Batgirl (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

I remember reading things about how Justice League was going before Snyder left, that WB said it was “unwatchable” or whatever, but the Snyder Cut ended up being really great (IMO). Unfortunately we’ll never know what a final product of this Batgirl movie would look like and be able to judge ourselves, but I would NOT be giving Warner the benefit of the doubt.

There's also the fact that Adil & Bilall have a really good track record. Bad Boys for Life is my favorite of that trilogy, and they set the style and tone for the critically-acclaimed first season of "Ms. Marvel".

I can see how their Batgirl might not have the scope or scale of the DC theatrical features, or the grim-dark serious tone. But I bet it would have been entertaining for what it was.

 

[Jake Lipson]

My internet service goes completely out for two days and this is what I come back to?! Good grief.

This is a real bummer for everybody involved with the movie. Leslie Grace was absolutely phenomenal in In the Heights, which deserved a wider audience than it got. I was so glad when she got this role because I figured it would make her into the star that In the Heights should have. Hopefully something great comes along for her because I think she is awesome and I really want to see whatever she does next.

 

[JimmyO]

The lingering question in my mind is, if a bidder were to come along and wanted to buy the film, couldn't they do that? So long as the price they paid included enough cash to undo the write-off that they will be claiming for the unseen film (repay the IRS any tax benefit they gained), plus a tidy bit of profit for the studio? Surely any tax benefit they receive could be repaid if a buyer came along.. isn't that the case?

I am not in any way suggesting there's a chance of this, of course.

 

[Malcolm R]

It's my understanding that they'd have to make any deals in the next week or so, as the tax write-off option expires mid-month as part of their acquisition process. But once that's done, there's no putting it back together.

The Batgirl situation makes a certain amount of sense if they have different plans for the DC Universe going forward and characters/plots that might appear in that film would be contrary to those plans.

Pulling the plug on the Scoob! sequel, which was also reportedly almost complete, makes less sense to me. It seems unlikely there are plans for the Scooby-Doo franchise on the level of a DC Universe that would warrant tossing this film in the trash when the money's already spent. But I guess the point of a write-off is that you get that money back in the form of a tax credit? So I guess they figured getting that $$ back in the bank is more advantageous to putting the film on HBOMax and home video.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

When they explain this it seems like this is in a large part due to the thought that whomever was making decisions at Warner were not too bright...

Zaslav is trying to fix the mess that was left by the former heads of WB who infamously implemented the same-day-and-date release strategy on HBO Max during the height of the pandemic. That’s a financial mistake WB is still paying for today which has made Zaslav have a heavy focus on theatrically released films.

 

[Alex...]

The director has shared this pic from the canned film.

https://collider.com/batgirl-image-michael-keaton-leslie-grace-adil-el-arbi/

 

[RobertMG]

The lingering question in my mind is, if a bidder were to come along and wanted to buy the film, couldn't they do that? So long as the price they paid included enough cash to undo the write-off that they will be claiming for the unseen film (repay the IRS any tax benefit they gained), plus a tidy bit of profit for the studio? Surely any tax benefit they receive could be repaid if a buyer came along.. isn't that the case?

I am not in any way suggesting there's a chance of this, of course.

This might be a real hoax --- word of mouth is building and demand will build watch it gets released

 

[Jake Lipson]

watch it gets released

Not if they're taking a tax write-off.

if a bidder were to come along and wanted to buy the film, couldn't they do that?

Warner Bros. will never sell a film involving DC IP to another studio. DC is their most valuable IP and they are going to retain control of it.

I understand the desire on the part of the fans to see this. I loved Leslie Grace in In the Heights and I would have seen this for her no question. But it is Warner's movie. They paid for it. They own it. They can decide what to do with it.

 

[JimmyO]

Not if they're taking a tax write-off.


Warner Bros. will never sell a film involving DC IP to another studio. DC is their most valuable IP and they are going to retain control of it.

I understand the desire on the part of the fans to see this. I loved Leslie Grace in In the Heights and I would have seen this for her no question. But it is Warner's movie. They paid for it. They own it. They can decide what to do with it.

Ok, so you're saying that they can sell it if they want to, but you think that's unlikely.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Ok, so you're saying that they can sell it if they want to, but you think that's unlikely.

They would have the right to sell it if they want to and they don't take the tax write-off.

But they have chosen to take a tax write-off and not release the film. I'm saying that we as fans need to accept that.

 

[LeoA]

I thought Variety was reporting that it was a "write-down"? That's not the same thing as a "write-off".

 

[Dave Moritz]

So with 70 million - 100 million spent on this film and now WB pulling the release sighting reasons for to movie scoring dismally in screenings. That WB chose to put off releasing the movie not wanting to further damage the DC brand. So while it might be shelved for now it sounds like it could be released at a later date with maybe some editing to make changes. What ever those changes may be and what caused the film to score dismally in screenings? Also is this the real reason the film was shelved and not being released as planned?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

So with 70 million - 100 million spent on this film and now WB pulling the release sighting reasons for to movie scoring dismally in screenings.

I don't think we've seen anybody go on the record about dismal test screenings. I've only seen "unnamed sources" state that in articles like the one in the Post. It's entirely possible that there were dismal test screenings, but it's equally possible that the people on the Discovery side are feeding BS to the media to justify a cost cutting measure that was going to happen no matter what.

That WB chose to put off releasing the movie not wanting to further damage the DC brand.

David Zaslav is on the record as saying this. What's unclear is whether Batgirl was shelved because of quality issues, or because the new leadership isn't interested in pursuing mid-budget direct-to-streaming movies. If it's about protecting DC as a theatrical brand with blockbuster-level spectacle, that has wider implications.

So while it might be shelved for now it sounds like it could be released at a later date with maybe some editing to make changes.

Not if they're using the film as a tax write-off. A tax write-off indicates a worthless investment. If the asset generates value, it's not worthless.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think it is also worth noting that just because this movie is dead doesn't mean that Batgirl as a character is dead necessarily.

WB could very easily start over from scratch and make a Batgirl movie that is more in line with the vision that Zazlav and his team are developing for DC. To be totally clear, I'm not saying that they would use anything from this film at all. They have decided to burn this one down. This movie was greenlit by a different regime which had different goals for the company. But it is possible for the new owners to redevelop something completely new which uses this character at some point in the future if they so choose.

 

[Museum Pieces]

Given the publicity around this film, if they finished it and released it theatrically, I have to believe it would make 70 to 100 million, at least. I realize distribution costs are significant. But movies with a 60% test rating have been released before and done quite well.

I wonder if this is a pissing contest. It's a damn shame, for sure, whatever it is.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Given the publicity around this film, if they finished it and released it theatrically, I have to believe it would make 70 to 100 million, at least.

"Publicity around the film?" They hadn't started marketing it yet. There has been no publicity around the film prior to the news that it has been shelved. The general audience (the kind of people who don't spend their time reading movie news and talking on boards such as HTF like we do) is probably not aware of this. The online fandom does, but we can't get a movie to profitability on our own.

I wonder if this is a pissing contest. It's a damn shame, for sure, whatever it is.

I think it is very clear what it is. This movie was developed, budgeted and greenlit for a specific purpose (HBO Max) by the previous Warner Bros. regime. David Zazlav is not interested in making mid-budgeted DC fare for HBO Max. His goal is to ensure that DC is a premium theatrical brand, and this film as-is does not fit into his plans. There is always fallout anytime two big companies merge. This is just the most extreme example in a while.

 

[Keith Cobby]

It would interesting to know if it is just a terrible film because unless Warners say to the contrary, this is what the public will think. Whatever the reason (it is probably a multitude), it is a career threatening film for Leslie Grace and the directors.

 

[mskaye]

Why Warner Bros. Killed ‘Batgirl’: Inside the Decision Not to Release the DC Movie

'Batgirl' was nearly finished and building awareness among fans. Why would Warner Bros. Discovery throw it all away? Taxes.

variety.com

The Dish: What’s Behind The ‘Batgirl’ & ‘Scoob!’ Discard? David Zaslav’s Abject Rejection Of Jason Kilar’s HBO Max Strategy

Why did Warner Bros scrap Batgirl and Scoob! Holiday Haunt? The cancellation by Warner Bros of two made-for-HBO Max streaming movies came as a shock to the town. There are several threads here, but…

deadline.com

I guess it is not available for direct to home video ether. That wasn't even mentioned in the articles I have seen.

View attachment 147155

Yes it was, and in many articles.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

"Publicity around the film?" They hadn't started marketing it yet. There has been no publicity around the film prior to the news that it has been shelved. The general audience (the kind of people who don't spend their time reading movie news and talking on boards such as HTF like we do) is probably not aware of this.

This topic has gotten lotsa coverage in mainstream media. It's not restricted to movie nerds.

 

[dpippel]

This topic has gotten lotsa coverage in mainstream media. It's not restricted to movie nerds.

I think a good portion of that media attention was due to Michael Keaton getting back into the Batsuit for this movie. It was a pretty big deal, both for this film and for The Flash, that's received a lot of coverage.