the moment the “final” edit is commi…

> Look you’re arguing that they should throw good money after bad.

Yes, when something is already done, the vast majority of the time you should throw enough good money at it for delivery.

Especially when you can make a contract to guarantee you get paid more than that. Upfront, even!

> So all this boils down to is whether or not you believe their accountants suddenly become wrong or liars about their expected expenses and returns the moment the “final” edit is committed to film.

It's not "suddenly". The necessary amount of "good money" to get the movie released drops precipitously as it approaches completion. At this point the "good money" is basically nothing. There are lots of companies that would happily pay for it.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#335

Post by smileybarry »

gruez wrote: post #65
AlbertCory wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, if you had an offer for $30M, then that was the value.

And the value went to $0 after destroying it. I don't see what's the issue is here.

The buyer is not buying the hard drive, they're buying the asset it holds. If you destroy the only copy, you make it unobtainable but the value of that intellectual property is arguably still $30m. (If said offer was $30m, in this case)

For that reason: if the studio destroyed all known copies of the movie, write it off, and then an unknown copy gets leaked by someone who worked on it -- the studio will still sue for damages >$0 and claim in court that any piracy downloads are potential viewings, ergo stolen profit.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#336

Post by froh »

verve_rat wrote: post #177
froh wrote: post #75

my saddest story there is "frank'n stein" a hilarious comedy movie and theatre play toying with the Frankenstein plot. I've seen the movie and it made ma watch a local play and I loved both. when I tried to get hold of the DVD years later I learned that the heirs to the author Ken Campbell had withdrawn all rights. this removed all prints from all libraries too. the thing is _gone_. because the heirs hated their gene…

That seems... wrong? You can't unpublish a book by withdrawing the right and force the destruction of already sold copies. I believe DVDs fall under the same first sale doctrine, so this story seems to be missing some details.

it's not a normal book, it's a theatre play, a script. and the license owner can restrict the rights for these to be useless unless relicensed. it was mind bending to me. and yes, it feels wrong.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#337

Post by travisjungroth »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #201
travisjungroth wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company buys a balloon making machine for $100k. They use the machine and depreciate it over the years to $20k, getting $80k of deductions over the years. They decide to stop making these balloons. Someone offers them $1k but they decline. They destroy the machine, and have a $20k loss on their taxes. This is all above board, totally normal behavior. There are reasons to be against destroying these movies, but tax…

But why wouldn't they sell it for $1k and then have a $19k loss to deduct? And how do we encourage them as much as possible to take that option?

Maybe the reason they stopped making them is the balloon got a negative connotation and was hurting their brand. I dunno, a disgraced celebrity. Selling the machine for others to make it hurts them (even under another brand). Maybe the offer was only $100 and it’s not worth the time.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#338

Post by verve_rat »

froh wrote: post #336
verve_rat wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems... wrong? You can't unpublish a book by withdrawing the right and force the destruction of already sold copies. I believe DVDs fall under the same first sale doctrine, so this story seems to be missing some details.

it's not a normal book, it's a theatre play, a script. and the license owner can restrict the rights for these to be useless unless relicensed. it was mind bending to me. and yes, it feels wrong.

Yes a play can no longer be performed, but a recording of a play is a different thing.

A songwriter can stop anyone from making new covers of their song, but they can't order the destruction of your CDs.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#339

Post by pests »

MrNeon wrote: post #297
pests wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So these companies exist in a different reality where they draw their resources and labor from somewhere else? Where else would labor come from if not the public?

"the public" and "public" are two different things. the labor and resource markets are private, not public.

The markets maybe. Markets aren't the thing though.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#340

Post by jowea »

mdasen wrote: post #80

To me, the weird thing is that the tax write-off doesn't even seem to make sense. Let's say you spend $80M making a film and you write it off for a $30M benefit. You're still in the hole $50M. Let's say that you sell the film for $20M and write off the remaining $60M loss for a $23M benefit. In the latter case, you're only in the hole $37M instead of $50M. That's a lot better. Is there some weird accounting rule wher…

I'm also scratching my head at why this could make sense from a purely financial point of view, doubly so if the film is expected to be at least good. One of the paragraphs in TFA proposes it's some sort of company vision and trying to avoid embarrassing themselves. I would proposition that being known for scrubbing completely projects is rather embarrassing too specially in the view of contractors for future projects but what do I know.

> To my knowledge, the company has never given anyone a justification beyond debt reduction and a bit of vague gesticulation toward a corporate vision that the film supposedly didn’t sync with. Public outcry caused the company to backpedal in November 2023 and say that they would sell the movie elsewhere, but Drew Taylor of The Wrap has reported that the company never entertained any negotiations about their asking price, demanding not a penny less than $70 to $80 million for the privilege of owning a project that they would only gain $30 million by scrubbing from their own ledgers. The offer to sell the film was, to put it mildly, not undertaken in good faith. It appears that the company would rather take less money by writing off the movie than sell it for even a few dollars more than that, because they might risk having a rival turn it into a success, which would further embarrass them for never even having tried to market it themselves, even though it was built around “intellectual property” (i.e., adorable cartoon characters) that are as inextricably linked with Warner Bros. as Marianne is with the nation of France.

Post reply on HN