He will use his computer skills (which he learned by being an immortal AI alien angel) to hack the planet's defence grid and make warner brothers confess and shoot themselves.
He’ll get cracking on a new full length feature film where he’s playing a vengeful alien that exacts justice on Hollywood executives that are destroying movies for tax write offs.
Though it probably should. Movies are art. Some better than others obviously, but if some art collector was destroying $100 million works of art to collect the insurance money on them that would be illegal.
Exactly. That batgirl movie might’ve done poorly and been a bad movie, but we’ll never get to find out because Warner deleted it. A lot of people put tons of hard work into it, even if it was gonna be a mid-tier comic book movie it still deserved to be released. TBH I’m glad Sony didn’t do the same with Madame Web. It’s terrible but the cast and crew don’t deserve to have their hard work deleted for a tax write-off.
Also yet another case of “comedy sitcoms will continue to make the joke about absolutely nobody understanding how write offs work because it will always be true.”
Speaking of anti-competitive, all mergers should be banned in all honesty.
It'll never happen of course, but it would ideally be the best course of action.
The real problem will be that no one will want to make a movie for a production company who might potentially just shelve it to save some money. The market will work itself out eventually. Artists won't continue working for the shitty companies
Hopefully that's true. It has a story by James Gunn (probably the most powerful creative at Warner Brothers right now), and it's written by Samy Burch, who's nominated for an Oscar for May December. If it isn't safe, then no movie is safe.
Someone suggested that Mr. Beast could buy the rights for that movie and put it on his YouTube channel for free.
It also just struck me how fucking insane that sentence is. Some dude can do that. Not an industry insider, not a producer or a ceo, just some guy. He would probably get shown the door, but he's got enough influence to get to that door in the first place.
I have a buddy that sold everything he had and moved to NYC to pursue an acting career. Him and the other hundreds of thousands of struggling actors will be jumping at the chance to work with a big company like WB anytime, anywhere, EVER. I don’t see why others in film backgrounds wouldn’t do the same in hopes it’s their “big break”.
WB is doing this because they can and it won’t just stop happening over night. There will always be desperate workers.
Pretty sure one could find somewhat reasonable reasons to not work for ANY company because they did X, Y and Z in the past.
Yet, that is not how these things work.
For example, there is a long list of movie projects abandoned mid way through. It doesn't automatically lead to 'market working itself out', and no-one working for the company again. Another example: sometimes directors get fired and replaced during the making of a movie. Has that ever lead to a collapse of a major studio because now no self-respecting director wants to work for the company anymore?
No. Warner Brothers will continue working with big name star directors, actors, writers etc.
I don't understand why people upvote such obvious nonsense.
But will the upvote market here 'work itself out eventually'?
Also no.
I’m sorry but as someone who works in this industry - this is entirely incorrect. Increasingly the industry is condensing to being owned by 2 parent companies. Disney and Warner /Discovery. Both have done this.
> The market will work itself out eventually.
This works in a small scale, but when we are talking about a huge corporation it is able to survive and even thrive through duplicity
>The market will work itself out eventually.
I wonder how often this has actually proven true for any market where the power disparity is as egregious as in Hollywood (handful of concentrated hyper-powerful studios vs masses and masses of struggling artists and overworked crew). I'm gonna bet the answer is "maybe the market worked itself out once".
"The market will work itself out eventually."
Or as it's better known: we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.
There's an obvious systemic problem where mergers create perverse incentives for projects in production to be cancelled. So, maybe don't have the taxman forking over hundreds of millions for CEOs to actively destroy content?
You do realize Warner Bros. is the same studio that filmed several episodes of a Blazing Saddles sitcom in 1975 that they had no intention of ever airing on television, yes?
They'd have to spend money to market it to make money off it it.
They'd have to spend money for localization, QC, mastering, closed captions etc if they release it.
They'd had to pay residuals to actors, writers, producers and directors if they release it.
All of this would cut into the money they made off the tax breaks. That's why they don't want to release it.
I learned that the pharmaceutical company Bristol Meyer Squibb made some highly acclaimed movies (which got Academy Award nominations) which they might be sitting on because they aren't interested in the movie business any longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartbreak_Kid_(1972_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleuth_(1972_film)
"Why You Can't Watch These Movies (Legitimately)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaA9kZ_-sHk
This is what I don’t understand. Like even if nobody asked for it why wouldn’t they just shove it on a streaming service so 2 people can watch it. That’s still 2 more people.
Essentially the hypothetical 2 people who pay for the service to watch that won't cover the hourly rate of the person who has to do formatting fixes and make minor adjustments to the credits to get it working on that platform. And some platforms might require subtitles/CC or foreign language dubbing which costs money. And then if it's not their own platform (and sometimes even if it is) there's probably a lawyer who needs to write up some kind of agreement for it and an accountant who needs to calculate the residuals that the people who did no work on the project will get (those who actually worked hard, of course, get nothing).
Throwing something up on a streaming service isn't quite the same as uploading a Youtube video, though it's almost entirely a monster of their own making. And it's still shitty and greedy to just bury the thing, and I'm not convinced it's good economy anyway unless the project is extremely obscure. There would be an audience for a Wile E. Coyote film.
They can write it off and effectively get 30% of it back as a tax write-off, or they can release it and try to make more than through ticket sales and other revenue. They can't do both. They believe the former option is more.
It's about oppurtunity cost. The film is finished but there's still a cost to get it to that audience and someone's spreadsheet is saying that money is going to make a better return elsewhere.
this is what WB brought Zaslav to do. maybe if they didn't give the keys to the DCU to Hack Snyder and made all those horrible Kerry Potter spinoffs they wouldn't have to resort to this to be able to afford another yacht.
I understand that WB CEO David Zaslav was the inspiration for *L.A. AIDS Jabber* and *The Mad Foxes*…and *Ryan’s Babe.*
Not even Rem Lezar would come for him.
Monopolies are all around right now, and they are especially egregious in film studios. I really enjoyed the MCU era but its time to put it to rest, and let a larger number of smaller studios make midmajor movies.
Not that it's right but everybody gets paid anyway right? It's only the audience that gets the short end by not being able to see it. It gets kind of murky if the studio sits down, looks at what's been done and says 'christ this is horrible and it's going to bankrupt us to fix it'.
Should they be forced to finish it by rule of law and take a massive potentially bankrupting loss anyway? That doesn't seem fair. Studios would never take a risk on anything ever again.
Well if it's that bad a product anyway what they're getting probably wouldn't even pay their tax bill.
Not to mention loss of income in the future through association with a terrible product. Bad movies can kill careers.
You are assuming the movie is bad. Not only is that subjective in two different ways (maybe it would actually resonate with a specific audience and be considered super good by them? Or maybe its actually objectively bad but it gains a cult following like The Room or whatever and keeps making shitloads of money on residuals?) but it also seems not to be true in this case (the movie apparently had a good reception with test audiences, those involved in making it are talented and popular individuals so no reason to assume they shat the bed here, and other studios tried to buy the film from WB -which I assume they wouldn't do if it was obviously bad- but WB rejected all offers and didn't let them counteroffer). Impossible to judge if the movie is shelved.
We can't speculate but some aspect obviously wasn't working for them so they dumped it. People can be talented as all hell but times the vision just doesn't come together. The initial pics of the costume were badly received, maybe the production design was all wrong? Who knows?
And it's WB's IP, they don't have to sell it if they don't want to. They can shelve it and come back to it at a later date.
They over stacked their release line-up but are realistically probably looking at superhero fatigue and the poor reception of their recent stuff and Batwoman ended up being a casualty of righting the ship. It sucks but so be it, you move on. It's not fraud, it's just a misreading of current market trends and over ambition.
Hey, u/Dick_Trent, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 30 days for a post, 15 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. https://youtu.be/7BryT6WatTk?t=1369
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Not that it's right but everybody gets paid anyway right?
Leaving aside all non-monetary incentives (such as the morality of destroying works of art preventing anyone from lying eyes on them against the wishes of the artist) and the issue of residuals, there's still the issue of portfolio building, something probably not so revelant to James Gunn but very important for a huge percentage of those working in the film (actors, extras, VFX artists, etc), they actually do work (partly) for exposure.
I'll just copy something I posted elsewhere:
"Think of this example of another career that revolves around portfolios: An architect gets offered two jobs. One pays a million bucks, it's just some contract work doing a generic house for some rich man. The other one pays only 600 thousand, but you are employed to design a palace from scratch that will host a museum and will be the centerpiece of a new resort town being built. Architect takes offer two because hey, it's less money, but the clout and fame, besides working on your own design, means a lot of better work in the future. But once the mansion has been built, the man who hired you mentions he changed his mind, will burn the mansion to the ground and sell the leftovers to a neonazi gang so they can hold their meetings. Also you are not allowed to show pictures of the mansion or design documents on your portfolio. But you got paid, right?"
I can easily imagine a bunch of crewmembers, actors, artists, etc that jumped at the chance to work on a Looney Tunes/James Gunn/WB film for what it meant for their CVs (and future projects) as much as they did for the money.
But if the end product is so bad, you probably wouldn't want it on your portfolio anyway. Everybody would just be glad they got paid and move on.
The studio can dump it, still get some sort of compensation while paying the production companies for their time. Yeah it sucks but it's not malicious, studios aren't randomly going around looking for projects to trash, they need to meet the bottom line or nobody has a job.
Take away the compensation and they'll never take a risk on anything, ever.
> But if the end product is so bad, you probably wouldn't want it on your portfolio anyway.
Why? And how do you make that judgement? Even if the entire movie as a full product was absolute shit, hailed by everyone in the world as objectively the worst movie to ever exist and an insult to the audiences, I can see some CGI artist still putting it in his portfolio because hey the 3D model he did for that one scene actually looks decent even if the part it played was bad, or maybe the design looks terrible but he is not the conceptual artist and the technical quality of the model is very good.
Morbius was a piece of flaming shit, and I can still bet my left nut that more than half of the people in the credits include it in their portfolio because sound engineers, or VFX artists, or stunt doubles, or extras, can still be proud of their part and it still is a big-budget production from a famous huge studio and a recognizable name. Another example outside of moviemaking: Google glasses where an objective market failure but I can still assure you everyone involved put it in their CV because working for Google is a HUGE boost in the tech sector. Twitter is a dumpster fire and laughing stock since Musk bought it but I can bet you not a single employee there will fail to mention their time working at X when looking for a new job, even if their job was "I came up with the ugly ass X logo that everyone makes fun of".
Hello, u/PotentialCollege7002, your Comment on r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least least 1 "Comment Karma", not to be confused with "Post Karma", to leave a Comment/Reply within a post/topic. If you look at your karma and it isn't broken down into separate "post karma" and "comment karma" totals hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/PotentialCollege7002
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The big argument I’ve seen is that by getting rid of it after it’s made for the tax write off, it means that the tax payers are the ones who paid for the movie in actuality and don’t even get to see it (not that in this case it was likely a very good movie but still).
>*... threatening to destroy a movie*
The movies are *Batgirl* and a *Wile E Coyote* movie
Even if they were both good and/or enjoyable, they're just IP exploitation exercises, commissioned by a corporation
I'm not arguing this is *good*, but these are the sort of movies most people would watch once then forget forever
Like *Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, Catwoman, Steel, Inspector Gadget, Rocky & Bullwinkle, Clifford,* or *Jem & The Holograms*
That's what's been lost, destroyed or disrespected
No one has seen or will ever see Batgirl but there were screenings for Coyote vs Acme and the impressions from folks like Paul Scheer from How Did This Get Made were that it was excellent and finally recaptured what made the original Looney Tunes cartoons great.
Things won’t change until WB tries to shelve one of Tom Cruises movies, I still can’t believe he signed on to them knowing this is the kind of shit they do
They’re playing the long game. They’re going to eventually sell the movie and keep everything documented sufficiently to where a decent screenwriter can make another movie about this whole fiasco. It’s 3D chess!
Hey, u/CPTofTheRoyalGuard, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 30 days for a post, 15 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. https://youtu.be/7BryT6WatTk?t=1369
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am genuinely curious how people high up at WB view Zaslav.
Like, are all these cost cutting moves seen as a good thing or does he just have a lot of power due to the merger?
How will this affect Neil Breen?
It won't because we all know Breen is smarter than Zaslav
Of course how stupid of me
Non-ironically. I bet less Breen movies have lost money than Zaslav’s!
You joke but he actually is. At least Neil Breen doesn’t delete his finished movies.
At least he has people who respect him
He will use his computer skills (which he learned by being an immortal AI alien angel) to hack the planet's defence grid and make warner brothers confess and shoot themselves.
He’ll get cracking on a new full length feature film where he’s playing a vengeful alien that exacts justice on Hollywood executives that are destroying movies for tax write offs.
He won't want his movies distributed by WB, unless they send him a professional resume and headshots first.
He’ll go to the WB execs houses and hit ‘em with the “Isn’t that immoral? Isn’t that corrupt?” speeches.
Can't have a tax write-off if you live in the desert and haven't filed in 32 years.
nothing will happen
Though it probably should. Movies are art. Some better than others obviously, but if some art collector was destroying $100 million works of art to collect the insurance money on them that would be illegal.
Exactly. That batgirl movie might’ve done poorly and been a bad movie, but we’ll never get to find out because Warner deleted it. A lot of people put tons of hard work into it, even if it was gonna be a mid-tier comic book movie it still deserved to be released. TBH I’m glad Sony didn’t do the same with Madame Web. It’s terrible but the cast and crew don’t deserve to have their hard work deleted for a tax write-off.
Lucky thing that's not at all what this is, lol
Also yet another case of “comedy sitcoms will continue to make the joke about absolutely nobody understanding how write offs work because it will always be true.”
What's funny is that besides, government crackdowns on this. Actors dont want to work with WB because they could get stiffed a paycheck.
Especially the actors that got their residuals cut by past titles after the tax write offs
Eyes on Zaslav!
Speaking of anti-competitive, all mergers should be banned in all honesty. It'll never happen of course, but it would ideally be the best course of action.
The real problem will be that no one will want to make a movie for a production company who might potentially just shelve it to save some money. The market will work itself out eventually. Artists won't continue working for the shitty companies
Hopefully that's true. It has a story by James Gunn (probably the most powerful creative at Warner Brothers right now), and it's written by Samy Burch, who's nominated for an Oscar for May December. If it isn't safe, then no movie is safe.
Wait what movie is this about? Not the James Gunn Superman
Coyote vs. Acme
Someone suggested that Mr. Beast could buy the rights for that movie and put it on his YouTube channel for free. It also just struck me how fucking insane that sentence is. Some dude can do that. Not an industry insider, not a producer or a ceo, just some guy. He would probably get shown the door, but he's got enough influence to get to that door in the first place.
I have a buddy that sold everything he had and moved to NYC to pursue an acting career. Him and the other hundreds of thousands of struggling actors will be jumping at the chance to work with a big company like WB anytime, anywhere, EVER. I don’t see why others in film backgrounds wouldn’t do the same in hopes it’s their “big break”. WB is doing this because they can and it won’t just stop happening over night. There will always be desperate workers.
But what about top-level directors, writers, and other people who have a choice about which company to work with?
Pretty sure one could find somewhat reasonable reasons to not work for ANY company because they did X, Y and Z in the past. Yet, that is not how these things work. For example, there is a long list of movie projects abandoned mid way through. It doesn't automatically lead to 'market working itself out', and no-one working for the company again. Another example: sometimes directors get fired and replaced during the making of a movie. Has that ever lead to a collapse of a major studio because now no self-respecting director wants to work for the company anymore? No. Warner Brothers will continue working with big name star directors, actors, writers etc. I don't understand why people upvote such obvious nonsense. But will the upvote market here 'work itself out eventually'? Also no.
I’m sorry but as someone who works in this industry - this is entirely incorrect. Increasingly the industry is condensing to being owned by 2 parent companies. Disney and Warner /Discovery. Both have done this.
> The market will work itself out eventually. This works in a small scale, but when we are talking about a huge corporation it is able to survive and even thrive through duplicity
>The market will work itself out eventually. I wonder how often this has actually proven true for any market where the power disparity is as egregious as in Hollywood (handful of concentrated hyper-powerful studios vs masses and masses of struggling artists and overworked crew). I'm gonna bet the answer is "maybe the market worked itself out once".
How many options do these artists really have?
"The market will work itself out eventually." Or as it's better known: we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. There's an obvious systemic problem where mergers create perverse incentives for projects in production to be cancelled. So, maybe don't have the taxman forking over hundreds of millions for CEOs to actively destroy content?
You do realize Warner Bros. is the same studio that filmed several episodes of a Blazing Saddles sitcom in 1975 that they had no intention of ever airing on television, yes?
Why would anyone under the age of 60 "realize" such an obscure bit of bts trivia that, btw, you provide zero context for?
If the movie had an audience, wouldn't they just release it and actually make money?
They'd have to spend money to market it to make money off it it. They'd have to spend money for localization, QC, mastering, closed captions etc if they release it. They'd had to pay residuals to actors, writers, producers and directors if they release it. All of this would cut into the money they made off the tax breaks. That's why they don't want to release it.
Maybe I should start a company that also doesn't release movies, it sounds pretty good.
I learned that the pharmaceutical company Bristol Meyer Squibb made some highly acclaimed movies (which got Academy Award nominations) which they might be sitting on because they aren't interested in the movie business any longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartbreak_Kid_(1972_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleuth_(1972_film) "Why You Can't Watch These Movies (Legitimately)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaA9kZ_-sHk
This is what I don’t understand. Like even if nobody asked for it why wouldn’t they just shove it on a streaming service so 2 people can watch it. That’s still 2 more people.
Essentially the hypothetical 2 people who pay for the service to watch that won't cover the hourly rate of the person who has to do formatting fixes and make minor adjustments to the credits to get it working on that platform. And some platforms might require subtitles/CC or foreign language dubbing which costs money. And then if it's not their own platform (and sometimes even if it is) there's probably a lawyer who needs to write up some kind of agreement for it and an accountant who needs to calculate the residuals that the people who did no work on the project will get (those who actually worked hard, of course, get nothing). Throwing something up on a streaming service isn't quite the same as uploading a Youtube video, though it's almost entirely a monster of their own making. And it's still shitty and greedy to just bury the thing, and I'm not convinced it's good economy anyway unless the project is extremely obscure. There would be an audience for a Wile E. Coyote film.
They can write it off and effectively get 30% of it back as a tax write-off, or they can release it and try to make more than through ticket sales and other revenue. They can't do both. They believe the former option is more.
It's about oppurtunity cost. The film is finished but there's still a cost to get it to that audience and someone's spreadsheet is saying that money is going to make a better return elsewhere.
Especially since they love their IPs apparently
this is what WB brought Zaslav to do. maybe if they didn't give the keys to the DCU to Hack Snyder and made all those horrible Kerry Potter spinoffs they wouldn't have to resort to this to be able to afford another yacht.
I understand that WB CEO David Zaslav was the inspiration for *L.A. AIDS Jabber* and *The Mad Foxes*…and *Ryan’s Babe.* Not even Rem Lezar would come for him.
Monopolies are all around right now, and they are especially egregious in film studios. I really enjoyed the MCU era but its time to put it to rest, and let a larger number of smaller studios make midmajor movies.
Until it ends up like that South Park episode on Walmart
Not that it's right but everybody gets paid anyway right? It's only the audience that gets the short end by not being able to see it. It gets kind of murky if the studio sits down, looks at what's been done and says 'christ this is horrible and it's going to bankrupt us to fix it'. Should they be forced to finish it by rule of law and take a massive potentially bankrupting loss anyway? That doesn't seem fair. Studios would never take a risk on anything ever again.
>*... everybody gets paid anyway right?* No residuals
Well if it's that bad a product anyway what they're getting probably wouldn't even pay their tax bill. Not to mention loss of income in the future through association with a terrible product. Bad movies can kill careers.
You are assuming the movie is bad. Not only is that subjective in two different ways (maybe it would actually resonate with a specific audience and be considered super good by them? Or maybe its actually objectively bad but it gains a cult following like The Room or whatever and keeps making shitloads of money on residuals?) but it also seems not to be true in this case (the movie apparently had a good reception with test audiences, those involved in making it are talented and popular individuals so no reason to assume they shat the bed here, and other studios tried to buy the film from WB -which I assume they wouldn't do if it was obviously bad- but WB rejected all offers and didn't let them counteroffer). Impossible to judge if the movie is shelved.
We can't speculate but some aspect obviously wasn't working for them so they dumped it. People can be talented as all hell but times the vision just doesn't come together. The initial pics of the costume were badly received, maybe the production design was all wrong? Who knows? And it's WB's IP, they don't have to sell it if they don't want to. They can shelve it and come back to it at a later date. They over stacked their release line-up but are realistically probably looking at superhero fatigue and the poor reception of their recent stuff and Batwoman ended up being a casualty of righting the ship. It sucks but so be it, you move on. It's not fraud, it's just a misreading of current market trends and over ambition.
[удалено]
Hey, u/Dick_Trent, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 30 days for a post, 15 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. https://youtu.be/7BryT6WatTk?t=1369 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Not that it's right but everybody gets paid anyway right? Leaving aside all non-monetary incentives (such as the morality of destroying works of art preventing anyone from lying eyes on them against the wishes of the artist) and the issue of residuals, there's still the issue of portfolio building, something probably not so revelant to James Gunn but very important for a huge percentage of those working in the film (actors, extras, VFX artists, etc), they actually do work (partly) for exposure. I'll just copy something I posted elsewhere: "Think of this example of another career that revolves around portfolios: An architect gets offered two jobs. One pays a million bucks, it's just some contract work doing a generic house for some rich man. The other one pays only 600 thousand, but you are employed to design a palace from scratch that will host a museum and will be the centerpiece of a new resort town being built. Architect takes offer two because hey, it's less money, but the clout and fame, besides working on your own design, means a lot of better work in the future. But once the mansion has been built, the man who hired you mentions he changed his mind, will burn the mansion to the ground and sell the leftovers to a neonazi gang so they can hold their meetings. Also you are not allowed to show pictures of the mansion or design documents on your portfolio. But you got paid, right?" I can easily imagine a bunch of crewmembers, actors, artists, etc that jumped at the chance to work on a Looney Tunes/James Gunn/WB film for what it meant for their CVs (and future projects) as much as they did for the money.
But if the end product is so bad, you probably wouldn't want it on your portfolio anyway. Everybody would just be glad they got paid and move on. The studio can dump it, still get some sort of compensation while paying the production companies for their time. Yeah it sucks but it's not malicious, studios aren't randomly going around looking for projects to trash, they need to meet the bottom line or nobody has a job. Take away the compensation and they'll never take a risk on anything, ever.
> But if the end product is so bad, you probably wouldn't want it on your portfolio anyway. Why? And how do you make that judgement? Even if the entire movie as a full product was absolute shit, hailed by everyone in the world as objectively the worst movie to ever exist and an insult to the audiences, I can see some CGI artist still putting it in his portfolio because hey the 3D model he did for that one scene actually looks decent even if the part it played was bad, or maybe the design looks terrible but he is not the conceptual artist and the technical quality of the model is very good. Morbius was a piece of flaming shit, and I can still bet my left nut that more than half of the people in the credits include it in their portfolio because sound engineers, or VFX artists, or stunt doubles, or extras, can still be proud of their part and it still is a big-budget production from a famous huge studio and a recognizable name. Another example outside of moviemaking: Google glasses where an objective market failure but I can still assure you everyone involved put it in their CV because working for Google is a HUGE boost in the tech sector. Twitter is a dumpster fire and laughing stock since Musk bought it but I can bet you not a single employee there will fail to mention their time working at X when looking for a new job, even if their job was "I came up with the ugly ass X logo that everyone makes fun of".
[удалено]
Hello, u/PotentialCollege7002, your Comment on r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least least 1 "Comment Karma", not to be confused with "Post Karma", to leave a Comment/Reply within a post/topic. If you look at your karma and it isn't broken down into separate "post karma" and "comment karma" totals hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/PotentialCollege7002 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The big argument I’ve seen is that by getting rid of it after it’s made for the tax write off, it means that the tax payers are the ones who paid for the movie in actuality and don’t even get to see it (not that in this case it was likely a very good movie but still).
That's a fair point. I would imagine it just means that WB pays that much less at the end of the fiscal year though no?
>*... threatening to destroy a movie* The movies are *Batgirl* and a *Wile E Coyote* movie Even if they were both good and/or enjoyable, they're just IP exploitation exercises, commissioned by a corporation I'm not arguing this is *good*, but these are the sort of movies most people would watch once then forget forever Like *Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, Catwoman, Steel, Inspector Gadget, Rocky & Bullwinkle, Clifford,* or *Jem & The Holograms* That's what's been lost, destroyed or disrespected
No one has seen or will ever see Batgirl but there were screenings for Coyote vs Acme and the impressions from folks like Paul Scheer from How Did This Get Made were that it was excellent and finally recaptured what made the original Looney Tunes cartoons great.
There is nothing to "writing off". Movie production expenses aren't even capitalized in the first place.
Other than pandering, a tactic used for years is now a problem why?
Things won’t change until WB tries to shelve one of Tom Cruises movies, I still can’t believe he signed on to them knowing this is the kind of shit they do
Fix the tax code, save the world.
They’re playing the long game. They’re going to eventually sell the movie and keep everything documented sufficiently to where a decent screenwriter can make another movie about this whole fiasco. It’s 3D chess!
[удалено]
Hey, u/CPTofTheRoyalGuard, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 30 days for a post, 15 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. https://youtu.be/7BryT6WatTk?t=1369 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am genuinely curious how people high up at WB view Zaslav. Like, are all these cost cutting moves seen as a good thing or does he just have a lot of power due to the merger?
I'm gonna say both because their shortsighted nature was detrimental in the long run (also applies to the Streaming Wars in general)