• @Blackmist
    link
    English
    132 months ago

    I have no idea why they explain this away with “it’s for the tax write off”. One of us isn’t understanding the tax system. I don’t think there’s any tax rule where you scrap something of value, and end up with more money at the end of it than if you hadn’t. Even if it made literally no money, and nobody watched it, and nobody subbed to Max to see it, you just wouldn’t have to pay any tax on the money you didn’t make.

    Things like Batgirl supposedly “cost” $90 million, and they claimed a $20 million tax write off.

    Why not a $90 million tax deduction? It sounds for all the world like they spent $20 million, realised it was garbage beyond even the rest of the DCEU, and shit-canned it before spending the other $70 million on finishing it (VFX, distribution, etc) as it was never going to make that back.

    • tmyakal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 months ago

      You’re close to the truth at the end there. They spent $90 million on it, found out it was an absolute dog when they started test evenings, and decided to scrap it rather than pay another $50 million+ on promotion and other post-production expenses.

      With a $20 million write-off on a $90 million movie, they still lost $70 million. They just didn’t want to lose more.

      It still sucks for the actual creators and the fans, but it’s not like doing this actually makes the studios richer. It’s just about not falling into the sunk-cost fallacy.

      • @Blackmist
        link
        English
        42 months ago

        I don’t see how they only lost $70 million if they spent $90 million and scrapped it though.

        Spend $90m, scrap it, you lose $90m. This comes off your yearly profit that you pay tax on.

        Spend $90m, stick it on Max, do literally no promotion or anything, make no money. Still lose the same $90m. Same amount comes off your yearly profit that you pay tax on.

        The only thing I can think of is that it was so bad that they fear for the reputation of their company. Like it’s so mind-bogglingly awful their share holders will see it and immediately sell up so they don’t have to admit they own shares in the company that made it.

        And I’ve seen Aquaman 2. They ain’t fucking worried about that

        • tmyakal
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          “Stick it on Max” still costs money? Royalties, hosting, closed captioning and translation, GUI requirements all are going to keep chipping dollars out of a product that they did not believe would make them money.

          And, as you say, DC movies have really underwhelmed. Did anyone reasonably think that the (apparently) worst one was going to draw in new subscribers?