3 ms·

You can reasonably imagine a movie that has negative brand value. In a ridiculous scenario, imagine if the first attempt at Iron Man 2 was 90 minutes of Robert

You can reasonably imagine a movie that has negative brand value. In a ridiculous scenario, imagine if the first attempt at Iron Man 2 was 90 minutes of Robert Downey Jr engaged in hardcore sex and shouting racial slurs at people. Even if some people are interested in watching (or even buying) this, it should be clear that a studio has the right to destroy it. The studio spent $100m to make this thing. Maybe a competing studio would like to buy it for $50m so they can destroy the MCU or whatever. But the studio considers the brand harm to be so great that there is no way that they'll sell it. Should the studio have to artificially reduce their expenses by $50m because of this potential buyer even though the studio in no way agreed to this price?

ThinkBeat 3y ago
You raise a valid point that I had not considered when it comes to reputation. I agree that the studio has the right to destroy films. I do think that is unfortunate when they do. I dont think, but I have no data so its pure speculation, that at least the majority of movies that get destroyed would not have much of a influence on the studio's reputation. Perhaps more for actors or directors. On your second point I dont quite follow. In my post my suggestion is that after the studio has received its tax credits, the film would be available in the public domain for free. Post tax break the movie has little utility for the movie. This may require an adjustment in tax law. I am in no way well versed in that and I have little idea how it works. The tax code could be amended for this scenario that the work being used for tax credit does not have to be destroyed. (Again your 1st point is valid and a concern)
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  It isn't a tax credit. It is an offset on profit, same as if the studio spent a bunch of money on preproduction and never got to the principle photography phase or if the studio spent a bunch of money on production but stopped during editing.
  - ThinkBeat 3y ago
    ah ok. I didn't get that right. but it does save on taxes.

ThinkBeat 3y ago

You raise a valid point that I had not considered when it comes to reputation. I agree that the studio has the right to destroy films. I do think that is unfortunate when they do. I dont think, but I have no data so its pure speculation, that at least the majority of movies that get destroyed would not have much of a influence on the studio's reputation. Perhaps more for actors or directors. On your second point I dont quite follow. In my post my suggestion is that after the studio has received its tax credits, the film would be available in the public domain for free. Post tax break the movie has little utility for the movie. This may require an adjustment in tax law. I am in no way well versed in that and I have little idea how it works. The tax code could be amended for this scenario that the work being used for tax credit does not have to be destroyed. (Again your 1st point is valid and a concern)

UncleMeat 3y ago
It isn't a tax credit. It is an offset on profit, same as if the studio spent a bunch of money on preproduction and never got to the principle photography phase or if the studio spent a bunch of money on production but stopped during editing.
- ThinkBeat 3y ago
  ah ok. I didn't get that right. but it does save on taxes.