Batgirl film will not see the light of day after shooting complete for $100ish million

[nobody 2,926]

4 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Based off of what they are saying- yes. They are not talking quality of the film, they are talking how it looks for a theatrical release. 

You guys are focusing on "terrible" as meaning quality of the movie- "terrible" could be referring to the look of the movie. Movies that are made for streaming look cheaper than movies made for a theater screen. 

"based off of what they're saying" 

Of course, they aren't going to throw themselves and everyone involved under the bus.  Are you really that naïve?

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

5 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

People HAVE seen the movie.  Pre-screenings and test audiences.  They said it's awful and cheap looking.  

That's what I've been reading in articles too but I haven't actually seen any reviews of it yet.

[Strike 6,030]

7 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

For those of you playing obtuse about this let me ask you this:

Do you REALLY think if the audiences and executives who have seen the test screenings and said it was awesome and great that WB still wouldn't release it?

You need to use your noggin' here.  They're not releasing it because it's not good.  In fact, it's so bad that they believe even reshoots can't save it.  THAT is how bad it is.

It makes no sense that they're sh*tcanning it if it's even decent.  They don't have to release it to the big screen.  They still own HBO MAX.  More content for your streaming service equals more subscribers.  IF THE CONTENT IS DECENT.  So, if it were decent they'd at least release it to HBO MAX.  The only reason to throw it in the trash is because it IS trash.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,340]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

That's what I've been reading in articles too but I haven't actually seen any reviews of it yet.

As @nobody and myself stated above:  Do you REALLY think they would've shitcanned this movie if the people at the screenings would've said it was a masterpiece?

In Hollywood, if your movie doesn't get released it's because it sucks.  In fact, it sucks so bad they believed that reshoots couldn't even save it.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,677]

4 minutes ago, nobody said:

"based off of what they're saying" 

Of course, they aren't going to throw themselves and everyone involved under the bus.  Are you really that naïve?

Yes, he is.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,340]

Just now, Strike said:

It makes no sense that they're sh*tcanning it if it's even decent.  They don't have to release it to the big screen.  They still own HBO MAX.  More content for your streaming service equals more subscribers.  IF THE CONTENT IS DECENT.  So, if it were decent they'd at least release it to HBO MAX.  The only reason to throw it in the trash is because it IS trash.

Strike speaking truth to power - as always.   

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

As @nobody and myself stated above:  Do you REALLY think they would've shitcanned this movie if the people at the screenings would've said it was a masterpiece?

In Hollywood, if your movie doesn't get released it's because it sucks.  In fact, it sucks so bad they believed that reshoots couldn't even save it.

 

It doesn't have to be a masterpiece to get released.  I'm sure the poor reviews were a major factor for shutting the movie down but I also think there were other factors involved.  It looks like they have been making a lot of changes after the new merger.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,340]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It doesn't have to be a masterpiece to get released.  I'm sure the poor reviews were a major factor for shutting the movie down but I also think there were other factors involved.  It looks like they have been making a lot of changes after the new merger.

Your movie doesn't get released because of "other factors".  It doesn't get released because it sucks.  Those "other factors" are just supplemental to the fact that your movie sucks.  If your movie was awesome there would be no "other factors".

Y'know, just like what Strike said:

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

It makes no sense that they're sh*tcanning it if it's even decent.  They don't have to release it to the big screen.  They still own HBO MAX.  More content for your streaming service equals more subscribers.  IF THE CONTENT IS DECENT.  So, if it were decent they'd at least release it to HBO MAX.  The only reason to throw it in the trash is because it IS trash.

 

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Your movie doesn't get released because of "other factors".  It doesn't get released because it sucks.  Those "other factors" are just supplemental to the fact that your movie sucks.  If your movie was awesome there would be no "other factors".

Y'know, just like what Strike said:

 

I'm not arguing that the movie probably sucked but crappy movies get released all the time, regardless of poor reviews.  This having poor reviews along with other reasons is why they said they did it.  Why would they make up the other reasons for canning it if they already said it had poor reviews?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,340]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not arguing that the movie probably sucked but crappy movies get released all the time, regardless of poor reviews.  This having poor reviews along with other reasons is why they said they did it.  Why would they make up the other reasons for canning it if they already said it had poor reviews?

WB did not say it had poor reviews.  Insiders and people who saw the test screenings said it was awful.

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

WB did not say it had poor reviews.  Insiders and people who saw the test screenings said it was awful.

This is one of the articles I read about the reason for it.

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/batgirl-why-warner-bros-scrapped-hbo-max-theatrical-release-1234747665/

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,340]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This is one of the articles I read about the reason for it.

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/batgirl-why-warner-bros-scrapped-hbo-max-theatrical-release-1234747665/

Thanks, but no where in there does it say the Studio said it had poor reviews:

Quote

...cited a source who called the quality of the movie “unspeakable.” They wrote that test screenings were “so poorly received by moviegoers that the studio decided to cut its losses and run.” IndieWire confirmed that there was a test screening of an non-final “Batgirl” cut that received poor marks.

This other nonsense is nothing but the studio giving vanilla statements without having to personally say the movie was awful.  The only reason this movie got shitcanned was because it was bad.  That's it.  There is no "other".

Once it was decided the movie was awful, only then did these "other reasons" come into play.  WB decided that they would be better off shitcanning it than trying to do reshoots to save it.  Think about that for second. Reshoots are a part of damn near EVERY movie.  Every one.  The felt that even reshoots couldn't save it.

[TimHauck 3,378]

38 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Enough that it's not an issue and hasn't been since the 70s.  

OK, then tell that to the people suggesting casting Batgirl as a Latina had anything to do with them shelving this movie.

[craftsman 1,045]

That $100M could have gone to Biden to spend on his mastering of his control over the weather!!  

Or, we could have sent that money to China for more solar panels.  

 

I'm surprised to see this much interest in another terrible bat movie. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,340]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

OK, then tell that to the people suggesting casting Batgirl as a Latina had anything to do with them shelving this movie.

I explained above why this movie got shelved.  it's not because she was Latina, but because the movie was written with diversity and virtue signaling first, story and characters second.

Story and characters ALWAYS come first.  Anyone who has taken any type of acting or writing courses knows this  The actors are there to serve the story, not vice-versa.

[nobody 2,926]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This is one of the articles I read about the reason for it.

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/batgirl-why-warner-bros-scrapped-hbo-max-theatrical-release-1234747665/

That article at least makes a better case than the posters in this thread as a purely economical decision.

If the movie was made for HBO Max and was never intended for theatrical release, a new executive could just say fock it and write it off and then blame his predecessor for executing on the move and budget poorly.  The rationale will be that the potential growth in subscription revenue to HBO Max from the move wouldn't outweigh the tax benefits.  You'd probably need to grow HBO Max revenue by 30 million plus to get positive ROI.  That only works for a new exec though. 

My current estimate is that it's 68% that the movie sucked and 32% financial.

 

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

1 minute ago, nobody said:

That article at least makes a better case than the posters in this thread as a purely economical decision.

If the movie was made for HBO Max and was never intended for theatrical release, a new executive could just say fock it and write it off and then blame his predecessor for executing on the move and budget poorly.  The rationale will be that the potential growth in subscription revenue to HBO Max from the move wouldn't outweigh the tax benefits.  You'd probably need to grow HBO Max revenue by 30 million plus to get positive ROI.  That only works for a new exec though. 

My current estimate is that it's 68% that the movie sucked and 32% financial.

 

Some people will refuse to agree with you.

[Horseman 2,687]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

OK, then tell that to the people suggesting casting Batgirl as a Latina had anything to do with them shelving this movie.

You keep failing to follow along.  Maybe spend some more time trying to educate yourself and reread through the thread?  Casting a Latino caused them to hire a sh!t actress.  It's highly likely that it being a sh!t movie had something to do with the lead role.  That and they had the faux pas of casting both of her parents as white.  

[Strike 6,030]

14 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not arguing that the movie probably sucked but crappy movies get released all the time, regardless of poor reviews.  This having poor reviews along with other reasons is why they said they did it.  Why would they make up the other reasons for canning it if they already said it had poor reviews?

What I've read is they are concerned about it tainting the franchise.  IOW, they wanted to be able to put out a string of these movies like they do with other superheroes.  This one was just so bad they are concerned they will never be able to put out another.  If this was a one off bad movie they'd probably release it anyways.  By sh*tcanning it they have the potential to revisit the franchise anew and put out a better product.

[Horseman 2,687]

3 minutes ago, nobody said:

That article at least makes a better case than the posters in this thread as a purely economical decision.

If the movie was made for HBO Max and was never intended for theatrical release, a new executive could just say fock it and write it off and then blame his predecessor for executing on the move and budget poorly.  The rationale will be that the potential growth in subscription revenue to HBO Max from the move wouldn't outweigh the tax benefits.  You'd probably need to grow HBO Max revenue by 30 million plus to get positive ROI.  That only works for a new exec though. 

My current estimate is that it's 68% that the movie sucked and 32% financial.

 

Right, but, if you're not going to get 30 million out of a 90 million movie it's a sh!t movie.  

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

What I've read is they are concerned about it tainting the franchise.  IOW, they wanted to be able to put out a string of these movies like they do with other superheroes.  This one was just so bad they are concerned they will never be able to put out another.  If this was a one off bad movie they'd probably release it anyways.  By sh*tcanning it they have the potential to revisit the franchise anew and put out a better product.

I read that too.  Looks like that was part of the reason and it made more financial sense to use it as a tax break.  It all factored in.

[Strike 6,030]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I read that too.  Looks like that was part of the reason and it made more financial sense to use it as a tax break.  It all factored in.

But it ALL stems from the fact that the movie sucked.  If the movie was decent or better all these factors weigh differently.

[nobody 2,926]

1 minute ago, Horseman said:

Right, but, if you're not going to get 30 million out of a 90 million movie it's a sh!t movie.  

I'm sure that factored in, but I bet there's a lot that goes into that calculus.  The concept makes sense.  You want life time subscribers.  You get that through series mostly.  A one-off movie - especially one that was probably not that good - won't draw enough sticky subscribers to justify it.  

 

[Horseman 2,687]

11 minutes ago, nobody said:

I'm sure that factored in, but I bet there's a lot that goes into that calculus.  The concept makes sense.  You want life time subscribers.  You get that through series mostly.  A one-off movie - especially one that was probably not that good - won't draw enough sticky subscribers to justify it.  

 

 

20 hours ago, Horseman said:

Hint - everyone of those factors translates to dollars. HTH.

 

[GutterBoy 2,900]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

Preach.  I'm sure they didn't preview the movie and say, "Wow, what a masterpiece!  Too bad it doesn't have a blockbuster budget with a bunch of special effects.  Let's sh¡tcan it"

Are any super hero movies masterpieces?

[GutterBoy 2,900]

1 hour ago, Horseman said:

You keep failing to follow along.  Maybe spend some more time trying to educate yourself and reread through the thread?  Casting a Latino caused them to hire a sh!t actress.  It's highly likely that it being a sh!t movie had something to do with the lead role.  That and they had the faux pas of casting both of her parents as white.  

So Latinos are sh1t actresses?  Shut up clown you're a joke

[nobody 2,926]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Are any super hero movies masterpieces?

Cool, semantics.

[Hardcore troubadour 16,007]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

So Latinos are sh1t actresses?  Shut up clown you're a joke

That’s not what he said, dumbass. 

[GutterBoy 2,900]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s not what he said, dumbass. 

Yes it is, pos

[Mike Honcho 5,534]

Batgirl and Agent 99, two of my favorite crime fighters. 

 

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s not what he said, dumbass. 

You're not very self aware, are you?  You pull the same crap a lot on here.

 

[Horseman 2,687]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

So Latinos are sh1t actresses?  Shut up clown you're a joke

The one they chose is, apparently.  As evident of her first film tanking and her second film in the trash can.  Maybe she can take some acting classes?

[Horseman 2,687]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You're not very self aware, are you?  You pull the same crap a lot on here.

 

It's not what I said dumbass.

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

Just now, Horseman said:

It's not what I said dumbass.

Why are you quoting me?  I wasn't talking to you.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

4 hours ago, nobody said:

You guys keep saying it's "about the bottom line."  I'm not sure you guys know what that means.  Bottom line is profit after expenses. A 90 million dollar write off doesn't help the bottom line more than turning a profit on a movie you already have 85% complete.  Sure, you probably get some tax help, but you wouldn't throw away profit to get tax help.

Im not an accountant but I think if you take the 90m loss then that's 90m of revenue that you don't have to pay taxes on.  But again thats just an educated guess.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

57 minutes ago, Horseman said:

The one they chose is, apparently.  As evident of her first film tanking and her second film in the trash can.  Maybe she can take some acting classes?

You said they got a sh1tty actress because they wanted a Latino.  Are there no good Latino actresses?

[Horseman 2,687]

54 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Why are you quoting me?  I wasn't talking to you.

Because Gutter failed to comprehend what I had posted.  HT responded to that when you responded to him.   HT is correct, that's not what I said, dumbass.  

[Hawkeye21 2,457]

3 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Because Gutter failed to comprehend what I had posted.  HT responded to that when you responded to him.   HT is correct, that's not what I said, dumbass.  

Ugh...  You didn't get what I was saying to HT then.  He does exactly what Gutter did often.  That was the point.

[craftsman 1,045]

4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

You said they got a sh1tty actress because they wanted a Latino.  Are there no good Latino actresses?

Obviously this casting crew couldn't find any. $100M flushed down the drain.

[Horseman 2,687]

16 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

You said they got a sh1tty actress because they wanted a Latino.  Are there no good Latino actresses?

No, this is what I said.

3 hours ago, Horseman said:

 Casting a Latino caused them to hire a sh!t actress.  

You and Mooney ought to have a read-off to see who has the worst reading comprehension.  I mean you both teeter on the limits of illiteracy.

Forcing in a minority limited their hiring pool and I'm betting there were better actresses out there.  Of course there are good Latina actresses: Salma Heyek, Eva Longoria, Penelope Cruz, etc.  Leslie Grace isn't on that list.