Batgirl movie put into the vault. Not to be released

Wow, must be as bad as Catwoman or something? I wonder what the heck happened to make this movie so bad, they aren’t even shoving it over to streaming or Blu-ray?

I mean, some version of it has to leak at some point, maybe?

And the vault is in in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.

$90 million!!??

I had hoped to see this, as Michael Keaton would have returned as Batman and J. K. Simmons would have returned as Commissioner James Gordon. Alas, not to be. At least this one would have had a connection to the Caped Crusader.

Three words, bat nipple suit.

It is hard to imagine how bad a DC comics movie has to be to just get tossed on the scrapheap.

I would have loved to hear that discussion when someone suggested flushing $90 million down the toilet.

It’s already been flushed. Now they’re just hiding the evidence.

You would think they’d release in some format just to recoup some of their losses. But I guess they’re worried doing so do so much damage to the francise that it’s not worth the attempt. I do feel bad for the actors, there goes all their action figure residuals.

Keaton was supposed to be in The Flash, but are they canning that movie too after Ezra Miller has turned out to be really bad or something? Did that movie affect this movie?

The whole DCEU is a dumpster fire at this point. In addition to Batgirl, they’ve got the completed Flash movie that’s impossible to release due to Ezra Miller. In fact, the two are related – Flash was supposed to set up Michael Keaton returning as Batman due to some sort of alternate universe shenanigans and he would continue in the role in Batgirl.

Best guess is they’re going to release that one in some fashion. Apparently they spent so much money on it already (already $200 million plus whatever they’ve already wasted on advertising and so on) that they don’t feel they can just write it off just for a troubled star. Miller definitely isn’t going to showing up in any other DC movies after this one, though. A re-casting is definitely in the cards.

At worst, it’ll be a streaming-only release.

Makes one really wonder how bad the Batgirl movie had to be to not even get that much. I mean, this is the same studio that did “Batman v Superman: Stupidest Superhero Movie Title Ever”, right?

I found something that said the budget, at about $90 million, wasn’t enough to make a decent looking film, not even for a streaming release.

Also, since Discovery took over HBO, they’ve been cutting stuff left and right, looking for a billion in savings.

Like a lot of things, it’s probably more than ONE reason. First, from the linked article -

The Post says this film will join them due to new Warner Bros. Discovery executive David Zaslav and new Warner Bros. head Michael De Luca seeking to cut costs and focus on movies made for theaters instead of straight-to-streaming.

Couple of things right there -

  1. New head wants to cut costs, and if it was unpopular with audiences in pre-release, do you throw more money trying to fix it when it looks like you won’t recoup the existing expenses?

  2. This is the baby of the previous head - if you trash it now, you’re the ‘sorrowful exec’ who has to make hard decisions to clean up after the errors of the old guard, rather than try (1) above and waste even more money and get egg on your face.

  3. The one still in the article looked . . . poor. Not horrible, but more made-for-scyfy than major studio. Which @Dewey_Finn alluded to in their post.

  4. From the link above again, looks like they don’t want streaming to eat theater business lunch. Kind of like how kindle and other ebooks are overpriced compared to paperbacks - you’re paying a premium for the ease of access, but if you want to save money, you still can get the paperback and not eat the publishing companies paper-based business. (simplified, it’s just one of the reasons e-books are priced the way there are, but good for comparison)

So lots of reasons to dump safely rather than try to fix or shrug and release ‘as-is’. Examples such as the Morbius movie are probably also good examples of not making yourselves look bad.

They should have just used The Flash from the TV show.

I’d be surprised if he hasn’t been approached, but since that show is wrapping up he may want to get out of the DC stuff.

This is not happening because the movie is bad. It may well be terrible, but from Jonah Hex to Morbius, we can see that truly awful movies get put into cinemas all the time.

Here is a much better article from an industry publication.

This is a “dropping the hammer” decision, purely financial, from the recently-installed CEO. He needed a sacrificial lamb to demonstrate his seriousness, and this was cheap enough to be absorbed while still expensive enough to get people’s attention. They will classify it as a tax writedown and move on.

Personally I think the new WB CEO is a jackass moron who’s going to alienate everyone with his brash outsider ignorance, and he’ll wind up with a relatively short tenure. I guess we’ll see.

Yes, that makes sense, and that’s also why it won’t even get streamed…the write-off of $90M (plus whatever magical movie accounting gets added to that) is worth far more to them I’d guess than any potential streaming views.

Probably not worth more in a dollars and cents sense not to release at all, but the point about the new CEO trying to ‘lay down the law’ is probably a good one.

It’s a big enough release to catch attention within the company, even if it’s an asinine and fairly expensive move otherwise. I’d be a bit peeved if I were a shareholder, though. That kind of move does not endear one to investors unless it’s followed up by an unprecedented turnaround and massive profits. And that kind of thing doesn’t generally happen via penny-pinching and “cost-consciousness” combined with going for homeruns every time, no matter what the MBA factory drones would have us think.

Is that any worse than the usual brash insider ignorance (or arrogance)?