Amazon etc. make lots of profits, but move them to places where they don't have to pay tax on them. Seems like it's the same thing, but it isn't.Nah, amazon never makes any profits either.
Taxes are for poor people.
Amazon etc. make lots of profits, but move them to places where they don't have to pay tax on them. Seems like it's the same thing, but it isn't.Nah, amazon never makes any profits either.
Taxes are for poor people.
I don't think it's just Hollywood here. I think, in this case, it's a way for companies that go through structural changes - mergers, acquisitions - to obtain some tax benefit from stopping incomplete projects previously initiated by one of the partners in the merger or the acquired company. I can see some practical benefit of taking such a step, but, yeah, that kind of tax rule indicates how preferential the tax code can be toward corporations and their interests and methods. But I suspect that it's not just the US tax system that offers similar benefits considering how pro-corporation plenty of other governments are.There's some very strange rules in the US tax system, if that's the case. I'm sure the intention was not to incentivise NOT releasing films.
Still, Hollywood seems to live in a world of its own when it comes to accounting, since none of the films ever make a profit (hence big stars insisting on a share of the gross, rather than the net). Anywhere else that would be false accounting and/or fraud. So I guess nothing should surprise me.
If the poor reviews are truly part of the reason, and considering the company's silence on this we will never know, test screenings are common to gauge audience reactions and will frequently prompt reshoots/rewrites and further test screenings. This means, for better or for worse, everyone who sees a movie is impacted by those reviews.By whose standards though? Some random critics and movie goers? I never pay attention to what these people say. I just think Waner/DC are just mis-managed.
That was a great summation. I didnt realize that Warner had the rights for so long. DC v. Marvel, I couldnt pick. But yeah, I'd at least be a VOD purchaser for Batgirl.Considering what's coming down the line I would much rather have watched Batgirl than either Flash or Black Adam.
I have to disagree. Crappy movies get released all of the time and the studios can't be blind to how bad they are and that they won't make a profit. From what I've been reading Batgirl has the largest or one of the largest financial investments (90 million dollars or more) to not be released, it seems unprecedented. Couple that with the bad press around Ezra Miller and I doubt it's a profit motive decision because as it stands Flash probably won't put up the numbers it might have a few years ago.money talks. if they thought the movie stunk but would make money they would release it . its not the only rumored show that might get cut (last of us and a few others).
They dont want to do what netflix did and greenlight a bunch of stuff and then lose money. That got Netflix in a lot of financial trouble
the reviews good or bad are irrelevant when you are talking that kind of money.
i think its a brilliant move