4 ms·

Writing off a business expenditure just reduces your tax liability. It is similar to putting money into R&D for a potential product and then not producing the p

Writing off a business expenditure just reduces your tax liability. It is similar to putting money into R&D for a potential product and then not producing the product. Yeah you tried, paid consultants, paid for hardware, labor, etc.. but realized that it wouldn’t workout as planned or wouldn’t end up being profitable.

philipov 3y ago
It's more like doing the R&D and producing the product, but then deciding not to sell it. In fact, it's literally that. You make it sound more reasonable than it should because you stops things at the research phase rather than after producing the entire movie.
- ed_elliott_asc 3y ago
  I think it is good that someone has said that it is too poor quality to put out - refreshing even.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    > The difference here is that Coyote vs. Acme is a completed movie with very good test scores, 14 points above the family norm.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  As noted elsewhere in this thread, production is barely half the cost of returns. Marketing is the other half. What you see here is a rejection of the sunk-cost fallacy.
  - marak830 3y ago
    I'm struggling to see how their costs for releasing with 0 marketing are that much higher than scrapping.
    - isthatafact 3y ago
      I agree with you. The article even mentions that streaming services were interested in buying it. I do not understand why trash it rather than sell it to someone for a modest amount. Why did they spend the money to finish it? Are there some tax regulations that incentivize it? or is this just bad management? As awful as the movie sounds to me, I want to see it now.
    - tremon 3y ago
      The cost of releasing with 0 marketing is that they forego the $30M tax write-off.
      - stu2b50 3y ago
        It doesn't. A loss is a loss.
      - lupire 3y ago
        Releasing the movie delays the write-off until the film decays in value, not foregoes it.
    - rtpg 3y ago
      Movie theaters aren’t going to put a movie into circulation with 0 marketing. Those are slots that are available for other things.
      - galleywest200 3y ago
        Then put it on a streaming service?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        rewgs 3y ago
        This just seems to obvious to me, even when doing the math: Max costs an average of $12.99/month. $30 million / $12.99 = 2.3 million. Max has over 95 million monthly subscribers, and one has to imagine that ~2% of the subscribers would pay for a single month of Max in order to see this movie. After that one month, the movie's made its budget back without having to market it at all. Like, come on, it's the age of the internet -- if you really don't want to market the film at all, just Tweet out "Hey this movie is out now on Max, go watch it" and you're sure to reach a decent amount of people. I'm sure there's an argument against what I just said that it creates the perception of their original content made for Max being low quality or something, but that can't be worse than the now extremely accurate perception that creatives can't trust that their work will be released by WD, and thus would prefer to work for other studios. I myself work in Hollywood and have absolutely zero desire to work on a WB project after Batgirl and now this.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  Principle photography is done for this film, but it's effects heavy and there's nothing to suggest the effects work is anywhere near done, and releasing stuff also costs money. You seem to feel like this is a completed master sat on the shelf, but it's likely not more than 60% complete to something that could be released.
  - Cockbrand 3y ago
    I'd assume that it's at least almost complete, as the article states that there have been test viewings. Also, the Wikipedia page [0] says that the the film had been completed, so I'd assume that at least a preliminary fully edited version exists. Maybe my definition of "completed" isn't entirely accurate here, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_vs._Acme#Cancellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_vs._Acme#Cancellation
    - Mindwipe 3y ago
      > I'd assume that it's at least almost complete, as the article states that there have been test viewings. Some of the reporting today is suggesting that the film is a lot closer to being completed than previously reported, so fair enough if so. But for what it's worth it is very common for test viewings to include extremely unfinished animated work, including pencil storyboards with some voice acting over it.
      - Cockbrand 3y ago
        I've never seen a test viewing, so I apparently had a somewhat naïve idea. Thanks for the heads up!

philipov 3y ago

It's more like doing the R&D and producing the product, but then deciding not to sell it. In fact, it's literally that. You make it sound more reasonable than it should because you stops things at the research phase rather than after producing the entire movie.

ed_elliott_asc 3y ago
I think it is good that someone has said that it is too poor quality to put out - refreshing even.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > The difference here is that Coyote vs. Acme is a completed movie with very good test scores, 14 points above the family norm.
rokkitmensch 3y ago
As noted elsewhere in this thread, production is barely half the cost of returns. Marketing is the other half. What you see here is a rejection of the sunk-cost fallacy.
- marak830 3y ago
  I'm struggling to see how their costs for releasing with 0 marketing are that much higher than scrapping.
  - isthatafact 3y ago
    I agree with you. The article even mentions that streaming services were interested in buying it. I do not understand why trash it rather than sell it to someone for a modest amount. Why did they spend the money to finish it? Are there some tax regulations that incentivize it? or is this just bad management? As awful as the movie sounds to me, I want to see it now.
  - tremon 3y ago
    The cost of releasing with 0 marketing is that they forego the $30M tax write-off.
    - stu2b50 3y ago
      It doesn't. A loss is a loss.
    - lupire 3y ago
      Releasing the movie delays the write-off until the film decays in value, not foregoes it.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    Movie theaters aren’t going to put a movie into circulation with 0 marketing. Those are slots that are available for other things.
    - galleywest200 3y ago
      Then put it on a streaming service?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - rewgs 3y ago
        This just seems to obvious to me, even when doing the math: Max costs an average of $12.99/month. $30 million / $12.99 = 2.3 million. Max has over 95 million monthly subscribers, and one has to imagine that ~2% of the subscribers would pay for a single month of Max in order to see this movie. After that one month, the movie's made its budget back without having to market it at all. Like, come on, it's the age of the internet -- if you really don't want to market the film at all, just Tweet out "Hey this movie is out now on Max, go watch it" and you're sure to reach a decent amount of people. I'm sure there's an argument against what I just said that it creates the perception of their original content made for Max being low quality or something, but that can't be worse than the now extremely accurate perception that creatives can't trust that their work will be released by WD, and thus would prefer to work for other studios. I myself work in Hollywood and have absolutely zero desire to work on a WB project after Batgirl and now this.
Mindwipe 3y ago
Principle photography is done for this film, but it's effects heavy and there's nothing to suggest the effects work is anywhere near done, and releasing stuff also costs money. You seem to feel like this is a completed master sat on the shelf, but it's likely not more than 60% complete to something that could be released.
- Cockbrand 3y ago
  I'd assume that it's at least almost complete, as the article states that there have been test viewings. Also, the Wikipedia page [0] says that the the film had been completed, so I'd assume that at least a preliminary fully edited version exists. Maybe my definition of "completed" isn't entirely accurate here, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_vs._Acme#Cancellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_vs._Acme#Cancellation
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    > I'd assume that it's at least almost complete, as the article states that there have been test viewings. Some of the reporting today is suggesting that the film is a lot closer to being completed than previously reported, so fair enough if so. But for what it's worth it is very common for test viewings to include extremely unfinished animated work, including pencil storyboards with some voice acting over it.
    - Cockbrand 3y ago
      I've never seen a test viewing, so I apparently had a somewhat naïve idea. Thanks for the heads up!