Batgirl (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Sam Favate]

That’s fucking outrageous. There’s no justification for this. All because they don’t want to jeopardize their tax write-off status. Wow.

Zaslav is destroying this company. He’s also behind ugly changes at CNN (another Warner company). I’ve never been a fan of CNN, but what he’s doing there is equally inexcusable.

Warner was one of the great movie companies. It deserves better.

 

[Malcolm R]

If they didn't want to run afoul of the IRS in the future if the footage leaked or started surfacing somewhere, they didn't have much choice. Harsh, but likely a business reality. They're not going to jeopardize nearly $100 million over a few people's feelings.

The producer of Scoob! 2 said they went ahead with recording the score even after the film was shut down. I'd think those sessions have already been deleted, too, in addition to the film itself.

I agree this is going to make relationships with talent and producers tenuous in the near future. It'll depend on how they act after the great tax purge.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If they didn't want to run afoul of the IRS in the future if the footage leaked or started surfacing somewhere, they didn't have much choice. Harsh, but likely a business reality. They're not going to jeopardize nearly $100 million over a few people's feelings.

The producer of Scoob! 2 said they went ahead with recording the score even after the film was shut down. I'd think those sessions have already been deleted, too, in addition to the film itself.

I agree this is going to make relationships with talent and producers tenuous in the near future. It'll depend on how they act after the great tax purge.

Yeah, I don’t understand the continued confusion here - in order to receive this special tax incentive, it has to be destroyed. You can’t claim something is useless for tax purposes and then.. use it.

As for talent relations - Zaslav has been going on a full court tour, reaching out to prominent talent managers and key industry people expressing a desire not only to work with them but to ensure that their work is seen theatrically. They want to go back to making giant theatrical releases meant to be seen in theaters, which is what most of those creatives want.

Discarding a made for TV movie is not the end of the world some people are making it out to be.

 

[dpippel]

Yeah, I don’t understand the continued confusion here - in order to receive this special tax incentive, it has to be destroyed. You can’t claim something is useless for tax purposes and then.. use it.

There's a big difference between not using something and destroying it, isn't there?

 

[Jake Lipson]

That’s fucking outrageous. There’s no justification for this. All because they don’t want to jeopardize their tax write-off status. Wow.

I know that this is an unpopular opinion. But it was not the directors' footage. Yes, they shot it. But WB paid for it. The directors do not have any ownership rights to their footage. If WB wants to delete it, that is their prerogative.

The situation sucks. But WB is within their rights to do this.

 

[bujaki]

Irving Thalberg (at MGM) used to occasionally view a finished film and destroy it if he deemed it unsalvageable. Sometimes he'd order a total reshoot of the film with a new director and cast, or he'd just write it off. This was in the 1920s, so there's nothing new under the sun.

 

[Worth]

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the directors claim their access to the servers containing the footage was blocked - it doesn’t say anything about it being deleted/destroyed.

‘Batgirl’ Directors Reveal They Have No Footage of Shelved Film, Still Hope for Release One Day

Filmmakers Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah said that the film would still need a lot of work if it was ever to be released.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There's a big difference between not using something and destroying it, isn't there?

True, and as per the post just above, it may not have been actually destroyed. I don’t know what the exact tax code requires in a case like this. But it wouldn’t strike me as outrageous if the material needed to be rendered unusable in order to claim the benefit. Unfortunate for people who wanted to see it (myself included)? Absolutely. But outrageous from a technical legal or tax perspective? It seems like a reasonable requirement.

 

[Chip_HT]

If they didn't want to run afoul of the IRS in the future if the footage leaked or started surfacing somewhere, they didn't have much choice. Harsh, but likely a business reality. They're not going to jeopardize nearly $100 million over a few people's feelings.

 

[dpippel]

True, and as per the post just above, it may not have been actually destroyed. I don’t know what the exact tax code requires in a case like this. But it wouldn’t strike me as outrageous if the material needed to be rendered unusable in order to claim the benefit. Unfortunate for people who wanted to see it (myself included)? Absolutely. But outrageous from a technical legal or tax perspective? It seems like a reasonable requirement.

Well, it seems pretty outrageous and gratuitous to me. It's not like the IRS wouldn't KNOW if the film was released by WB at some point down the road, and I'm sure there are provisions in place for that contingency. So why require that it actually be destroyed (if it indeed has been)? The whole thing just smells like low tide on a hot day.

 

[TonyD]

I know that this is an unpopular opinion. But it was not the directors' footage. Yes, they shot it. But WB paid for it. The directors do not have any ownership rights to their footage. If WB wants to delete it, that is their prerogative.

The situation sucks. But WB is within their rights to do this.

Feels to me like just because they have a right to or ability to doesn’t mean they should.

 

[mskaye]

Feels to me like just because they have a right to or ability to doesn’t mean they should.

Obviously written by someone that isn't very familiar with the history of the entertainment business.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

I agree this is going to make relationships with talent and producers tenuous in the near future. It'll depend on how they act after the great tax purge.

If the actors got paid, I doubt they care. A lot of actors don't watch their own movies.

 

[Sam Favate]

If the actors got paid, I doubt they care. A lot of actors don't watch their own movies.

Of course they care. The release of a movie, even on a streaming service, puts them in the public eye, not only with their performance but the press they do, the magazine covers, etc. it raises their profile, which usually means more work for them. Another director or producer sees a film like Batgirl and says “Wow, that Leslie Grace would be perfect for this movie I’m making.”

Not to mention that some actors, directors, etc., get paid based on the performance of the film, so shelving it means a substantially smaller payday.

What Warner has done here is bad business practice in pretty much every way. Sure, they’ll get a one-time tax write off, but that’s a very short-sighted way to get a benefit from this.

 

[TonyD]

Obviously written by someone that isn't very familiar with the history of the entertainment business.

Yeah I’ve never even heard of the entertainment business.
I just press a button and movies pop up on my tv device.
This entertainment business, can you explain it to me?

 

[Jeffrey D]

Of course they care. The release of a movie, even on a streaming service, puts them in the public eye, not only with their performance but the press they do, the magazine covers, etc. it raises their profile, which usually means more work for them. Another director or producer sees a film like Batgirl and says “Wow, that Leslie Grace would be perfect for this movie I’m making.”

Not to mention that some actors, directors, etc., get paid based on the performance of the film, so shelving it means a substantially smaller payday.

What Warner has done here is bad business practice in pretty much every way. Sure, they’ll get a one-time tax write off, but that’s a very short-sighted way to get a benefit from this.

Your point brings up an interesting question- at a site like IMDB, do the performers and filmmakers get credit for a TV show/film that never gets released?

 

[mskaye]

If the actors got paid, I doubt they care. A lot of actors don't watch their own movies.

That's a bit of a cynical over generalization. I don't think there are any winners in this situation. It's fairly unprecedented apart from TV pilots that were shot and never picked up. Or shows that were canceled after a few airings and then confined to the archives...or Broadway plays that were canceled abruptly after one or two previews. No one asks permission to do this. Feelings get hurt. We are living in unprecedented times.

Your point brings up an interesting question- at a site like IMDB, do the performers and filmmakers get credit for a TV show/film that never gets released?

Sure. But what difference does that make? It's a list on a website. Yay i'm on IMDB but no one will ever see my performance BUT I get the credit for it. But if you are a sound person hoping to use it as a resume booster - your work is invisible and will never be seen (or heard in this case.)

 

[Alex...]

 

[ponset]

Maybe someone will sneak a camera in and record the movie and then leak it for the world to see.

 

[Alex...]