[pyrophane]

Zaslav, of course, is famous for killing a lot of in-production Warner Bros. projects to take a tax write-off on them when he took over. This includes the Batgirl movie, which was in post-production at the time. Crazy to think how many people worked for years on that film only to have it all thrown away at the end like that. If I'd been heavily involved in making it I might have left the industry after that.

[blitzar]

> This includes the Batgirl movie, which was in post-production at the time.

They screened it and it was so bad they threw it and the 90mil they spent on it in the bin as there was nothing salvageable. Sometimes, despite all hard work and good intentions, the final result is still trash.

If it was going to make a billion at the box office, they would not "write it off" for tax purposes.

[zimpenfish]

> it was so bad [...] there was nothing salvageable

[1] disagrees. Do you have a better source?

"Batgirl’s test score, which was for a director’s cut, is comparable to scores for the first It (2017), which wound up grossing $700.3 million globally, as well as an early score for the upcoming Shazam! Fury of the Gods. Both of those films tested in the 60s."

(SFOTG is, admittedly, a bit of a flop sitting on about $130m gross currently.)

[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/batgirl-...

[aetherane]

That's not how business taxes work. You are taxed on profits.

[zimpenfish]

Section 181[1] seems to grant tax benefits based on the expenses incurred in making a film and, presumably, any losses you get from shelving it.

[1] https://www.productionhub.com/blog/post/the-return-of-sectio...