DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Christopher]

They're not writing it off, they're selling it instead. This discussion happens everytime this occurs.

Write off = buried forever
Sold = other companies can release it

They wanted to write it off, the outcry was so great they are now looking to sell it.

Yes, that much is obvious, so that's not the question I'm asking. The question is, how are they allowed to sell it off? With Batgirl, they said they could never ever release it under any circumstances because declaring it a tax write-off meant they could never profit from it. But if they're selling it off, they're profiting from it. Which means that if they already wrote it off, then either they're breaking the law by profiting from its sale, or the write-offs are reversible after all, which means they lied when they said the Batgirl write-off was irreversible. And if they didn't already write it off and are allowed to make a profit from it, then why the hell don't they just distribute it themselves?

 

[wayoung]

Yes, that much is obvious, so that's not the question I'm asking. The question is, how are they allowed to sell it off? With Batgirl, they said they could never ever release it under any circumstances because declaring it a tax write-off meant they could never profit from it. But if they're selling it off, they're profiting from it. Which means that if they already wrote it off, then either they're breaking the law by profiting from its sale, or the write-offs are reversible after all, which means they lied when they said the Batgirl write-off was irreversible. And if they didn't already write it off and are allowed to make a profit from it, then why the hell don't they just distribute it themselves?

They didn't already write it off. They said they were going to write it off. It's why Michael Scott yelling "I declare bankruptcy" isn't the same as him actually filling for bankruptcy.

The actual write off would be done after the end of their financial year end with the filing of corporate taxes.

As for why, the official reasons are in the articles. WBD is short on cash. It costs money to distribute movies. They decided the short term tax write off is better for them than long term gains by releasing the movie. Whether that makes any sense or is a cover for, say, Zaslav being an cartoon villian CEO himself and hating how they are portrayed, nobody here knows.

We’re told that the cash-strapped Warners finds that it’s not worth the cost to release the film theatrically or to sell to other buyers (and there are parties who are interested for their own streaming services; we hear Amazon kicked the tires).

https://deadline.com/2023/11/coyote...scovery-writeoff-david-zaslav-1235598676/amp/

 

[Christopher]

They didn't already write it off. They said they were going to write it off.

Okay, there. That's the answer to what I actually asked, and you could've given it in the first place.

Next question: Does the same apply to Batgirl? Could they have reversed course there if they'd wanted? And if so, what's the difference? Is it that Batgirl got bad buzz while this film got glowing praise? Or is it that they were shamed by the cumulative bad publicity of doing it repeatedly? Or is it simply that they're more willing to marginalize a woman of color like Leslie Grace than a white man like John Cena?

 

[wayoung]

Okay, there. That's the answer to what I actually asked, and you could've given it in the first place.

Next question: Does the same apply to Batgirl? Could they have reversed course there if they'd wanted? And if so, what's the difference? Is it that Batgirl got bad buzz while this film got glowing praise? Or is it that they were shamed by the cumulative bad publicity of doing it repeatedly? Or is it simply that they're more willing to marginalize a woman of color like Leslie Grace than a white man like John Cena?

Up until the taxes were filled yes they could have changed their mind.

I don't know why the outcry worked and the Batgirl didn't. Possibly simply that Batgirl was a smaller movie not finished with no real powerful people impacted, and people let it go as a one time thing of new management killing old managements projects - a story as old as the industry, even if the method was unprecedented.

This movie starred John Cena and, most importantly, was written and produced by James Gunn, the new head of DC movies.

There are rumours that this was the breaking point for most of the creatives working with WBD and WBD was flooded with demands for meetings from powerful people.

More than anything, I'd put my money on Gunn being the driving force.

But it's all just speculation.

 

[Christopher]

Still sounds like Batgirl got a raw deal. (Not to mention the Scooby-Doo sequel they also buried.)

 

[Mr. Adventure]

What completed movie was shelved sight un-seen by Disney that confused people between selling it off versus writing it off?

Not sight unseen I believe but Crater was removed from D+ and after backlash was placed on some digital platforms for purchase.

 

[Samurai8472]

It seems like people in the US government are starting to take notice of WB doing all these tax write offs(most recently the Wily Coyote VS Acme movie)

The Texas Democrat Congressman Joaquin Castro is calling for the Justice Department and the FTC to revise their antitrust guidelines and to formally launch an investigation into WB.

https://twitter.com/JoaquinCastrotx/status/1724280827138256954

Equating what their doing to burning down a building to collect insurance money

 

[Noname Given]

It seems like people in the US government are starting to take notice of WB doing all these tax write offs(most recently the Wily Coyote VS Acme movie)

The Texas Democrat Congressman Joaquin Castro is calling for the Justice Department and the FTC to revise their antitrust guidelines and to formally launch an investigation into WB.

https://twitter.com/JoaquinCastrotx/status/1724280827138256954

Equating what their doing to burning down a building to collect insurance money

Yep - Hey at least when a German company commissions Uwe Boll to do a low budget/terrible game property adaptation film (to keep the IP rights, for whatever reason); said films ACTUALLY get a release.

 

[Thestral]

Still sounds like Batgirl got a raw deal. (Not to mention the Scooby-Doo sequel they also buried.)

Nobody is disputing that. It's just that doing it again like this was a step too far.

 

[Christopher]

Nobody is disputing that.

One can assert something without intending it as an argument. Some things simply ought to be said.

 

[The Realist]

Equating what their doing to burning down a building to collect insurance money

Seems like an apt comparison to me.

 

[Christopher]

Seems like an apt comparison to me.

I thought so when I said much the same thing in this very thread 15 months ago. I'm sure I'm just one of many.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

That's the longest "As I said..." I've ever seen.

 

[JoeZhang]

In corporate terms what they are doing is not unusual and the amounts are not even that big - it just feels wrong because it overlaps with art rather than being says IP connected to a new process for extracting oil from shale.

 

[Christopher]

In corporate terms what they are doing is not unusual

Which is exactly the problem. The tax laws are too lenient on corporate CEOs' and billionaires' blatant abuses of the system, which is why so many of them pay zero federal income tax. And that's because too many of the politicians writing the tax laws have been bought off by the CEOs and billionaires. It's rampant corruption, and it should not be shrugged off as the cost of doing business. It's a symptom of a much bigger societal problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[The Knappos]

It could be as simple as nobody ‘kicking the tyres’ and expressing interest in buying Batgirl for distribution

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It could be as simple as nobody ‘kicking the tyres’ and expressing interest in buying Batgirl for distribution

I seriously doubt it would've been hard to find a buyer if they had been willing to sell.

It would've been the first time anyone saw Michael Keaton as Batman in 30 years. Netflix has payed a fortune for way less than that.

More likely, they were looking to make up numbers fast without having to negotiate with anyone and possibly also they flat out didn't want to sell because they didn't want their own movie on someone else's streaming service to undercut what was supposed to be the triumphant return of Keaton in The Flash. Also possibly some of the people making decisions flat out hated the movie for some reason and just refused to consider the idea that it wasn't worthless.

 

[Dee1891]

I was surprised to discover that Leicester Square in London featured sculptures of two D.C. Comics characters:

Wonder Woman (the Gal Gadot version)

Batman (not based on any particular actor)

 

[theenglish]

In corporate terms what they are doing is not unusual and the amounts are not even that big - it just feels wrong because it overlaps with art rather than being says IP connected to a new process for extracting oil from shale.

You get that something being legal doesn't equate to something being ethical, right?

 

[Commander Troi]

We watched Blue Beetle last night. It was fun and I can see why Gunn wants to keep the actor; he's very likeable. The biggest letdown was Susan Sarandon - the character was a bit too "mustache-twirling".