To be clear, Batgirl cost 90 million and was already completed. First time I’ve heard of a movie this high profile, that’s already finished, be shelved.
To be clear, Batgirl cost 90 million and was already completed. First time I’ve heard of a movie this high profile, that’s already finished, be shelved.
That seems odd. I get that post-production has costs, but are they enough to justify mothballing all the shot footage? Guessing the amount that HBO would pay for the film isn't expected to recoup...
That seems odd. I get that post-production has costs, but are they enough to justify mothballing all the shot footage? Guessing the amount that HBO would pay for the film isn't expected to recoup the cost, but if that was the case why greenlight the movie at all?
Could also be another Hollywood Accounting trick to magically meet the cost-cutting amount desired. Article states costs have hit $90M, accountants can make that magically bloom to $190M.
I read on the New York Post and NPR interviewing the same critic that the film completely bombed its screening tests. From my understanding, film marketing budget is around ~50% of production...
I read on the New York Post and NPR interviewing the same critic that the film completely bombed its screening tests.
From my understanding, film marketing budget is around ~50% of production budget. They probably calculated that every dollar of marketing spent yields less than a dollar in earnings given the screening test results — plus damage to the IP. So best to cut losses and swallow a $90m loss than to throw more good money after bad.
Reminds me of how the last season Game of Thrones destroyed the franchise's value. No one talks about it anymore. Little merchandise gets sold anymore. It most likely would have been much more profitable to have not released the last season and left it incomplete.
Another article posted here - https://tild.es/125n - brings to light some of the accounting practices, but also mentions that the film was "completed (save some reshoots)".
Another article posted here - https://tild.es/125n - brings to light some of the accounting practices, but also mentions that the film was "completed (save some reshoots)".
This seems like it would be extremely damaging to WB's relationship with talent. This is a $70 million movie starring Michael Keaton, that's not small potatoes. If that can just get shelved by the...
This seems like it would be extremely damaging to WB's relationship with talent. This is a $70 million movie starring Michael Keaton, that's not small potatoes. If that can just get shelved by the studio whenever they want, why would talented writers and directors want to work on other DC movies instead of with the well oiled Marvel machine, which for all its shortcomings at least... releases the movies people work on.
On the one hand, I'm sure many actors want to know their work is released. On the other hand, there are many actors that claim to never watch their own movies/material. Even without a release, and...
On the one hand, I'm sure many actors want to know their work is released. On the other hand, there are many actors that claim to never watch their own movies/material. Even without a release, and since "points" is a scam, they got paid. I can't count the number of times I've done work and nothing come of it. It does feel like wasted time, but I didn't do it for free.
Actors like Keaton, maybe. This was a potentially star making role for the lead, not to mention the behind the scenes folk who depend on royalties and strong prior credits for future work who have...
Actors like Keaton, maybe. This was a potentially star making role for the lead, not to mention the behind the scenes folk who depend on royalties and strong prior credits for future work who have spent years on something that just will not release now.
Zaslav has made no secret of reversing Kilar’s strategy and committing to releasing first-run feature films in theaters before putting them on HBO Max.
“Batgirl” found itself on the bad end of that decision, apparently neither big enough to feel worthy of a major theatrical release nor small enough to make economic sense in an increasingly cutthroat streaming landscape. Spending the money to expand the scope of “Batgirl” for theaters — plus the $30 million to $50 million needed to market it domestically and the tens of millions more needed for a global rollout — could have nearly doubled spending on the film, and insiders say that was a non-starter at a company newly focused on belt-tightening and the bottom line. (Spokespeople for Warner Bros. and Warner Bros. Discovery declined to comment for this story.)
Releasing the movie on HBO Max would seem to be the most obvious solution. Instead, the company has shelved “Batgirl” — along with the “Scoob!” sequel — and several sources say it will almost certainly take a tax write-down on both films, seen internally as the most financially sound way to recoup the costs (at least, on an accountant’s ledger). It could justify that by chalking it up to a post-merger change of strategy.
Doing so, however, would mean that Warner Bros. cannot monetize either movie — no HBO Max debut, no sale to another studio.
I don't know, it must be pretty bad if they do not believe it can make >$150 million with a theatrical release. Morbius recently cleared that benchmark and it was an absolute turd.
I don't know, it must be pretty bad if they do not believe it can make >$150 million with a theatrical release.
Morbius recently cleared that benchmark and it was an absolute turd.
They are probably looking at CW's Batwoman show. A Batwoman movie doesn't look good based on those numbers. They could go with direct-to-DVD, at least that's something to show for the money...
They are probably looking at CW's Batwoman show. A Batwoman movie doesn't look good based on those numbers. They could go with direct-to-DVD, at least that's something to show for the money already invested.
To be clear, Batgirl cost 90 million and was already completed. First time I’ve heard of a movie this high profile, that’s already finished, be shelved.
That seems odd. I get that post-production has costs, but are they enough to justify mothballing all the shot footage? Guessing the amount that HBO would pay for the film isn't expected to recoup the cost, but if that was the case why greenlight the movie at all?
Could also be another Hollywood Accounting trick to magically meet the cost-cutting amount desired. Article states costs have hit $90M, accountants can make that magically bloom to $190M.
I read on the New York Post and NPR interviewing the same critic that the film completely bombed its screening tests.
From my understanding, film marketing budget is around ~50% of production budget. They probably calculated that every dollar of marketing spent yields less than a dollar in earnings given the screening test results — plus damage to the IP. So best to cut losses and swallow a $90m loss than to throw more good money after bad.
Reminds me of how the last season Game of Thrones destroyed the franchise's value. No one talks about it anymore. Little merchandise gets sold anymore. It most likely would have been much more profitable to have not released the last season and left it incomplete.
Test screening reactions are better described as mixed. That NYPost writer is pretty sensationalist.
Another article posted here - https://tild.es/125n - brings to light some of the accounting practices, but also mentions that the film was "completed (save some reshoots)".
This seems like it would be extremely damaging to WB's relationship with talent. This is a $70 million movie starring Michael Keaton, that's not small potatoes. If that can just get shelved by the studio whenever they want, why would talented writers and directors want to work on other DC movies instead of with the well oiled Marvel machine, which for all its shortcomings at least... releases the movies people work on.
On the one hand, I'm sure many actors want to know their work is released. On the other hand, there are many actors that claim to never watch their own movies/material. Even without a release, and since "points" is a scam, they got paid. I can't count the number of times I've done work and nothing come of it. It does feel like wasted time, but I didn't do it for free.
It fucks over the star though which could have been great for her career.
Actors like Keaton, maybe. This was a potentially star making role for the lead, not to mention the behind the scenes folk who depend on royalties and strong prior credits for future work who have spent years on something that just will not release now.
Update: https://variety.com/2022/film/news/batgirl-movie-why-not-releasing-warner-bros-1235332062/
I don't know, it must be pretty bad if they do not believe it can make >$150 million with a theatrical release.
Morbius recently cleared that benchmark and it was an absolute turd.
They are probably looking at CW's Batwoman show. A Batwoman movie doesn't look good based on those numbers. They could go with direct-to-DVD, at least that's something to show for the money already invested.
Smells like corporate greed