DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[wayoung]

I was afraid of that. It's the permanence of this decision that makes it so damned evil. "I want to get infinitesimally richer than I already am, so I'll make sure that nobody ever gets to see this thing they were looking forward to." It's obscenely selfish.




You don't have to belittle what this movie is just to make your point about the impossibility of its release. A superhero movie with an Afro-Latina lead would've meant something important to a lot of people -- not to mention the fact that it would've been the screen debut of the character of Alysia Yeoh, which would've been a big step forward for transgender representation in superhero movies. Losing that sucks, and losing it irreversibly sucks even worse.

Fair enough. You're absolutely right, I'm sure it would have meant a great deal to a lot of people, and it absolutely would have added some much needed representation. My statements were more trying to reflect that this isn't likely going to be thought of as a great piece of lost art among the general public, spurring academic and artistic regret at what was lost decades from now, driving people to demand the release and the studio to acquiese despite the potential costs to the studio. I, in my absolutely speculative personal opinion, suspect it will be looked upon more as a curiosity by the general public.

Edit:. Went back and clarified some things I was writing.

 

[wayoung]

You claimed it happened frequently. Twice in 20 years is hardly frequently. Feel free to prove me wrong and name all the ones I missed.

I said frequently enough to not be unprecedented. Frequently enough does not = frequently, however I acknowledge that may not have came through in the post.

 

[Noname Given]

So, something I was thinking - since they did a test release of Batgirl, that means a functional work print DOES exist, somewhere. Anonymous hackers - get on it!

probably a very rough workprint with no post production (no music, vfx, or sound effects) - hell, the viewer can probably hear the set floors creaking as the actors move, etc. (I've seen many a rough workprint over the years - the worst being such a workprint - transferred to VHS - of STV:TFF. After I saw it with a couple of friends who were curious, we ALL said "This has to be some kind of false print...there's NO WAY this could be the ACTUAL script they used to film... <--- Yes, it was. And it was replete with simple pencil animatics in spots, numerous 'VFX missing' slates, etc. No music or sound effects, and the plywood sets creaked like you wouldn't believe; dialog was hard to hear because of background noise as of course no looping had been done.)

And yeah, EVEN IF it's a great film/script; for any audience who doesn't really know just how much post production adds to the finished product, you're not going to get a really accurate audience response from an early work print. IF they were that far along in the post to have what they considered a work product really screenable to a general test audience; completely shelving it at this point seems nuts -- UNLESS somehow they were able to write the ENTIRE thing off and claim near 100% loss reimbursement.

 

[crookeddy]

UNLESS somehow they were able to write the ENTIRE thing off and claim near 100% loss reimbursement.

That's exactly what they did. Movie's entire budget being written off as a total loss.

 

[Christopher]

It doesn't seem like it should be legal to write something off as a business loss simply because you chose not to try to earn back the money you spent on it. I mean, a loss should be something you couldn't prevent, that you had no control over, like if a fire burned down a soundstage. If you choose to burn down your own soundstage so you can declare a loss, that's insurance fraud. So shouldn't choosing to kill a movie so you can use it as a tax write-down be tax fraud?

 

[fireproof78]

Hollywood accounting and the ridiculous US Tax Code make it possible.

That's why they can never attempt to turn a profit on it. They basically already claimed the loss and any impact to revenues as well.

It's a mess.

 

[wayoung]

It doesn't seem like it should be legal to write something off as a business loss simply because you chose not to try to earn back the money you spent on it. I mean, a loss should be something you couldn't prevent, that you had no control over, like if a fire burned down a soundstage. If you choose to burn down your own soundstage so you can declare a loss, that's insurance fraud. So shouldn't choosing to kill a movie so you can use it as a tax write-down be tax fraud?

I don't agree with it either, but you don't get near the full amount, you take a significant hit. It's still a massive loss. Which is why everyone's not doing it. I did research the actual numbers the other day but it's been a long day and I'm outside in the sun having a beer and reading Leviathan Wakes so don't feel like looking it up again, I've had enough accounting for the week, and I'm not being paid for it right now.

Honestly, I don't think the tax write off is the primary purpose. I'd suspect it has more to do with the streaming not fitting the new business strategy and the tax claim being the way WBD gets some funds back while fully engaging with their new plans for the DCEU and preventing a future exec from reversing course and releasing it ZSJL style. And it's not their loss really, it was the former owners. To Zaslav it's found money and no streaming Batgirl to conflict with what he want stop do with the DCEU moving forward.

 

[DigificWriter]

I'd suspect it has more to do with the streaming not fitting the new business strategy

You don't need to 'suspect' that this is the primary motivation because it's already been confirmed to be such.

 

[JD]

Just saw the news about Walter Hamada, and you really can't blame the guy for being pissed. You'd think they would have talked to the guy in charge of the DC movies before canceling one of the DC movies.
Adil El Arbi has revealed that Kevin Feige, Edgar Wright, and James Gunn have all sent him messages of support over the canellation of Batgirl. Kind of makes me wonder if we might see some more MCU work in his and Bilall Fallah's future.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

There is ALWAYS a way around these rules.

...and if you're suggesting an illegal "ALWAYS," that is accompanied by the fact that there are infinite ways to end up facing significant punitive damages and/or prison.

I said movies get buried frequently enough as a statement reflecting it's not unprecedented for completed movies to never, ever see the light of day.

Its astounding to see certain people simply not being aware that shelved/cancelled films (and TV series) is nothing new, nor it is some sort of imaginary scandal. Its simply a film, not the foundation for a business or life.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

probably a very rough workprint with no post production (no music, vfx, or sound effects) - hell, the viewer can probably hear the set floors creaking as the actors move, etc.

I had a similar experience - Saw an early test screening of the movie "Alive" with temp music, no looped dialogue etc. Afterwards we were given a questionnaire about what we liked, didn't like etc. Saw the movie several months later during a regular screening and you could tell what had been fixed/altered.

 

[wayoung]

I had a similar experience - Saw an early test screening of the movie "Alive" with temp music, no looped dialogue etc. Afterwards we were given a questionnaire about what we liked, didn't like etc. Saw the movie several months later during a regular screening and you could tell what had been fixed/altered.

Man, I have never said this before, but I wish I could see "Alive" in 4DX. Pipe in the smell of pulled pork...

 

[Christopher]

I don't agree with it either, but you don't get near the full amount, you take a significant hit. It's still a massive loss.

It's not about the size of the loss, it's about the fact that it was completely avoidable. They didn't have to take the loss at all. They could've released the damn movie. But they chose to create a completely artificial and unnecessary "loss" so that they could get a tax benefit, and that seems like outright fraud. I don't see how it's any different from, say, deliberately sinking your boat so you can collect the insurance, or deliberately shooting yourself in the foot to get out of military service. Normally society penalizes people for engineering avoidable "losses" like that. We recognize that they don't deserve compensation for something they did to themselves on purpose. We call it fraud and hold them legally accountable for it.

Honestly, I don't think the tax write off is the primary purpose. I'd suspect it has more to do with the streaming not fitting the new business strategy and the tax claim being the way WBD gets some funds back while fully engaging with their new plans for the DCEU and preventing a future exec from reversing course and releasing it ZSJL style.

Even if that's true, that seems incredibly petty. Why should a new strategy require completely scuttling alternatives and even preventing anyone else from ever trying anything different?

Not to mention that giving up on streaming and putting all their eggs in one basket seems like a stupid approach. It seems wiser to diversify, to offer content on multiple platforms for multiple audiences. This is the age of multimedia.

Besides, why rush into it? Why not get the most they can out of the movies currently in the works and then gradually phase in their new approach? Killing everything currently in the works that doesn't fit their future plans just seems like a bullying power play, a way to say "This is all mine now." Especially since Zaslav didn't even bother consulting Walter Hamada before cancelling a project Hamada was in charge of.

 

[wayoung]

It's not about the size of the loss, it's about the fact that it was completely avoidable. They didn't have to take the loss at all. They could've released the damn movie. But they chose to create a completely artificial and unnecessary "loss" so that they could get a tax benefit, and that seems like outright fraud. I don't see how it's any different from, say, deliberately sinking your boat so you can collect the insurance, or deliberately shooting yourself in the foot to get out of military service. Normally society penalizes people for engineering avoidable "losses" like that. We recognize that they don't deserve compensation for something they did to themselves on purpose. We call it fraud and hold them legally accountable for it.




Even if that's true, that seems incredibly petty. Why should a new strategy require completely scuttling alternatives and even preventing anyone else from ever trying anything different?

Not to mention that giving up on streaming and putting all their eggs in one basket seems like a stupid approach. It seems wiser to diversify, to offer content on multiple platforms for multiple audiences. This is the age of multimedia.

Besides, why rush into it? Why not get the most they can out of the movies currently in the works and then gradually phase in their new approach? Killing everything currently in the works that doesn't fit their future plans just seems like a bullying power play, a way to say "This is all mine now." Especially since Zaslav didn't even bother consulting Walter Hamada before cancelling a project Hamada was in charge of.

It's not fraud because the tax law allows it. I don't disagree with you, it sucks, that's just the way it is

As for the rest, nobody here knows the inner workings of Zaslav's mind. Maybe he wants a big screen Batgirl that doesn't match the currently made one. Or maybe it all is a power play, like you suggest. Honestly, it's a pretty viable theory. It's exceedingly common for incoming Execs to kill a previous regimes projects - or sabotage them like Disney Execs are suspected to have done to some Fox projects that were already in the pipeline. Zaslav here taking it to the next level is well within the realm of possibility.

 

[Samurai8472]

Into the mind of David Zaslav

https://twitter.com/TheDonkeyDrip/status/1554729911335587840

I cannot comprehend thinking that way about scripted tv - the definitive root of the medium for all of its history. And he's talking about it like its some lame fad.

 

[fireproof78]

It's expensive. That's why.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I think Zaslav watched Beetlejuice when it first came out, didn't understand it and grew to despise Michael Keaton. All of this has been a decades long goal to get in control of WB right as Keaton returned (like all great villains, coincidences are key to their plans) so that he could finally remove him from his movies and have the last laugh, Professor Chaos style.

 

[wayoung]

I think Zaslav watched Beetlejuice when it first came out, didn't understand it and grew to despise Michael Keaton. All of this has been a decades long goal to get in control of WB right as Keaton returned (like all great villains, coincidences are key to their plans) so that he could finally remove him from his movies and have the last laugh, Professor Chaos style.

Meanwhile Keaton doesn't even give a shit and all he cares about is he got to cash the paycheques

 

[Christopher]

It's not fraud because the tax law allows it.

That is exactly my point -- that it shouldn't be allowed. Why is something that would be obvious fraud in any other context permitted as a tax dodge? It's an illogical double standard. This is the systemic problem with American tax law -- all the loopholes that allow rich people to evade paying taxes and get away with it. The system needs to be massively reformed.

 

[UssGlenn]

out-of-touch notion that fandom is "male-skewing."

I'm quoting you only because this was the last mention, but everyone seems to be reading that HBO vs Discovery slide the same wrong way.

The individual bullet points are observations about the platform, but the individual points don't interact with each other.

HBO has more male viewers than female, Discovery the reverse. HBO has people who would describe themselves as fans of a specific show, and Discovery has people that are fans of a type of show (like true crime or renovation). But the "more male viewers" point has nothing to do with the "we have fandoms" point.