3 ms·
Even then it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. From what I understand, everyone directly involved in the making of this film is proud of the work and
by aquova 3y ago
Even then it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. From what I understand, everyone directly involved in the making of this film is proud of the work and wants it to be released, it's just the bean counters and executives (who I would not consider the "creators" of the film) who want to destroy the creation for ego and tax reasons.
- denkmoon 3y agoWhy bring ego into it? It's just bottom line thinking, that's all. Is there any good reason to think ego is a part of it?
- aquova 3y agoThe article itself puts it forward. > The offer to sell the film was, to put it mildly, not undertaken in good faith. It appears that the company would rather take less money by writing off the movie than sell it for even a few dollars more than that, because they might risk having a rival turn it into a success, which would further embarrass them for never even having tried to market it themselves If it was really bottom line thinking, they'd accept the $70M, more than double what they'd get in tax benefits, and have another distributor release the film. Instead, they'd rather trash the film than risk looking like fools if they allowed another company to reap the benefits for releasing a hit.
- feedforward 3y agoYou're right, it's just part of the absurdity of Rand's vision. In the real world people do work and create something, but some bean counters figure out the heirs who own the majority stake of a company can make a few more bucks by destroying the thing, so it is done.
- jowea 3y agoWhich is also part of the argument on TFA, bringing what in part of Europe is known as "moral rights of artists".