2 ms·

Look you’re arguing that they should throw good money after bad. And both of us are just speculating on what the actual numbers are. We all agree that at some p

Look you’re arguing that they should throw good money after bad. And both of us are just speculating on what the actual numbers are. We all agree that at some point before this, if they cancel the project and write it off, no one cares. So all this boils down to is whether or not you believe their accountants suddenly become wrong or liars about their expected expenses and returns the moment the “final” edit is committed to film.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> Look you’re arguing that they should throw good money after bad. Yes, when something is already done, the vast majority of the time you should throw enough good money at it for delivery. Especially when you can make a contract to guarantee you get paid more than that. Upfront, even! > So all this boils down to is whether or not you believe their accountants suddenly become wrong or liars about their expected expenses and returns the moment the “final” edit is committed to film. It's not "suddenly". The necessary amount of "good money" to get the movie released drops precipitously as it approaches completion. At this point the "good money" is basically nothing. There are lots of companies that would happily pay for it.
- tpmoney 3y ago
  So then I have to ask, if it’s so easy to just sell it off, spending next to nothing and getting more than the tax write off, what if your proposed reason for why they aren’t doing that? Why have they chosen to lose (according to the article in question) $50 million dollars when according to you they can just do nothing at all except give it to someone else and instantly turn that loss into a gain (or at least a lesser loss). And if it’s that easy, why are the studios accountants so blind to this easy solution which is so obvious to you? There is no world in which “because tax write offs” make sense as an answer to this question if your claims of being able to turn around if not a profit than a smaller loss so easily are true.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > So then I have to ask, if it’s so easy to just sell it off, spending next to nothing and getting more than the tax write off, what if your proposed reason for why they aren’t doing that? Yes, I have been asking the same question. None of these articles explain the actual accounting that's happening. Something is more complicated here. But I don't think it's "it would cost too many millions of dollars just to sell"

Dylan16807 3y ago

> Look you’re arguing that they should throw good money after bad. Yes, when something is already done, the vast majority of the time you should throw enough good money at it for delivery. Especially when you can make a contract to guarantee you get paid more than that. Upfront, even! > So all this boils down to is whether or not you believe their accountants suddenly become wrong or liars about their expected expenses and returns the moment the “final” edit is committed to film. It's not "suddenly". The necessary amount of "good money" to get the movie released drops precipitously as it approaches completion. At this point the "good money" is basically nothing. There are lots of companies that would happily pay for it.

tpmoney 3y ago
So then I have to ask, if it’s so easy to just sell it off, spending next to nothing and getting more than the tax write off, what if your proposed reason for why they aren’t doing that? Why have they chosen to lose (according to the article in question) $50 million dollars when according to you they can just do nothing at all except give it to someone else and instantly turn that loss into a gain (or at least a lesser loss). And if it’s that easy, why are the studios accountants so blind to this easy solution which is so obvious to you? There is no world in which “because tax write offs” make sense as an answer to this question if your claims of being able to turn around if not a profit than a smaller loss so easily are true.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > So then I have to ask, if it’s so easy to just sell it off, spending next to nothing and getting more than the tax write off, what if your proposed reason for why they aren’t doing that? Yes, I have been asking the same question. None of these articles explain the actual accounting that's happening. Something is more complicated here. But I don't think it's "it would cost too many millions of dollars just to sell"