41–50 of 108 posts
The article headline is not as strong as the HN title in its suggestion that shelving the movie is motivated solely or primarily by the tax write-off: > ‘Coyote Vs. Acme’: Warner Bros Shelves Finished Live-Action/Animated Pic Completely As Studio Takes $30M Tax Write-off Like other commenters, I don't understand the logic of shelving a finished and likely profitable movie just to obtain a tax write-off on the investm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, production is barely half the cost of returns. Marketing is the other half. What you see here is a rejection of the sunk-cost fallacy.
I'm struggling to see how their costs for releasing with 0 marketing are that much higher than scrapping.
I can only imagine how the people who made it feel knowing they basically worked for absolutely nothing
Lucky. That’s the benefit of being the worker class and not the owners. You get paid whether it releases or not.
The article headline is not as strong as the HN title in its suggestion that shelving the movie is motivated solely or primarily by the tax write-off: > ‘Coyote Vs. Acme’: Warner Bros Shelves Finished Live-Action/Animated Pic Completely As Studio Takes $30M Tax Write-off Like other commenters, I don't understand the logic of shelving a finished and likely profitable movie just to obtain a tax write-off on the investm…
Can someone explain how this makes any sense at all? They burned 70 million on making the movie and they'll recoup 30 million in tax write-offs, but if they released it, it's pretty certain to make way more than 30 million. And the claim that they're cash strapped after making 1.4 billion on barbie? I just don't understand this at all. Does anyone?
They'd probably need to spend another $70-$100 million promoting it. So they need to get let's say $170 million returned to the studio to break even. The judgement must be that they won't achieve that. For example, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny failed commercially at the box office: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Dial... Disney spent $300 million making it and will have spent at least…
Frankly I'm of the increasing opinion that if you do a tax write off on a creative work that you should be required to put it into the public domain. You've already made it clear that you believe that the value you would gain from it is $0, ergo it doesn't make sense to let companies vault content forever once written off. For example, a bunch of TV series were written off last year, which means that content has been…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but if they released it, it's pretty certain to make way more than 30 million. It's pretty unlikely this film will make $30 million, and they would have to spend at least another five to ten million to release it (profit participation from talent, marketing (which is probably contractually obligated), finalising post production, mastering, distribution etc etc.). The effects work is nowhere near done etc. > And the…
> It's pretty unlikely this film will make $30 million It would easily have made $30 million worldwide. Almost certainly domestic. You could question whether it would have made its budget back (70 million) on domestic, but for a family film with existing IP there aren’t really any blockers to clearing 30 million. > The effects work is nowhere near done etc. The film is finished, some critics had already seen it.
Can someone explain how this makes any sense at all? They burned 70 million on making the movie and they'll recoup 30 million in tax write-offs, but if they released it, it's pretty certain to make way more than 30 million. And the claim that they're cash strapped after making 1.4 billion on barbie? I just don't understand this at all. Does anyone?
Can someone explain how this makes any sense at all? They burned 70 million on making the movie and they'll recoup 30 million in tax write-offs, but if they released it, it's pretty certain to make way more than 30 million. And the claim that they're cash strapped after making 1.4 billion on barbie? I just don't understand this at all. Does anyone?
They'd probably need to spend another $70-$100 million promoting it. So they need to get let's say $170 million returned to the studio to break even. The judgement must be that they won't achieve that. For example, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny failed commercially at the box office: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Dial... Disney spent $300 million making it and will have spent at least…