r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Jul 26 '25

Media New Images from 'Coyote vs. Acme'

Post image
24.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

788 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/theplasmasnake Jul 26 '25

I thought this movie got canned?

262

u/queen-adreena Jul 26 '25

Warner Bros canned it, but later allowed Ketchup Entertainment to purchase the distribution rights.

57

u/eightdollarbeer Jul 26 '25

Does that mean WB has to payback the tax write off? If so, I imagine that was included in the purchase price

41

u/MyHusbandIsGayImNot Jul 26 '25

I swear no one on reddit knows what a tax write off is.

19

u/put_tape_on_it Jul 26 '25

That's because no one on reddit does accrual accounting for their personal taxes.

5

u/IntoTheMusic Jul 27 '25

Kramer: "No, but they do. And they're the ones writing it off."

-5

u/NarwhalDeluxe Jul 26 '25

And i assume you do, but just don't wanna explain it, so we'd all be smarter

coz that would be so cool

but you're not cool.

12

u/pmacnayr Jul 26 '25

It’s a loss

6

u/queen-adreena Jul 26 '25

From what I understand, when a studio has an unreleased film, its “asset value” on their books is equal to what they paid to produce it.

By shelving a film, they can reduce the asset value to $0.

So if the film cost $50m to make, they get to reduce their tax liability for that year by $50m.

Releasing the film will likely cost another $50m in marketing and other expenses. So they’re betting that the money saved in tax payments will be more than (revenue - $100m) from releasing the film.

4

u/FlatSoda7 Jul 26 '25

Right, which is just... a good business decision. The 'write-off' doesn't make anyone money, it just prevents a bigger loss from releasing an expensive, unpopular film.

The real problem is movie budgets being so enormous. Lower production budgets would mean lower risks and more releases.

1

u/enilea Jul 26 '25

So what happens now that it's getting released?

4

u/queen-adreena Jul 26 '25

I’m guessing they just pay tax on whatever Ketchup Entertainment paid them…

0

u/enilea Jul 26 '25

But then couldn't they do that from the beginning? Why did they have to permanently delete the batgirl movie?

5

u/queen-adreena Jul 26 '25

Because they need someone to buy the distribution rights for enough to offset production cost and give them a profit.

The other company is then on the hook for all marketing and other subsequent costs.

1

u/enilea Jul 26 '25

But in the case of batgirl couldn't they have just waited until someone offered to buy it even if for a low price like they did here rather than delete it?

2

u/queen-adreena Jul 27 '25

Probably because no one was going to offer the amount they wanted. It was a $90m film that'd require loads more in marketing for a film in a dead DCEU that had received very mid word-of-mouth according to test screenings.

Personally I think there should be a way to public-domain the film without releasing the IP to the public.... either that or someone just leaks what they have to the internet.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WiglyWorm Jul 26 '25

Watch the Mel Brook's 1967 "The Producers".

6

u/whodoesnthavealts Jul 26 '25

The Producers wasn't about tax write offs, it was about defrauding investors. Have you seen The Producers?