Live data from Hacker News

Deleting and destroying finished movies

rogerebert.com

1–10 of 369 posts

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#3
post #2

The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).

Even then it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. From what I understand, everyone directly involved in the making of this film is proud of the work and wants it to be released, it's just the bean counters and executives (who I would not consider the "creators" of the film) who want to destroy the creation for ego and tax reasons.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#4
post #3
post #2

The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).

Even then it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. From what I understand, everyone directly involved in the making of this film is proud of the work and wants it to be released, it's just the bean counters and executives (who I would not consider the "creators" of the film) who want to destroy the creation for ego and tax reasons.

Why bring ego into it? It's just bottom line thinking, that's all. Is there any good reason to think ego is a part of it?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#5
post #2

The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).

Yeah. The problem arises when there’s many creators and they disagree. Or when a creation has already been duplicated and given to the world and they think they have any right to claw that back.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#6
post #4
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. From what I understand, everyone directly involved in the making of this film is proud of the work and wants it to be released, it's just the bean counters and executives (who I would not consider the "creators" of the film) who want to destroy the creation for ego and tax reasons.

Why bring ego into it? It's just bottom line thinking, that's all. Is there any good reason to think ego is a part of it?

The article itself puts it forward.

> 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

If it was really bottom line thinking, they'd accept the $70M, more than double what they'd get in tax benefits, and have another distributor release the film. Instead, they'd rather trash the film than risk looking like fools if they allowed another company to reap the benefits for releasing a hit.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#8
post #2

The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).

Sure, that sounds fine, but the taxpayer ought to not be responsible for footing the bill in any way. The studios do this for the tax writeoff, which is tantamount to robbing the people paying taxes (eg:us) blind.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#10
post #2

The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).

Are any of the people responsible for this phenomenon actually creators? Isn't it usually investors and accountants doing it for a tax writeoff?
Post reply on HN