Originally Posted by rocket1312 (Post 14349751)

Ha! That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm sure 90% of the people online who were "outraged" by this will never actually see the movie.* They don't really care. It's just something to get mad about.

*This isn't directed at anyone specifically in this thread, so don't come at me about how you're a passionate patron of animation (and the works of John Cena) and that you're going to see this 17 times.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin (Post 14349953)

With this being a pattern now over at WB it makes you wonder if Batgirl was that bad or just a distraction to avoid excess media attention on the tax write off part of the discussion.

Originally Posted by RocShemp (Post 14349968)

I was wondering about that lately. It was easy for me to take the negative claims at face value, given how much I disliked the directors' previous work, but now I wonder if all such claims were smoke and mirrors.

.

Originally Posted by GoldenJCJ (Post 14350169)

“Burning down a building for the insurance money” is exactly what it is.

But in today’s world, I guess that makes WB smart.

Originally Posted by PerryD (Post 14350173)

Where do they get the valuation of the cost of the movie though? It seems like it could be rife for money laundering since there are literally thousands of people listed in the credits including the caterer or person that holds coat or whatever. How much of the reported budget can be accounted for?

Originally Posted by rocket1312 (Post 14349751)

Ha! That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm sure 90% of the people online who were "outraged" by this will never actually see the movie.* They don't really care. It's just something to get mad about.

*This isn't directed at anyone specifically in this thread, so don't come at me about how you're a passionate patron of animation (and the works of John Cena) and that you're going to see this 17 times.

Originally Posted by d2cheer (Post 14350210)

When it bombs who is justified?

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 14350220)

When it bombs can't they still write it off? I seriously don't know, but usually business losses are tax deductible.

Originally Posted by John Galt (Post 14349709)

I'm not familiar with film industry accounting standards, but from what I've read, there's certain amortization of expenses related to production costs that gets dragged out for 10-15 years as the company recognizes revenue from the film. So they've already spent $70MM to make the film. That's a sunk cost, that money has been spent and is gone. If they release it as was originally planned, they have to amortize that $70MM over the next 10-15 years. So if they released the film in late 2023, they would start expensing that $70MM against revenues in year one, and then finish expensing the last dollar somewhere between 2033 or 2038. I would expect this is accelerated and not straight line, so an example scenario might have expenses of $35MM in 2023-2024 when they receive the bulk of revenues from the theatrical release, $5MM each of the next five years as they rely on physical sales and streaming, and then $1.1MM over the next nine years as the movie's popularity has waned. By shelving the movie completely, they get to expense the entire $70MM in 2023. This creates a scenario where they rely on Time Value of Money calculations involving projected inflation rates and projected future federal and state corporate tax rates and determined that it's favorable to expense the full $70MM in 2023 using their marginal tax rate to reduce their tax liability by $30MM than to drag it out over 15 years.

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 14349970)

Counterpoint: WB thought that The Flash was a really good superhero movie that starred Michael Keaton as Batman. They thought Batgirl was a lot worse than that.

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum (Post 14350272)

(Is Asylum actually still in business?)

Originally Posted by Hazel Motes (Post 14351002)

Hey come see this movie that another studio thought was so awful that they tried to erase it from history.

I wish there was a way that all the creatives involved could sue for defamation.

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 14351180)

WB never stated it was an issue with the film's quality in this case. That was Batgirl. They just saw it as a potential commercial failure, I guess.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin (Post 14351431)

Didn't they have one "last" showing of Batgirl for a select few before its burial? Did any real feedback come from that or are we still simply going off WB's word?

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 14351180)

WB never stated it was an issue with the film's quality in this case. That was Batgirl. They just saw it as a potential commercial failure, I guess.

Originally Posted by Why So Blu? (Post 14351473)

Like anyone was clamoring for this to begin with. No wonder it got canceled.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin (Post 14351784)

Was anyone clamoring for a big budget Barbie movie?

You don't know until it gets released and the public decides.