Live data from Hacker News

Deleting and destroying finished movies

rogerebert.com

361–369 of 369 posts

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#361
post #272
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, refusing offers to sell in favor of a strategy that simply wastes the time and effort of everyone involved in the production with no recourse. This should at the very least not allow them to write it off their taxes. Admittedly, a lot of the problems that enable this situation are more about how IP and ownership work as well as the consolidation of the entertainment industry (and every other industry fo…

> wastes the time and effort of everyone involved in the production with no recourse Those people were already paid for their work.

And the vast overwhelming majority of them are not being paid comparably to jobs that require similar workloads and levels of education, due to the "vocational awe" of working on a movie. This is so pervasive in the arts that it's been talked about for decades, but it's not a problem our economy seems equipped to solve: Since people like working on art projects, people will often line up to do so even when conditions and pay don't economically square with their effort. To benefit from this vocational awe and then scrap the project is itself a moral injury to those workers

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxpayers arent paying anything, Taxes are on profit after costs. The company spent 90M of its own money, and hasn't made any income? Why souldnt they be able the claim the 90m they spent as an expense?

I don't think it's about deducting expenses , otherwise this would be entirely moot because they'd deduct for expenses no matter whether it was a hit or a flop. I understood the article to be about deducting taxable income for a loss .

But a loss is just when expenses are greater than revenue. Deducting taxable income for a loss is just the same as deducting the expenses that caused the loss to be a loss.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#363
post #361
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wastes the time and effort of everyone involved in the production with no recourse Those people were already paid for their work.

And the vast overwhelming majority of them are not being paid comparably to jobs that require similar workloads and levels of education, due to the "vocational awe" of working on a movie. This is so pervasive in the arts that it's been talked about for decades, but it's not a problem our economy seems equipped to solve: Since people like working on art projects, people will often line up to do so even when conditions…

> but it's not a problem our economy seems equipped to solve

It's not a problem at all in my opinion.

> Since people like working on art projects, people will often line up to do so even when conditions and pay don't economically square with their effort.

The pay has only to be accepted to be fair. You're free to start your own production company that pays more "fairly" but you'll find yourself with fewer opportunities to give people this "awe" than the company that can finance more projects.

> To benefit from this vocational awe

Warner Bros. is losing money by scrapping the movie, how are they benefiting in this case?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#365
post #364
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn't consumed and it only has value when used.

that's true. Therefore billions should return into circulation and/or otherwise return to the public.

Believe it or not billionaires are part of the public and those billions are in circulation. There are no dragons sitting on hoards of gold.

More importantly: money that is not in circulation doesn't affect you or me, it has the same weight on the economy as all the gold still not mined.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#366
post #365
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's true. Therefore billions should return into circulation and/or otherwise return to the public.

Believe it or not billionaires are part of the public and those billions are in circulation. There are no dragons sitting on hoards of gold. More importantly: money that is not in circulation doesn't affect you or me, it has the same weight on the economy as all the gold still not mined.

It sure don't look this way to me. I guess we'll agree to disagree on most points here.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#367
post #366
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not billionaires are part of the public and those billions are in circulation. There are no dragons sitting on hoards of gold. More importantly: money that is not in circulation doesn't affect you or me, it has the same weight on the economy as all the gold still not mined.

It sure don't look this way to me. I guess we'll agree to disagree on most points here.

How can we disagree on facts? There are no billionaires just sitting on billions. They are in circulation.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#368
post #367
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure don't look this way to me. I guess we'll agree to disagree on most points here.

How can we disagree on facts? There are no billionaires just sitting on billions. They are in circulation.

your facts: billionaires not sitting on billions. My facts: homelesness exists.

Also moving money from your left hand to your right is not circulation. It should "trickle down". Wonder where I heard this.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#369
post #368
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we disagree on facts? There are no billionaires just sitting on billions. They are in circulation.

your facts: billionaires not sitting on billions. My facts: homelesness exists. Also moving money from your left hand to your right is not circulation. It should "trickle down". Wonder where I heard this.

It is clear you're arguing from an emotional, not logical, standpoint where facts don't matter.
Post reply on HN