The Coyote Vs Acme movie seems to be dead. I never even heard of it until just now. Remarkable that you can make a movie, spend all that money, only to have it dipped in hot acetone. I would have thought you could recapture some of the expense by passing along to some streaming service.
Roadrunner/Coyote would not seem to lend themselves to a two-hour movie. They seem ideal as a short. Still, you have to try new things. In this case, they tried a new thing and decided against it.
The main issue I’m seeing right now is that Warner Bros. claimed they would allow it to be sold to other studios, but then has turned down all offers.
The positive spin I’m seeing right now is that, unlike Batgirl, this thing has been shown repeatedly, and there’s been enough time for someone to make a copy and then later leak it, ala that Scooby Doo movie (and unlike Batgirl).
It’s really weird in that it tested quite well with audiences.
There are a lot of calls for Zaslov’s head, apparently not realizing that CEOs like that are scapegoats. They are hired to take the heat.
There is a Wikipedia page, and it has a plot summary;
After every product made by Acme Corporation have backfired on Wile E. Coyote in his pursuit of the Road Runner, a down-and-out billboard human attorney represents Wile E. in his lawsuit to sue Acme. A growing friendship between Wile E. Coyote and his lawyer motivates their determination to win the court case, as it pits them against the intimidating boss of Wile E.'s lawyer’s former law firm, who now represents Acme.
It sounds dreadful.
There is also a trailer.
Early audiences said it was a lot of fun.
The problem appears to be that David Zaslav is a moron who doesn’t understand movies that don’t neatly fit into a category on his intellectual property spreadsheet and he has no idea how to market a movie where the main draws are animated characters who can’t make appearances on talk shows.
And if he sells it to another distributor and they make it a hit, then he confirms himself as a moron.
Better if it just disappears.
Managerial incompetence like this is a big part of why Christopher Nolan dumped WB and took Oppenheimer to Universal.
Really? It sounds kinda fun to me.
That might be the most action packed trailer I have ever seen! How could they not be releasing that movie? What has gone wrong with this world?!?
The articles I’ve read on the movie said it’s a lot of fun. Various studios offered to buy the movie and Paramount was even willing to give it a theatrical release. I think it’s a mistake not to release it or let someone else release it.
Is it based on the National Lampoon story?
You mean the New Yorker story?
The Wikipedia article on the movie says that it was, in part, based on Ian Frazier’s story. And aside from preventing the public from seeing the movie, David Zaslav’s decision not to release it but instead to claim the tax loss means that the people who worked on it don’t get to see their work get released. That’s going to discourage people from wanting to work on Warner Bros movies in the future so it may not be worth the financial gain.
I was thinking of the three-part “Cliffhanger Justice” that appeared in National Lampoon over three months in 1982. I don’t think I ever saw the New Yorker piece.
That is not a trailer. That is all clips of pre-existing Looney Tunes content.
I think making movies then burying them is fairly common. These days, the budget for marketing a film can be as much or more than the cost of making it. So if a movie looks like it won’t recoup its investment, it can be smarter to just dump it than spend more money on a marketing campaign for a failed movie.
And if what they are offering for streaming is low enough, depending on how the money is spread between the creative and production people it can be better for the studio to scrap it and take the tax writeoff, or so I’ve heard.
This is what happens when you put techbros in charge of entertainment companies. No sense of conservatorship or appreciation for the art, just “how do I make line go up next quarter”.
Except that in this case, other studios offered to buy the movie but Warner Bros declined all offers. Supposedly all of the bids came in under the reserve of $75 million, except that Warner Bros was keeping that fact secret and didn’t let anyone else up their offer. And remember that for the creative and production people, it’s not just how much money they’re paid but also that their work gets seen. This sort of bullshit discourages people from wanting to work for Warner Bros in the future.
I saw a good recommendation elsewhere for a change to the laws around this sort of thing. You want to claim a tax write-off for a completed film? That’s fine, but now it’s in the public domain.
I don’t understand the tax write off justification. You can still deduct costs even if revenue comes in much lower than anticipated, presumably. As for marketing, that might argue against a theatrical release, but it’s hard to see why you couldn’t release it directly to Netflix etc.
“The CEO is a moron who doesn’t want to look bad if another studio makes this into a hit”, has some plausibility, but it also suggests a supine board of directors. It also suggests that the CEO isn’t very good at deal-making - there should be a profit-sharing contract that could be cut if you think another studio knows how to market a viral film.
Q: Say the film was awful, like Batgirl was allegedly. Is there a good reason not to release it to streaming? I mean eg $1 million > 0, and you can still deduct expenses. Did the studio think they would take a reputational hit?
And this favorite I’ve posted before:
