Warner Brothers Scraps Batgirl Movie After Filming Complete

HammerDown said:
I thought they had to scrap it because Alec Baldwin shot someone to death on set.
Click to expand...
shots fired wow GIF by Collider
 
williewilliejuan said:
Have the nerds not grown tired of superhero movies yet? Good lord, between them and endless Star Wars content, that’s about 75% of the box office these days.
Click to expand...
the answer to this is obviously "no"
 
WB botched this whole thing from the beginning. Back in January 2022, WB released the first promo image for this film:

271853830_140179288416378_5226435408521720011_n.jpg


Unsurprisingly, the costume was derided and mocked across the Internet as looking like cheap cosplay you could buy off eBay or a costume store for ten dollars that looked more like it belonged in Adam West Batman than in the gritty, realistic look of the DCEU. It's a real problem when this suit looks cheaper than the Arrowverse/CW TV version of the suit!

The director Bilall Fallah responded on Instagram that things weren't what they seemed and to wait for the movie.

Well, now, according to a viewer who saw the recent screening, the costume that was shown actually IS cosplay in the movie: apparently, in the movie, Barbara Gordon wears it to a Halloween party before actually becoming Batgirl, and she switches into a "real," better suit later in the movie after actually becoming Batgirl.

Okay, let's say that's true. Then, as the marketing team for this movie, why would you release the Halloween suit before the actual suit and needlessly drum up bad publicity that the film is cheap? Especially when you should already know poor production values from low budget is something the audience is concerned about since the film is planned for release on HBO Max rather than theaters?

WB completely dropped the ball on this from the beginning. Either they completely screwed up production with a terrible cheap suit, or they completely screwed up marketing by releasing the Halloween suit instead of the actual suit.
 
williewilliejuan said:
Have the nerds not grown tired of superhero movies yet? Good lord, between them and endless Star Wars content, that’s about 75% of the box office these days.
Click to expand...
Are you serious?

Did you not see the goats in the new Thor movie?

The goats! They were hilarious!!!!
 
If more comic book movies got scrapped maybe the movie industry would get back to being good.
 
RememberTheKoy said:
If more comic book movies got scrapped maybe the movie industry would get back to being good.
Click to expand...
Hopefully Vancouver and Atlanta can get enough of a market share to make a dent in Hollyweird.
 
kinda want to watch it now if its that bad. Smart marketing, actually.
 
RubinRock said:
kinda want to watch it now if its that bad. Smart marketing, actually.
Click to expand...
maybe they are doing like they did with the first Sonic the Hedgehog movie

"oh man, we really fucked up what this fucking hedgehog looks like, we need to start over!"

attention attention attention

movie comes out with new design for Sonic and the movie is a hit
 
BusSport said:
Okay, let's say that's true. Then, as the marketing team for this movie, why would you release the Halloween suit before the actual suit and needlessly drum up bad publicity that the film is cheap? Especially when you should already know poor production values from low budget is something the audience is concerned about since the film is planned for release on HBO Max rather than theaters?

WB completely dropped the ball on this from the beginning. Either they completely screwed up production with a terrible cheap suit, or they completely screwed up marketing by releasing the Halloween suit instead of the actual suit.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The studio's full of crap. That's the outfit. I'm thinking the whole thing's a tax dodge. It'll be released in February 2024 on Tubi.
 
Mofo said:
Exactly. The studio's full of crap. That's the outfit. I'm thinking the whole thing's a tax dodge. It'll be released in February 2024 on Tubi.
Click to expand...
If they did it just for a tax dodge then they are the biggest morons on the planet. The top federal corporate rate is 21% so they had to feel if they finished the move and released it they would lose more than 71 million or they wouldn't be writing it off. You don't flush 90 million down the toilet to save 18.9 million in taxes.

Now they may have calculated that releasing the movie would do more brand damage than 90 million so that is a consideration but money wise it would idiotic to use just for a tax write-off.
 
Wild Turkey said:
If they did it just for a tax dodge then they are the biggest morons on the planet. The top federal corporate rate is 21% so they had to feel if they finished the move and released it they would lose more than 71 million or they wouldn't be writing it off. You don't flush 90 million down the toilet to save 18.9 million in taxes.

Now they may have calculated that releasing the movie would do more brand damage than 90 million so that is a consideration but money wise it would idiotic to use just for a tax write-off.
Click to expand...
That could well be. These days, I doubt that there's a significant cost to releasing a movie. Especially if it's done with no marketing, and almost entirely digitally / streaming.

Considering the sort of garbage that WB has been producing for quite some time, the movie would have to truly be atrocious to shelve or cancel. This is a studio that is going to release a Flash movie whose lead actor is some sort of deranged sex-crazed monster pedophile.

Perhaps it's not a tax dodge entirely. But the film industry has always been inherently somewhat dirty. Production costs are often inflated. Maybe it was investors who were screwed over, not just governments' tax offices.
 
Mofo said:
That could well be. These days, I doubt that there's a significant cost to releasing a movie. Especially if it's done with no marketing, and almost entirely digitally / streaming.

Considering the sort of garbage that WB has been producing for quite some time, the movie would have to truly be atrocious to shelve or cancel. This is a studio that is going to release a Flash movie whose lead actor is some sort of deranged sex-crazed monster pedophile.

Perhaps it's not a tax dodge entirely. But the film industry has always been inherently somewhat dirty. Production costs are often inflated. Maybe it was investors who were screwed over, not just governments' tax offices.
Click to expand...
Taking the 18.9mm write-off now just helps the sting a bit. No sane person spends $1 to save .21 cents.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Taking the 18.9mm write-off now just helps the sting a bit. No sane person spends $1 to save .21 cents.
Click to expand...
It only makes sense, if the movie still had filming or postproduction to go through. It's it's done, then scrap the marketing (or go super cheap) and release the thing. The studio gets the tax break regardless of the movie's financial success. Why not release the thing and get the $18.9M + $10M or so in box office / streaming receipts?
 
Mofo said:
It only makes sense, if the movie still had filming or postproduction to go through. It's it's done, then scrap the marketing (or go super cheap) and release the thing. The studio gets the tax break regardless of the movie's financial success. Why not release the thing and get the $18.9M + $10M or so in box office / streaming receipts?
Click to expand...
1 reason they felt the hit to the brand would be too devastating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top