91–100 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been multiple completed works that have been canceled for tax reasons. https://deadline.com/2023/01/as-tv-turns-to-tax-write-offs-t...
You really shouldn't take fake news organizations like CNN seriously on issues like this. They obviously didn't do even basic fact checking with a real tax accountant or lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to see how insane a 10-14 hour Dune movie would be. No intermission I'm sure.
Slightly unrelated, but there is a 19 hour fan-edit of the Hobbit + Lord of the Rings -- i.e someone glued all 3 Hobbit movies and all 3 LotR movies into a 19 hour video.
Isn’t $55 M little more than a rounding error for a company like Netflix ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, well then why didn't they release the movie? Why did they say it would be more profitable to not release it? You're either smarter than the entirety of Warner Brother's finance department, or wrong.
This is not a matter of who is smarter. The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not open for debate. If the studio decided not to release the movie it was most likely because the expected marketing and distribution costs exceeded the expected revenue. Or maybe they didn't want a crap movie to damage the long term brand of a valuable character that they plan to leverage in other products.
Anyone who has ever worked with an accountant knows this isn't true. The law is a series of gray areas at best. You can have three accountants do your taxes and get three results, because each applies different interpretations to the laws. And going in front of a judge won't get extra clarity -- three judges would give you three different opinions.
> If the studio decided not to release the movie it was most likely because the expected marketing and distribution costs exceeded the expected revenue.
Maybe, but it tested better with test audiences than any other movie they release this year, so that's highly unlikely. Also, they specifically said they were doing it for the write down.
Maybe they can create a new movie based on this funny story. Name it Doge King and chronicle the bizarre world of selling shitcoins.
First, the way the economics of these endeavours are so flawed that even the most passionate creatives / sponsors can't viably get the finished or near-finished product out to paying customers.
Second, that this stuff doesn't get leaked more often - especially recent examples. Wikipedia also has a running list of abandoned films, though it looks to be US / Euro-centric. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires_of_the_Deep (there's plenty of more interesting write-ups around the backstory)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abandoned_and_unfinish...
Netflix just gave him the money? Isn't a producer the one with the money that hires people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a matter of who is smarter. The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not open for debate. If the studio decided not to release the movie it was most likely because the expected marketing and distribution costs exceeded the expected revenue. Or maybe they didn't want a crap movie to damage the long term brand of a valuable character that they plan to leverage in other products.
> The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not open for debate. Anyone who has ever worked with an accountant knows this isn't true. The law is a series of gray areas at best. You can have three accountants do your taxes and get three results, because each applies different interpretations to the laws. And going in front of a judge won't get extra clarity -- three judges would give you three different opini…
Since we're discussing the economics of film/TV studios, and their weird decisions. I'd like to understand why the studios are still making Star Trek shows. Each one seems to be more poorly received than the last. That's costing studios far more than $55M. Picard alone cost ~$9M per episode according to Wikipedia.
Paramount+ took a few swings at this, and eventually they hit paydirt with Strange New Worlds. The intention isn’t to make mediocre shows. The intention is to make a show which draws an audience, and Star Trek shows start with a decent base audience to make it worth trying.
Discovery did not work for me in the same way despite me usually liking those less episodic plotlines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a matter of who is smarter. The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not open for debate. If the studio decided not to release the movie it was most likely because the expected marketing and distribution costs exceeded the expected revenue. Or maybe they didn't want a crap movie to damage the long term brand of a valuable character that they plan to leverage in other products.
> The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not open for debate. Anyone who has ever worked with an accountant knows this isn't true. The law is a series of gray areas at best. You can have three accountants do your taxes and get three results, because each applies different interpretations to the laws. And going in front of a judge won't get extra clarity -- three judges would give you three different opini…
> Anyone who has ever worked with an accountant knows this isn't true.
The point being referred to here is that you can't take a deduction for profits you would have made in some hypothetical world where things had worked out better for you. It's not all gray areas, and this particular point is entirely un-gray. Nor does the article that you "tl;dr"'ed into this quip support you here. It just says that the studio decided not to risk any further losses.