Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Biggest story of the year.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by danmanne65, Feb 11, 2024.

  1. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    4,034
    855
    268
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    Hard to believe that this doesn’t already have its own thread but a movie filmed and finished has been shelved for tax reasons. It is coyote vs acme. It is a mix of live action and cartoon and the rumors are it’s a good movie. The idiot who runs Warner bros is wanting to shelve it for a tax write off even though virtually all of the streaming services are wanting to buy it. Y’all keep on arguing about maga nonsense but this may be the biggest issue facing the country maybe the world.
     
  2. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    35,786
    1,813
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Live action? How did they get a coyote to survive the explosions, falling anvils, etc? And where the hell was PETA?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    12,175
    2,648
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Some background:


    https://www.thewrap.com/coyote-vs-acme-update-offers-warner-bros/
    With Warner Bros. Discovery’s fourth quarter earnings call scheduled for Feb. 23, “Coyote vs. Acme” is running out of time. Many on the film’s team feel that the studio will use the ending of the quarter to get the movie off the books for good. “Coyote vs. Acme” is running up against something worse than a tunnel painted into the side of a mountain or a falling anvil. It will finally be silenced by a movie studio’s balance sheet.

    Following the death and potential resurrection of “Coyote vs. Acme,” there were screenings for interested parties. According to several people familiar with the situation, Netflix, Amazon and Paramount screened the movie (which was received well) and submitted handsome offers. Paramount even proposed a theatrical release component to their acquisition of “Coyote vs. Acme” that would allow for Warner Bros. to save face and, more importantly, let audiences see the movie the way it was meant to be experienced.

    But Warner Bros., which stood to make $35 – $40 million on the tax write-down, wanted something in the ballpark of $75 – $80 million from a buyer. And what’s more, they wouldn’t allow the interested studios to counter Warner Bros.’ offer. It was a “take it or leave it” situation, one that the other studios didn’t even know they were entering into, insiders told TheWrap.

    Information about the potential sale of the project got to Eric Bauza, an actor who provided the voice for several characters in the film. In late December he felt so optimistic that he shared a photo from the movie (of Forte and the Coyote, see below) on social media and said: “See ya in 2024!”
     
  4. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    5,236
    464
    293
    Jun 1, 2007
    I admit it, got me to check. :emoji_grinning:
     
  5. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    9,000
    905
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    It is stupid. Warner did this with several other properties. I think they were the pioneers, other studios/streaming services said “we can do that!!!???” with dollar signs in their eyes, and started to prematurely took down content from their services for the apparent tax benefit.

    Not sure any besides Warner have gone so far to do this with competed but *unreleased* content though. That seems quite different from taking things down that underperform or are critically panned or the numbers show people simply don’t watch anymore. Seems a perverse loophole in the tax code that shouldn’t exist in the way it does.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
  6. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,636
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    I have listened to explanations a few times on why it makes more financial sense to show already completed projects but I'm still not sure I completely understand it. In any event, Zaslav continues to make enemies, although the financial types like him
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. G8tas

    G8tas GC Hall of Fame

    4,786
    953
    453
    Sep 22, 2008
    Disney has done this with some shows on Disney+. So annoying
     
  8. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,055
    1,745
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    As an accountant I’m not sure I understand the whole logic in this. It is a popular narrative that sometimes companies do something for a “tax write off” but I can think of few examples where it would make sense to spend $1.00 to get a tax break of somewhere between 21 to 30 cents.

    I’m going to assume the production costs are capitalized (on the balance sheet) and are typically recognized as the film is released to match the revenue stream. But I can think of no logic where these expenses are just written off, if they could cover even a fraction of the losses with future revenue. Then it’s only a timing issue.

    The only reason I can see for a write off is the company foresees the incremental future costs to exceed future revenues.

    What am I missing?

    edit:

    Movie Tax Write-Downs Help Studios Profit at Public’s Expense

    So I guess what happens is these companies receive tax credits for creating the film, and then shelve them.

    I still don’t see the benefit of writing them down if it has future profit potential, except as a timing issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
  9. homer

    homer GC Hall of Fame

    2,834
    880
    2,078
    Nov 2, 2015
    Fuzzy math
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. Tjgators

    Tjgators Premium Member

    5,162
    648
    358
    Apr 3, 2007
    The biggest story of the year? No, it's the border x 1 million.