Filmmakers took to Twitter/X to sing their praises for Coyote vs. Acme after Warner Bros. Discovery shelved and scrapped the live-action CGI hybrid film for a $30 million tax write-off.

  • kalkulat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    I … don't get it. What is the purpose of a tax writeoff? Suppose it saves them money this year. But they lose a much larger profit. Is it being saved for later when their fortunes are lower?

    • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      I assume someone somewhere decided that it was going to net a profit (after already sunk production costs and yet-to-be-spent promoting costs and other obligations) of less than $30 million.

      So if given the choice between hoping it maybe makes $20-40 million in net profit vs a guaranteed $30 million as a tax write-off, that's easy math for the number crunchers.

      I have no idea but they could also have decided they didn't want to spend to promote it. It costs a fortune in money up front to promote movies these days, even after the movie is 'in the can'. Money is getting more and more expensive with interest rates going up, so financing even promotional costs is more expensive.

      • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Might it also be possible that they're trying this as a method of guerilla marketing? People get angry at the cancellation and spread the word, then they capitulate and uncancel it.

        • blargerer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is the third movie they've shelved in the last couple years, so seems unlikely (for context there have only been like 20 films ever shelved this late into production)

          • Thassodar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Something else to consider: Chip n Dale and the Tom and Jerry live action/CGI films didn't make a ton of money either.

            Why risk it when the risk was already taken numerous times, hell throw the puppet homicide movie in there too, by other companies?

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then you've fallen into the exact trap everyone does about "write offs". They can write off the same amount whether they release it or not, because they can write off all expenses for everything.

    • blargerer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they thought they'd make a much larger profit by releasing it, they would. Likely they think it's shit (rightly or wrongly) and isn't worth putting a marketing budget behind before they could see any gains.

  • CooperHawkes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Son of a… I was really liking the idea of this movie… what a shit ass move by Warner Bros.

  • Bonehead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hmmmmm…a whole bunch of articles about a star-studded movie that was canned and is now being praised by critics. I think I smell a hype machine working…

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    source

    According to reports, the movie cost around $72 million and involved Hollywood personalities like John Cena and James Gunn as producers.

    Warner Bros. cited a shift in global strategy towards focusing on theatrical releases as the reason for this decision. The studio expressed respect for the filmmakers, cast, and crew, acknowledging their contributions to the project.

    This decision follows similar actions taken with the shelving of Batgirl and Scoobi Holiday Haunt in August 2022, both originally intended for streaming. They were subsequently shelved as a tax write-down amid efforts to find savings within the company.

  • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem isn't that they're doing it, the problem is a tax code that not only allows it, but makes it a valuable election.

    All the people who worked on it have nothing to show on their CVs, which means that if they are made redundant - and many probably only had contracts for the duration of the project anyway - it will be harder to get another job.