If you have a passing interest in film and animation, you’ve likely heard of Coyote Vs. Acme, a feature film in the Roger Rabbit tradition of blending 2D animation with live action focusing on characters from Warner Brothers’ Roadrunner cartoons. The film would have focused on Wile E. Coyote suing the ubiquitous Acme corporation after decades of selling him faulty products, and by all accounts appeared to be a passion project from everyone involved. The movie was, in fact, complete and ready for release- only for Warner Brothers to kill it at the last possible second in the name of a multi-million dollar tax writeoff.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Make 10 things for $10.

    Try to sell each for $100, say only one sells.

    Rather than take a lower price, you write off the 9.

    Your taxable income is now $10. And your average profit per thing is $90. Which is good for stock prices.

    Mix in Hollywood accounting, and you might even still not have a taxable income. Plus, those other 9 aren’t competing against the 1 that made it. They’re concentrating all the profits in one thing, which makes marketing easier

    But really, it all comes down to manipulating stock price.

    • bionicjoey
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      But you didn’t try to sell the other 9? You made them for $10 each and then threw them straight in the trash.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        55
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s not what happens here…

        They were trying to sell this for 80 million, no one want d to pay that.

        It didn’t cost 80 million, they could have sold it for less.

        But that would dilute the market and lower prices for other films.

        It’s like luxury goods destroying their own product rather than lowering the price to move all their inventory. It’s not about selling as many as possible, it’s about having the highest profit margin.

        Like, why are you trying to argue that this isn’t profitable? These studios spend millions on lawyers and accountants to ensure profits are maximized.

        You think you know more than them?

        The solution is legislation to prevent this bullshit from being more profitable than releasing them.

        • bionicjoey
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          58
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Woah calm down, I’m not trying to argue with you. I was just trying to wrap my head around your ELI5 explanation by asking a clarifying question.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      Mix in Hollywood accounting

      there’s definitely some accounting shenanigans going on.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Do they write off the other nine things for $90 or $900 based on the value of the materials or the estimated value of the work. I assume if they say, “we earned $100 but it cost us $900 to do that,” on your taxes that you can get your taxes owed down to about zero.