DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[kirk55555]

Aren't they also burning bridges with actors/writers/producers/directors/etc with this stuff? I mean, I'm sure everyone that made these movies got paid, but I'm sure most of the people working on them actually wanted them released, and of course there is the fact that no one will get residuals, etc. Even with WB cutting a lot of scripted content they're still apparently planning to make "blockbusters", and shows like that GOT prequel, so they still need to attract people that make shows and movies to them. They already lost Nolan (and probably other directors) with the straight to HBO Max stuff during the height of the pandemic (although I mostly side with WB on that decision, Nolan was being an ass about trying to force people into theaters during a pandemic). While there will always be someone willing to do a job the quality is almost certainly going to go down, and big actors are probably going to need more incentives to work on projects which will probably cost .

I know Discovery is profitable, which is why this current executive is in charge, but it feels like WB/HBO is going to be stripped down to the bare minimum. The results might end up being profitable, but it will probably lead to a much lower ceiling when it comes to how much WB/HBO can make/how successful it can be.

 

[Samurai8472]

Aren't they also burning bridges with actors/writers/producers/directors/etc with this stuff?

It's probably shocking some people in Hollywood that's for sure.

WB one of the oldest movie studios just outright canceling a near completed 90 million dollar movie? It's ridiculous.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The tax thing explains why they're burying a film that was going straight-to-streaming and thus would have cost essentially nothing to release. Huge shame that this looks like the beginning of the end of all things DC that aren't tentpole movies. It was a good run.

 

[wayoung]

This was posted today. Already needs to be updated.

 

[DigificWriter]

this looks like the beginning of the end of all things DC that aren't tentpole movies. It was a good run

Batgirl got shelved because it was made to be a Streaming-exclusive project, and Warner Bros' new ownership wants to pivot back towards a Theatrical-first mindset.

If it wasn't going to cost a bunch more money to retool the film for a Theatrical release, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Ovation]

Discovery is also responsible for shutting down a CNN streaming service earlier this year after 300 million had been invested and high profile news talent had been signed (Chris Wallace from Fox, regardless of one’s opinion of his work, was a “big get”, and there were others). The service was shut down after only ONE month—way before it could be rationally determined if it would succeed and several reasons for the cancellation resembled those mentioned here (not new management’s baby, tax write off, etc.).

This news about the Batgirl film is disappointing but, given Discovery’s track record, not at all surprising.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I don’t know if it’s true but I read that Adil El Arbi got married yesterday, which really makes WB’s decision and timing absolutely awful https://twitter.com/jacobfisherdf/status/1554591580266315778?s=21&t=C24vk6djbnbL8kTsWrT3kQ

 

[JoeZhang]

When you are trying to make cuts into the billions and restructuring for tax purposes - $90 million is a very small amount.

 

[StCoop]

The window for these tax write offs is pretty short so anything that's not scrapped by the end of August will be coming out. Stuff that hasn't started shooting like Green Lantern is a different story, and I won't be counting on any more Doom Patrol, Titans or Stargirl after their upcoming seasons.

 

[theenglish]

This certainly shows a major downside to these company mergers. If production and distribution were not through the same company all that would need to happen is for a different distributor to emerge.

On a different theme, DC Comics have been in a dire state for a few years now--I am really concerned about what is going to happen to that medium.

 

[Christopher]

But how is making a product and then deliberately losing money on it for tax purposes not some kind of tax fraud?

Strictly speaking, it probably is. It sounds just like the kinds of tax dodges I read about in the NY Times's expose of Trump's tax evasion -- deliberately losing money on one thing as a way to cut the taxes you have to pay on something else. But it's the kind of gaming of the system that's routine among the super-rich, and for some reason the IRS has just gotten numb to it and lets it slide. Or something like that.

 

[StCoop]

It's not something that could have been done if ownership hadn''t changed. They can call it a "loss" due to bad decision making by the previous management. Everyone knows it isn' t but legally they've ticked the required box.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

When you are trying to make cuts into the billions and restructuring for tax purposes - $90 million is a very small amount.

Indeed, but to the layperson, "90 million" reads as an astronomical amount of money (and internally, to WB/D it would be if someone lost that amount on a bad investment), but with WB/D's goals, the reason for "taking" this loss appear clear and acceptiable. Some may mourn the loss/shelving/whatever of a Batgirl film, but the needs of the company will always come first.

 

[Danlav05]

Either there will be a #ReleaseBatgirl campaign that will get it out, or hopefully the guys will edit it together and it'll leak.

It makes no sense. Make a movie for $90 million then scrap it. Even for tax reasons, or because it doesn't match the 'vision' (which DCEU doesn't exactly have.) Also does this mean they're scrapping Keaton for Batfleck? The Flash is a mess because of what Miller is allegedly up to.

Not happy. Move out of my way, I'm out of here.

 

[thribs]

Get the Snyder Bots at it.

 

[Christopher]

It makes no sense. Make a movie for $90 million then scrap it.

According to the tax records obtained by the New York Times, Donald Trump declared a loss ten times that size in 1995, which gave him a sufficient deduction that could have let him avoid paying taxes for up to 20 years. Ninety million is a rounding error to the ultra-rich.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it was their predecessors at WB who spent the $90 mil, and who put the work into the movie. So the new bosses have nothing to lose by scrapping it. It's all a numbers game to people like this, acquiring businesses and gutting them for a quick buck rather than giving a damn about the actual work the businesses do or the lives of the employees they lay off. It's sickening, but hardly unprecedented.

 

[Ovation]

But it's the kind of gaming of the system that's routine among the super-rich, and for some reason the IRS has just gotten numb to it and lets it slide.

It’s not so much “gotten numb” as “gotten severely understaffed”, thereby significantly reducing the ability of the IRS to undertake the complex investigations necessary to tackle such shady accounting by big businesses and the very wealthy.

 

[wayoung]

Either there will be a #ReleaseBatgirl campaign that will get it out, or hopefully the guys will edit it together and it'll leak.

I sincerely doubt either one of those happen. A Twitter campaign won't convince Discovery to violate tax laws and completely change their long-term business strategy for one movie.

As for people working on it leaking it, lol. This is a straight to streaming DCEU movie. The people who work on it aren't going to risk their entire careers, criminal charges, and being sued into financial oblivion to leak it. Maybe some intern will decide he wants to be a hero, but I hope not. Not worth destroying his life over.

Indeed, but to the layperson, "90 million" reads as an astronomical amount of money (and internally, to WB/D it would be if someone lost that amount on a bad investment), but with WB/D's goals, the reason for "taking" this loss appear clear and acceptiable. Some may mourn the loss/shelving/whatever of a Batgirl film, but the needs of the company will always come first.

I'm surprised by how so few people get that. $90 mil is not much money when vs the long-term viability and business plans of a multinational corporation like this. Discovery had no doubt already factored in the losses these projects would incur being shut down when they bought WB.

 

[Christopher]

A Twitter campaign won't convince Discovery to violate tax laws and completely change their long-term business strategy for one movie.

"Violate tax laws?" It's not that the laws forbid them from releasing the movie. It's just that they couldn't declare it as a loss and would have to pay more taxes, which they don't want to do. Obviously the tax laws would not make it illegal for them to pay more taxes. It would just be illegal to declare something as a loss if they actually profited from it. But then all they'd have to do to make it legal is not declare it as a loss.

And a "long-term business strategy" that requires all superhero movies to be huge-budgeted blockbusters is idiotic -- just look at how successful Joker was with a budget of no more than $70 million.

 

[wayoung]

"Violate tax laws?" It's not that the laws forbid them from releasing the movie. It's just that they couldn't declare it as a loss and would have to pay more taxes, which they don't want to do. Obviously the tax laws would not make it illegal for them to pay more taxes. It would just be illegal to declare something as a loss if they actually profited from it. But then all they'd have to do to make it legal is not declare it as a loss.

And a "long-term business strategy" that requires all superhero movies to be huge-budgeted blockbusters is idiotic -- just look at how successful Joker was with a budget of no more than $70 million.

? What are you trying to argue here? Yes. Violate tax laws. By writing it off on their taxes they legally cannot monetize the film. By doing so after would be violating tax laws. That the punishment would be financial (and undoubtedly triggering an ass deep audit by all involved regulatory agencies which no one wants) doesn't make it any less of a violation.

As for their business strategy being sound or not, that's not this discussion. I said it's their strategy, which it is, which so being reported over and over again in the news, not whether or not I agreed with it.