BATGIRL FILM CANCELLED

[Gimpdiggity]

…he doesn't know how much to believe and whether his informants are for real or not.

They’re not.

They’re shills that are part of the same echo chamber that he is.

 

[Bigdaddy]

That doomcock is just a guy that makes money from rumor mongering and stirring up "old" fans.
Shat said it best ...

 

[Captain Dunsel]

That doomcock is just a guy that makes money from rumor mongering and stirring up "old" fans.
Shat said it best ...

Anyone who claims to have a secret network of “Hollywood Spies” and prefaces everything they are about to say as rumor gets about 10 seconds of my time.

 

[cboath]

See, my take is that it was probably good. WB is so used to putting out bad DC movies, they saw a good one and didn't know what they were watching, freaked out, and cancelled it to be safe.

 

[bwayne64]

See, my take is that it was probably good. WB is so used to putting out bad DC movies, they saw a good one and didn't know what they were watching, freaked out, and cancelled it to be safe.

LOL, and they realized they had named it Bat "girl", and were like GIRL, WTH !

 

[batguy]

Maybe WB has a 'Bat-Person' movie in the pipeline.

 

[bwayne64]

I'm still waiting for a Man-Bat movie. Always loved that character. But they'd probably make it a Man-Rat with strap-on wings, LOL. Can't leave out the cross species folks, ; )

 

[NeoRutty]

To be fair, nobody outside of Warners really knows what's going on and the actual reason for the canning of Batgirl. This guy is just reporting what he's been told by supposed insiders and he admits as much that he doesn't know how much to believe and whether his informants are for real or not.

That guy has zero credibility and zero insiders.

Just monotizing his viewer’s anger… their gullible clicks.

People gotta eat I guess, but imagine being that guy. Embarrassing. Take that helmet off.

 

[TazMan2000]

I don't believe the restructuring argument. When they invest in a movie, you would think that they would want to get some of that money back, no matter what "direction" the company is going. Writing off potential profit is not a good business decision regardless of what restructuring the company is doing...unless the movie sucked big time, where to correct the problem would be to outlay several more tens of millions of dollars.

It's funny, because now there is so much uproar about this movie, there is more interest in it now, that they was when they announced that they were making it. Is it on the shelf, or is it in a burn barrel to eventually hide the fact that they actually made a flop. The saying "Any press is good press" just isn't true in this case.

Considering there are always "leaks" in companies, I wonder if this movie will ever make it to the underground movie releases. Perhaps a couple of trailers?

TazMan2000

 

[JLeezy23]

Brendan Fraser celebrated his birthday on set with cast/crew, they didnt even consider all the thing he's been through and just canned this project

 

[cboath]

I don't believe the restructuring argument. When they invest in a movie, you would think that they would want to get some of that money back, no matter what "direction" the company is going. Writing off potential profit is not a good business decision regardless of what restructuring the company is doing...unless the movie sucked big time, where to correct the problem would be to outlay several more tens of millions of dollars.

It's funny, because now there is so much uproar about this movie, there is more interest in it now, that they was when they announced that they were making it. Is it on the shelf, or is it in a burn barrel to eventually hide the fact that they actually made a flop. The saying "Any press is good press" just isn't true in this case.

Considering there are always "leaks" in companies, I wonder if this movie will ever make it to the underground movie releases. Perhaps a couple of trailers?

TazMan2000

I do think it's odd as well. Sure, maybe they're right and it's bad. You can't look at movies of the last 20 years and tell me some really bad stuff hasn't turned good profit.

I mean, lets be real here. To break even it'd have to pull in 180M more or less. Just hype the fact Keaton is back as Batman (even if it's 30 seconds - don't tell me studios haven't done worse with advertising), and that alone should easily cross that threshold opening weekend.

 

[JoeG]

It wasn't going to be released theatrically, so opening weekend box office and all that doesnt even matter. This movie being shelved had nothing to do with quality. It was strictly financial.

 

[Axlotl]

Amazing how wasteful Hollywood is. If I had that much money, I could quit my job and be set up for life. They just throw it away.

 

[Feraud]

The restructuring angle is very possible. I’ve worked in well oiled departments that were gutted for no better reason than a new manager looking to push their agenda and score points with the person who hired them.

 

[TazMan2000]

I do think it's odd as well. Sure, maybe they're right and it's bad. You can't look at movies of the last 20 years and tell me some really bad stuff hasn't turned good profit.

I mean, lets be real here. To break even it'd have to pull in 180M more or less. Just hype the fact Keaton is back as Batman (even if it's 30 seconds - don't tell me studios haven't done worse with advertising), and that alone should easily cross that threshold opening weekend.

All of our comments are mere speculation, as is much of what pundits have commented. But lets say, that when screened on a test audience, it turned out to be crap, executives would get together to see if it could be rescued. If the solution was to start from the beginning, it would be throwing out good money with the bad.

If it was contemplated that Batgirl just be released in hopes of it pleasing a portion of the audience, and it turned out to be a stinker, it might cause future projects to be viewed with disdain, and the movie-goers would either not buy tickets to future releases or be overly critical of them.

Shelving Batgirl altogether, and not releasing it to streaming to rescue a few dollars from it, is perplexing, unless it was a real stinker, in my opinion.

TazMan2000

 

[cboath]

All of our comments are mere speculation, as is much of what pundits have commented. But lets say, that when screened on a test audience, it turned out to be crap, executives would get together to see if it could be rescued. If the solution was to start from the beginning, it would be throwing out good money with the bad.

If it was contemplated that Batgirl just be released in hopes of it pleasing a portion of the audience, and it turned out to be a stinker, it might cause future projects to be viewed with disdain, and the movie-goers would either not buy tickets to future releases or be overly critical of them.

Shelving Batgirl altogether, and not releasing it to streaming to rescue a few dollars from it, is perplexing, unless it was a real stinker, in my opinion.

TazMan2000

That hasn't stopped DC from released stinkers in the past

 

[Knightmare]

There is a snider cut that’s coming out of this film .

 

[TazMan2000]

That hasn't stopped DC from released stinkers in the past

True...which begs the question, why this one? Is it so bad, that releasing it would bring so much bad publicity that the shareholders would ask for the CEO to resign?

Weigh the consequences of funding a bad picture and writing off the cost, or forcing it out the door to incredibly bad reviews. In the first way, the shareholders won't view it as a failure of the CEO, and blame it on bad, acting, casting, directing, story...etc., but pushing it to theaters to scathing criticism would put the blame on the shoulders of the top person.

TazMan2000

 

[JoeG]

There is a snider cut that’s coming out of this film .

This film will never see the light of day. It can't. They're using a tax loophole to write it off. Part of the conditions of that is that the film cant be released and be monetized. Otherwise they have to pay back the tax write off. Again, this movie was shelved in order to cut costs at WB after the merger with Discovery. Its the same reason, part of the reason actually, that HBO Max will be going away in favor of Discovery+. While some HBO Max original shows will stick around, most have already been cancelled.

 

[Ron]

Releasing it would also mean having to invest millions into its advertising.