I would hope they wouldn't think that, but the use of the term "selling" in the industry implies just that, a sale, not a license. I was only pointing out that difference as the point that was being made was that it was doing harm to the future of the company by selling content to other providers. When in fact, it was a non-exclusive licensing deal (just like the Star Wars to TBS deal that I referenced above). It really isn't a big deal and I"m not sure why a certain poster made it one.
Give it up, even posted the link that said selling, does not matter, just wants to argue, while ignoring the entire point of the post.
The deal Disney signed with Warner was to start in 2016, 3 years before Disney+ launch date, it was for the first 6 films and the future ( at the time) sequels ( when it was time to air after Pay 1), Netflix at the time had Pay 1 ( first run after PPV) status, Warner’s TBS/TNT would of been Pay 2.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
One by one they are all merging or reassembling just like cable. So much for streaming freedom. Before long there will be 4 main streamers and it will cost you just as much as before with forced cable packs if you want to subscribe to them.
One by one they are all merging or reassembling just like cable. So much for streaming freedom. Before long there will be 4 main streamers and it will cost you just as much as before with forced cable packs if you want to subscribe to them.
I really doubt that, specially since Broadcast Channels/RSNs fees will be about $40 next month, then you have that extra $10 in fees ( FCC, Franchise, just because you are a customer of Comcast fee), Box fee(s), then the programing cost.
Still not happening-Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global Have Held Meeting to Discuss Possible Merger
WBD CEO David Zaslav and Paramount CEO Bob Bakish met in New York this week.
www.foxbusiness.com
This is crazy. It seems almost like the merger that created The CW TV network in 2006...on steroids!Still not happening-
Warner Bros. Discovery CEO Zaslav not ready to make deal for Paramount but options remain on table
The purchase of Shari Redstone’s stake in National Amusements and Paramount would make it easier for David Zaslav to start to absorb the media company.
www.darkhorizons.com
I'm not going to explain again, but give it a rest. Neither you nor the author of that article understand taxes.Warner is back getting tax write offs that some posted here they were not getting-
Warner Bros. Pictures abruptly shelved the completed project in November for a $30 million tax write-off, suffering a major backlash both online and amongst the film community for the decision.
New Photo From "Coyote vs. Acme" - Dark Horizons
Eric Bauza, the Emmy winning voice over artist who currently voices multiple Looney Tunes characters, has shared a first look photo from “Coyote vs. Acme”. Warner Bros. Pictures abruptly shelved the completed project in November for a $30 million tax write-off, suffering a major backlash both...
Well, here is Steven Chung, who is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California.
abovethelaw.com
Dude - They would have gotten that tax deduction over the depreciable life of the film anyway. It is all a timing issue. I don't know who Steven Chung is, but he is either a very bad tax attorney or he is being intentionally deceptive. There is no other explanation.Well, here is Steven Chung, who is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California.
He explains it.
By shelving the movie, WB will write off $72 million from its income with means it will save $15.1 million in federal taxes.
Was The 'Coyote vs. Acme' Movie Canceled For Tax Purposes? - Above the Law
Studios generally do not make movies just lto create tax write-offs. Wile E. Coyote had no comment. The Road Runner was traveling and unavailable for comment at press time.
But that is tax they don't have to pay now, so they can use it to pay down debt or invest in something new. Having the money now is (likely) worth more to them than getting the depreciation over time. There is a benefit to the company, if not to all parties involved.
Again, you are answering more then a wrote, all I posted was, from a article, they are still getting Tax Write Offs, then I post something from a Tax Attorney, which you are not, then insult him without knowing who he is and how good at his job he might be.
abovethelaw.com
Absolutely a timing/cash flow benefit. Albeit a minor one. But it is not as portrayed in the multiple posts that this is an additional tax write-off. It is not. It is just an acceleration of the depreciation of the asset (for which the cash has already been paid). There is no company in their right mind that would do these write-offs for the tax benefit (as is being portrayed by these articles and this poster). It is because the content sucked and they determined that it shouldn't be released because they would hurt the brand or because it wasn't worth spending the associated marketing money to generate very limited revenue.
Yes, the tax attorney who is either a bad tax attorney or is intentionally trying to mislead people. Correct. There is literally no other alternative.
