I don’t know if it will be a good movie or not. My issue is how can you get a better tax break by not releasing a movie than by releasing it and having it bomb?
It’s complicated. It’s not just a straight tax write off, but also you cut costs by shelving it. Marketing and other post-production budgets can be high. Also, if a film is really bad, there’s reputation damage to the brand, which is hard to quantify.
I find it hard to believe that this movie is so bad that WB decided that it wouldnt even recoup the marketing costs for it. This whole thing sounds like people that dont understand math and taxes making decisions.
It’s not bad; as a matter of fact, it got rave reviews from the few test audiences that went to see it. Someone claimed it was the best animated & live action film since Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.
But the studio had to decide between gambling that it will do well with the general public… or a guaranteed $30M in tax write-offs. They took the sure thing instead of the risky thing.
The reason we have so many remakes nowadays is because feeding off nostalgia is a guaranteed win. Original films are a gamble, and studios would rather put their money on a sure thing than take the risk on a new original film. Warner Bros. is just a little too nervous about doing more original ideas, so they’re more willing to shelve films for the tax money than risk audience opinion.
More like hate animation and want nothing to do with it. The Discovery merger killed Cartoon Network, as well as a lot of projects like Infinity Train.
I don’t know if it will be a good movie or not. My issue is how can you get a better tax break by not releasing a movie than by releasing it and having it bomb?
This plot seems familiar.
Not that there’s anything wrong with this, but you do know that the movie version featured Uma Thurman in this role…
https://youtu.be/gItQFtMRDPU
The original certainly made better use of physics. Still prefer the '05 remake.
We’ve done God’s work today!
It’s complicated. It’s not just a straight tax write off, but also you cut costs by shelving it. Marketing and other post-production budgets can be high. Also, if a film is really bad, there’s reputation damage to the brand, which is hard to quantify.
I’m a bit of a movie buff, and if I’ve heard it once…
“There isn’t a writer or director in Hollywood who is half as creative as the worst studio accountant!”
I find it hard to believe that this movie is so bad that WB decided that it wouldnt even recoup the marketing costs for it. This whole thing sounds like people that dont understand math and taxes making decisions.
It’s not bad; as a matter of fact, it got rave reviews from the few test audiences that went to see it. Someone claimed it was the best animated & live action film since Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.
But the studio had to decide between gambling that it will do well with the general public… or a guaranteed $30M in tax write-offs. They took the sure thing instead of the risky thing.
The reason we have so many remakes nowadays is because feeding off nostalgia is a guaranteed win. Original films are a gamble, and studios would rather put their money on a sure thing than take the risk on a new original film. Warner Bros. is just a little too nervous about doing more original ideas, so they’re more willing to shelve films for the tax money than risk audience opinion.
More like hate animation and want nothing to do with it. The Discovery merger killed Cartoon Network, as well as a lot of projects like Infinity Train.