[HN Gopher] The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see ___________________________________________________________________ The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see Author : anigbrowl Score : 65 points Date : 2023-11-23 00:50 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | theGeatZhopa wrote: | I wanna see NOOOOOOOOOO | armistace wrote: | https://archive.is/BNBWQ | neonate wrote: | https://web.archive.org/web/20231124204950/https://www.nytim... | dotcoma wrote: | Isn't $55 M little more than a rounding error for a company like | Netflix ? | brigadier132 wrote: | No, it isn't. | cj wrote: | Wasn't 1 hour long episode of Stranger Things about $30m per | episode? | | Definitely not small amounts of money, but relatively | speaking... | mynameisash wrote: | According to this site[0], their revenue for 2022 was $31.6B, | so $55M would be approximately 0.17%. Stated otherwise, on | average, they make $55M every 15 hours or so. So yeah, it kind | of seems like a rounding error. | | [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272545/annual-revenue- | of... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Operating income is ~$6B - so it's closer to 1% of what | really matters. | IshKebab wrote: | Revenue is the wrong number. Their net income is only $1.7b | so $55m is not completely insignificant. | dotcoma wrote: | IMHO the right number is how much they spend to produce | movies, shows, series etc. | | $ 16.7 B in 2022. | | So, 0,33 % | notimetorelax wrote: | It's still around 180k of premium subscribers at 25$ per | month for a year, not taking into account traffic costs. It's | not nothing, it's lost cash and lost opportunity. | jl6 wrote: | Just because large companies publish large round numbers in | their reports, doesn't mean they don't care about the | underlying figures. | ssnistfajen wrote: | Doesn't mean they can just forget about losing that money for | an evidently frivolous reason. | WalterBright wrote: | If somebody stole $55M from them, I'm sure Netflix would go | after them hammer and tong. | iudqnolq wrote: | Well in this case Netflix is defending against a case in | arbitration that they owe the guy an extra $14 million. Sure | seems like they signed a very stupid contract. | paxys wrote: | Losing the money to a crazy director who gambled it away is at | least better than actually finishing the series but never | releasing it to get tax write-offs (looking at you Max). | nickelpro wrote: | This isn't how tax write-offs work. The expenditures in the | production of a film or TV series are always deducted from | taxable net income regardless of whether the final product is | released or not. | | There are a plethora of reasons not to release a creative work. | For example, you don't want to spend any more money on music | licensing, editing, marketing, etc, that is unlikely to be | recouped. | | "Tax write-offs" simply isn't one of them | bobsmooth wrote: | There have been multiple completed works that have been | canceled for tax reasons. | | https://deadline.com/2023/01/as-tv-turns-to-tax-write- | offs-t... | nickelpro wrote: | The source for that is two-season showrunner for a CW | drama. | | Also, this isn't a debate. The US tax code isn't something | that's decided by CW showrunners. | nradov wrote: | You really shouldn't take fake news organizations like CNN | seriously on issues like this. They obviously didn't do | even basic fact checking with a real tax accountant or | lawyer. | aqme28 wrote: | I know this is derailing the main thread, but then why are | studios choosing not to release finished movies on streaming? | It seems like they could recoup at least some of the expenses | compared to just shelving the thing forever. | nickelpro wrote: | They're either: | | A) Not as finished as being represented by media, and the | costs associated with finishing them exceed the likely | value of the finished product | | B) The studio views the finished product as being of | marginal value and damaging to their brand | akgoel wrote: | Certain expenses will be capitalized while the film is | available for release/streaming. Depreciation/amortization | will be years for the life of the film. But if you scrap it | right away, you can deduct those expenses immediately. | fny wrote: | It's actually only 5 years, not for the life of the film. | nickelpro wrote: | Yes, but the reason to do this is that the film is | ultimately going to cost more money than it is worth, or | the gross represents a rounding error on the studio's | balance sheet. | | You wouldn't capitalize the expenses of a film that was | expected to recoup any meaningful amount of money on | release. Either the thing is already costing you more money | than it is worth or is a brand risk, thus you look for a | way to get out as painlessly as possible. | jedberg wrote: | They need the money now, they can't wait to depreciate it | over time. | nickelpro wrote: | If the film was going to recoup at least the $10-$20M | they'll save in taxes that FY they would release it. | | The point is the property is worth negative or trivial | value already. Either it's going to cost more to finish | than it's worth, or it's worth next to nothing. | anonymouskimmer wrote: | > For example, you don't want to spend any more money on | music licensing, editing, marketing, etc, that is unlikely to | be recouped. | | I have no idea what "Max" is in the GP, but another big | reason to not release a creative work is if audience feedback | was negative enough that even releasing it for free would hit | the value of your brand. | alex_lav wrote: | > I have no idea what "Max" is in the GP | | HBO Max, a streaming service. | katbyte wrote: | HBOmax - removed a ton of shows (some well regarded) for | the tax write offs | wombatpm wrote: | Followed by the corporate rebrand from HBOMax to Max | wouldbecouldbe wrote: | It is though, I definitely had project not-launched which had | expenses that accountants found much harder to justify then | launched projects. Taxes isn't a hard science but a soft one, | and when talking to a tax officer, as far as my limited | knowledge goes, launching a product or movie does help to | ease their fraud suspicions. | granzymes wrote: | You also need to pay residuals to the writers / actors when | people watch the show. If you never release it to audiences | you don't need to pay. | wslh wrote: | Just opportunity cost? [1] | | [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp | xrd wrote: | So many stories like this recently. Coyote vs Acme drama is so | interesting as well. I bet the movie industry will become as | crazy as the world of casinos | gkoberger wrote: | Very different situation. For Coyote vs Acme, the movie was | finished properly and the only issue was WB projected it would | make more money as a tax write-off. There was no malfeasance | from the director/producer/etc. | | For this one... well, read the article. The director/producer | did some crazy stuff with the money. | nradov wrote: | It is not possible to make more money as a tax write-off. | That's not how corporate income taxes work. The expense of | making a movie can always be written off regardless of | whether it is released or. If the studio decided not to | release it then that was done for other reasons. | jedberg wrote: | https://deadline.com/2023/11/coyote-vs-acme-shelved- | warner-b... | | tl;dr: If they never release it they can write off the | "lost profits" which they can't do if they release or sell | it. | nradov wrote: | Bullshit. You can't write off "lost profits". The US | corporate income tax code contains no such provision. | Don't believe anything you read in the entertainment | press, it's mostly fake news or at least not fact | checked. Go ask your own income tax accountant if you | don't believe me. | jedberg wrote: | Ok, well then why didn't they release the movie? Why did | they say it would be more profitable to not release it? | You're either smarter than the entirety of Warner | Brother's finance department, or wrong. | nradov wrote: | This is not a matter of who is smarter. The US tax code | is very clear on that point and is not open for debate. | | If the studio decided not to release the movie it was | most likely because the expected marketing and | distribution costs exceeded the expected revenue. Or | maybe they didn't want a crap movie to damage the long | term brand of a valuable character that they plan to | leverage in other products. | jedberg wrote: | > The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not | open for debate. | | Anyone who has ever worked with an accountant knows this | isn't true. The law is a series of gray areas at best. | You can have three accountants do your taxes and get | three results, because each applies different | interpretations to the laws. And going in front of a | judge won't get extra clarity -- three judges would give | you three different opinions. | | > If the studio decided not to release the movie it was | most likely because the expected marketing and | distribution costs exceeded the expected revenue. | | Maybe, but it tested better with test audiences than any | other movie they release this year, so that's highly | unlikely. Also, they specifically said they were doing it | for the write down. | boeingUH60 wrote: | I love how you're being called out for how wrong you are | on this thread, but somehow manage to double down and | always ask "but what about?..." | FrobeniusTwist wrote: | >> The US tax code is very clear on that point and is not | open for debate. | | > Anyone who has ever worked with an accountant knows | this isn't true. | | The point being referred to here is that you can't take a | deduction for profits you would have made in some | hypothetical world where things had worked out better for | you. It's not all gray areas, and this particular point | is entirely un-gray. Nor does the article that you | "tl;dr"'ed into this quip support you here. It just says | that the studio decided not to risk any further losses. | TylerE wrote: | Because it was gonna bomb, and make less money than it | would cost to market. It really is that simple. | Warner/Discovery is mega-cash strapped right now. They | may literally value $100m now more than $200m a year from | now, as they have a massive debt to service. | jedberg wrote: | The real crime in the whole Coyote vs Acme situation is that | the tax code makes it more profitable to write off a | completed movie than sell it. | RajT88 wrote: | I love these stories of sci-fi movie diasasters. There are just | as many insane stories of "amazing this classic ever got made". | | On the topic of disasters, I recommend reading about The | Starlost: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlost | dylan604 wrote: | Sounds like Jodorwsky's Dune[0] where it's famous for not | getting made. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune | nihiven wrote: | I would love to see how insane a 10-14 hour Dune movie would | be. No intermission I'm sure. | RajT88 wrote: | I would watch it. | | My wife would probably head to her sister's for the | weekend. | frfl wrote: | Slightly unrelated, but there is a 19 hour fan-edit of the | Hobbit + Lord of the Rings -- i.e someone glued all 3 | Hobbit movies and all 3 LotR movies into a 19 hour video. | usrusr wrote: | I believe that a 90 minutes cut of matrix 2+3 could be | actually enjoyable. | mavhc wrote: | "people copied our cool effects for Matrix 1, what if we | make the action scenes so long and expensive no one would | even bother to copy them because they all went home | before they were over?" | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | Hopefully that's 19 hours of LOTR with the 2-3 hours of | the hobbit which was good. | frfl wrote: | No, it's uncut, all deleted scenes, extended version of | all movies if I'm not mistaken. It's not a "remix" edit, | the 19 hour one I'm referring to. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/fanedits/comments/bo8how/middle_ | ear... | dylan604 wrote: | In the "2-3 hours of the hobbit which was good" are you | including the animated versions as well? I'd be hard | pressed to find 2-3 hours from the travesty that Jackson | made | vkou wrote: | The best way to watch that is almost certainly to come in | on ~hour 10. | runeofdoom wrote: | There are also fan-made "book edits" of LotR and the | Hobbit that purge as much non-book material as possible | while keeping th film coherent. | superjan wrote: | For starwars fans, there's machete order: | https://www.rodhilton.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga- | sugg... | dylan604 wrote: | I wouldn't mind sitting in a screening of Dune pt1 followed | by Dune pt2 when it comes out. Sounds like something Alamo | would do. While not 10-14 hours, I would be willing to sit | in the theater for 4-5 hours. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | AMC by me did all 3 LOTR films in 3 nights just before | the hobbit came out. I enjoyed it a lot but by god by the | time the 3rd movie ended I was _done_ , and then I still | had to sit through another 45 minutes of endings. | | (Best movies ever) | hinkley wrote: | SciFi did a miniseries, just before or just after they | changed their name. It wasn't bad. I think it was about 10 | hours. | | The problem is that a lot of the payoff is at the end of | book 3, and then book four tips the whole thing upside down | with some deep religious and philosophical elements that | I'm not sure everyone is ready for. | | I'm always a little surprised how few people have read Dune | relative to Lord of the Rings, but the more I think about | Dune the more I get it. | dylan604 wrote: | >with some deep religious and philosophical elements that | I'm not sure everyone is ready for. | | This is how I felt about Battlestar. I barely remember | watching the original series as a kid, but I just | remember a couple of character names, Cylons (which I | thought were cool), the space ships, and the human in the | dark room ontop of the pyramid shape the Cylons talked | to. That was it. Then I watched the reboot, and was | shocked by the religious overtones. Clearly, I never | researched anything about it until that point, and then | it all made sense. | | I'm nervous about Buck Rogers (biddybiddup, what's up | Buck!) might turn out the same way on a reboot. | bigmattystyles wrote: | Religious overtones or are ancient religious texts the | original sci-fi where its adherents a few generations | removed never got the memo? Only kinda joking. I too | picked up on battlestar, resurrection, the twelve tribes | (or colonies?) lords ok Kobol and so on. I think someone | told me at some point the original was Mormons in space. | WalterBright wrote: | You can never reboot Max "perhaps you should execute | their trainer" von Sydow as Ming the Merciless. Melody | Anderson. Queen soundtrack. A true masterpiece. | WalterBright wrote: | I don't understand all the love for Dune. I read it, it | was ok, and that was it. 3 underwhelming film adaptations | is more than enough. | | Special effects don't make a movie anymore. What matters | is plot (and music). For example, "Colossus the Forbin | Project" is very good. Some other very good scifi movies: | | . Invaders from Mars | | . Flash Gordon (1980) | | . Terminator | | . Star Wars IV | | . Alien | rolph wrote: | the "can i be of assistance" interface always reminded me of al | jafee | RajT88 wrote: | That guy seemed really annoyed the whole time. It was | strange! | boeingUH60 wrote: | Maybe they can create a new movie based on this funny story. Name | it _Doge King_ and chronicle the bizarre world of selling | shitcoins. | gte525u wrote: | Basically 'Ed Wood' reimagined? | duiker101 wrote: | Netflix just gave him the money? Isn't a producer the one with | the money that hires people? | gkoberger wrote: | Well, he had his own production company, and they gave money to | that. | pavlov wrote: | In the same sense as a startup founder is the one with the | money who hires people. Usually it's somebody else's money who | is keeping a distance, and the producer/founder is making | decisions on how to use it. | livinginfear wrote: | Since we're discussing the economics of film/TV studios, and | their weird decisions. I'd like to understand why the studios are | still making Star Trek shows. Each one seems to be more poorly | received than the last. That's costing studios far more than | $55M. Picard alone cost ~$9M per episode according to Wikipedia. | dylan604 wrote: | Eventually, you get one right, right? Even a blind squirrel | finds a nut once in a while. Plus, there are so many Trekkies | that will watch anything regardless of how bad it is just so | they can bitch about it after watching it. They still had to | watch it though, and that's about all that matters to the | analytics. | rightbyte wrote: | It is strange they can fail so bad, since Star Trek is | essentially a setup to make _any story at all_ each episode. I | mean, McFarlains comedy-as-an-excuse Not-Star Trek Star Trek is | so much more Star Trek than the new series ... at a way lower | budget. Imagine if they gave him the job instead. | mavhc wrote: | Which new series? | anonymouskimmer wrote: | Star Trek shows last for decades as revenue generators through | syndication, streaming, merchandising, novels, movies, theme | park events, and etcetera. A new series may draw people in, | many of whom will stay to watch the older series. | | Now that the series are basically only available on streaming | through CBS/Paramount I don't know what syndication gains are | being made, but I'd guess a huge percentage of the | CBS/Paramount streaming subscribers are staying subscribers for | the huge Star Trek library. It's an anecdote but the last time | I quit Netflix was when they lost Star Trek and I realized I | was basically only hanging on for Star Trek episodes (after | about a year and a half I resubscribed for other content). | metabagel wrote: | Paramount+ took a few swings at this, and eventually they hit | paydirt with Strange New Worlds. | | The intention isn't to make mediocre shows. The intention is to | make a show which draws an audience, and Star Trek shows start | with a decent base audience to make it worth trying. | pests wrote: | SNW works imo because it's a throw back to the episodic | nature of the earlier shows. | | Discovery did not work for me in the same way despite me | usually liking those less episodic plotlines. | jandrese wrote: | So I assume Netflix sued him for breach of contract? It doesn't | seem like the world was deprived of any art except for whatever | production wasn't greenlit because this guy was too busy making | line go up to actually do his job. | gkoberger wrote: | Ironically, he sued them. But yes, it's currently in court as | we speak. | | (It's all in the article!) | usrusr wrote: | Heh, sounds like the next big Netflix white collar crime hit will | be self-referential then. Will they reuse their Streamberry alter | ego from Black Mirror or appear as Netflix proper? | function_seven wrote: | From the Times article: | | > _[Rinsch] transferred more than $4 million from his Schwab | account to an account on the Kraken exchange and bought Dogecoin, | a dog-themed cryptocurrency._ | | Guy sounds like a dummy | | > _Unlike his stock market investments, this one paid off: When | he liquidated his Dogecoin positions in May 2021, he had a | balance of nearly $27 million._ | | Shit, maybe _I 'm_ the dummy? | starttoaster wrote: | Around 2021, Dogecoin was a very interesting short term | investment, yeah. Everyone was high off of AMC and GME in the | stock market, so people were actively investing and day | trading. Elon Musk was talking up Dogecoin, keeping in mind | this is when he was still very popular in a positive way, and | crypto in general was doing really well around that time. I'm | not sure that it's wise to throw money into it now though. | Crypto has become a very polarizing topic with people, with a | vocal group of people that absolutely hate it (some of whom | have no idea what they're talking about, but there are | absolutely genuine reasons to dislike it as it's implemented | today), and it has a somewhat uncertain future with government | agencies reigning in on it (which certainly needs to happen for | it to have a future too, but governments today seem more | content with pulverizing the tech into the mud than see it grow | into itself while keeping it fairly regulated.) | sennight wrote: | > Crypto has become a very polarizing topic with people... | | Certain people. I was involved from the beginning, and most | of the OGs just shrug at the present day noise - the convert | zeal being long exhausted by all the complaints about how PoW | makes Mother Gaia cry. The people who have a crazy level of | investment are the tech journalists that took very public | positions badmouthing bitcoin. That is probably also true of | anyone else who can't resist calculating how much their | mistake cost them when they compared bitcoin to beanie babies | at $150. | | > ...which certainly needs to happen for it to have a future | too, but governments... | | Firing first in a duel, global economy style - that is why | the foot dragging has been so protracted. | askonomm wrote: | I wish they'd make another Altered Carbon season. And bring back | Joel Kinnaman. The first season was amazing. | guhcampos wrote: | Indeed, that was a painful loss. | jauntywundrkind wrote: | Or more Electric Dreams! Great production value Philip K Dick | short stories. | | I haven't actually watched Altered Carbon but I have a trail of | Takeshi Kovacs characters in various mmos and games, and am in | general a Richard K Morgan fan. I loved _Altered Carbon_ | series. His recent-er _Thirteen_ was fun imaginative Mars | stuff. _Market Forces_ is old old old & has a lot of mediocre | aspects, but I loved the _Car Wars_ style setting & corporate | mercenary treatment. | selimthegrim wrote: | What were your thoughts on their take on _Autofac_? | gretch wrote: | I really liked S1 and went into S2 bright-eyed and bushy | tailed. Woe, it wasn't the same at all... | | Hope they bring back Joel and the S1 formula for success | ciberado wrote: | The books where also very different from each other, but with | much superior result. Give them a try, if you want part of | the fun of the first season. But the first season of the | Netflix show is still muy preferred approach to this | universe. | kjuulh wrote: | I rewatch it once a year or so. I haven't caved yet and read | the books. But I still hope for a 3rd season even though it is | probably never going to happen | askonomm wrote: | Yeah, Netflix said it was too expensive to make, and yet they | shelve $55M worth of a show ... | WalterBright wrote: | So many great sci fi novels, and so many bad movie versions. | | Heck, nobody even seems to be able to film a decent "War of the | Worlds" that is like the book. | Jedd wrote: | The first story _in this class_ that I read was Empires of the | Deep - really amazed me on two fronts. | | First, the way the economics of these endeavours are so flawed | that even the most passionate creatives / sponsors can't viably | get the finished or near-finished product out to paying | customers. | | Second, that this stuff doesn't get leaked more often - | especially recent examples. Wikipedia also has a running list of | abandoned films, though it looks to be US / Euro-centric. [1] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires_of_the_Deep (there's | plenty of more interesting write-ups around the backstory) | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abandoned_and_unfinish... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-24 23:00 UTC)