Yes and it's very exciting. I want Disney to die. I want all of Hollywood to die. The only way to save film and television is for Hollywood to die. The only way out is through.
Everything is in death spiral. The entirety of Hollyjew, Internet giants, banks.
Amazon might be the only survivor since they just fricking own concept of buying shit now.
remember the disney vault when they tricked moms into buying VHS tapes by taking them "off the market" for a few years? same shit modern day except no one gives a frick about this
Actual answer
Studios remove their own content from streaming platforms for a few reasons
1. it removes it from any residuals considerations which vary wildly per film (and probably didnt affect this film this much) and any viewership contingent bonuses (also probably not in play here)
2. any licensed assets, music, footage, photos, etc might not be licensed in perpetuity - this was never a problem when films would do a theatrical run of a couple months and then a single physical print run, but in an "evergreen content" world these licensing fees can go through the roof - however, for a movie like this, probably also not really in play (maybe some music but the minimum would be one year so doubtful this is the cause)
3. the actual reason for this film - yanking this film makes it extremely easy to write it down as a tax loss. Everyone has heard of the term "Hollywood Accounting", but here is a crash course in how it works in this film: Disney put together a budget for this film, a budget which included every expense - labor, equipment rentals, facility rentals, purchases, participations, etc. Built into this budget is a lot of stuff that has built-in equity - Disney builds out four new cutting edge edit suites in their new facility, and they bury it in this budget. Lets say this film was budgeted for 200M. Well, in reality they probably only spent 120M. And lets say this film had 20 million viewers in its first 30 days. How much actual revenue does that generate? Does anyone know? The IRS sure doesn't, so when Disney says it only drove 5 million dollars in new subscriptions, the IRS can't do anything to prove them wrong. So they yank it from streaming, and its a nice and tidy 195M loss write down; meaning not only do they not pay taxes on all that fancy new equity theyve built, it also wipes out 195M of taxable income from their actually profitable ventures. Ain't Hollywood wonderful?
Its not just an expense if you are making money with it on your streaming site, it is just an expense after it has been yanked off and isn't generating revenue.
The trouble is, it's hard to prove any individual title is "generating revenue", because all that matters is subscriber count, which is a function of the total content.
It's like asking how many grains of sand make a heap. Take one grain away, and it's still a heap. And if every grain is costing you money to be in the heap, removing one will be more profitable than keeping it.
But at some point it DOES stop being a heap, and you lose subscribers.
No, streaming services make their money
from subscriptions. The IRS doesn’t give two shits about viewership because that’s not where the revenue is. Whose to say the 20 million viewers are subscribers but rather profiles? Whose to say that people definitively signed up subscriptions just to watch Crater? All Disney can go off is analytics and the buzz online. I’m not saying viewership doesn’t matter but it only matters to streaming services who can use it in their analytics. If they release a movie it gains popularity online and the subscription goes up then it’s a win win.
You’re forgetting that the movie industry receives more tax cuts than any other industry in the US. Just do some basic research on MPI and cash rebates and you know what I’m talking about.
remember the disney vault when they tricked moms into buying VHS tapes by taking them "off the market" for a few years? same shit modern day except no one gives a frick about this
its in hopes that someone else buys the streaming rights cause its just losing them money, if someoone else pays thems to have it on their streaming service its just passive income
I would guess some of the actors or production crew had contracts that paid residuals based on streams. If Disney believes that the costs of paying those residuals outweighs the benefit to the subscriber count, then removing it saves money.
I agree but youtube is going to delete videos from inactive channels. Then you have Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft closing down their online stores on older consoles.
That may not be Disney's case because they're deleting new stuff, but something is going down with these corporations' attitude.
This is in fact the case. Streaming-exclusive shows pay the cast & crew residuals for having the show available. If nobody is watching then it makes sense to simply remove it.
what doesnt make sense is spending all that money making a series/movie and then doing zero marketing. I had no idea this "Crater" thing existed until now.
This all could have been avoided if they just structured their contracts based on # of views, similar to how streaming music works, instead of fixed residuals.
But then these frauds would have to open up their books and actually provide real numbers on how many people are really watching their crap.
They do capitalize their costs but it gets amortized like any other asset
Actual answer
Studios remove their own content from streaming platforms for a few reasons
1. it removes it from any residuals considerations which vary wildly per film (and probably didnt affect this film this much) and any viewership contingent bonuses (also probably not in play here)
2. any licensed assets, music, footage, photos, etc might not be licensed in perpetuity - this was never a problem when films would do a theatrical run of a couple months and then a single physical print run, but in an "evergreen content" world these licensing fees can go through the roof - however, for a movie like this, probably also not really in play (maybe some music but the minimum would be one year so doubtful this is the cause)
3. the actual reason for this film - yanking this film makes it extremely easy to write it down as a tax loss. Everyone has heard of the term "Hollywood Accounting", but here is a crash course in how it works in this film: Disney put together a budget for this film, a budget which included every expense - labor, equipment rentals, facility rentals, purchases, participations, etc. Built into this budget is a lot of stuff that has built-in equity - Disney builds out four new cutting edge edit suites in their new facility, and they bury it in this budget. Lets say this film was budgeted for 200M. Well, in reality they probably only spent 120M. And lets say this film had 20 million viewers in its first 30 days. How much actual revenue does that generate? Does anyone know? The IRS sure doesn't, so when Disney says it only drove 5 million dollars in new subscriptions, the IRS can't do anything to prove them wrong. So they yank it from streaming, and its a nice and tidy 195M loss write down; meaning not only do they not pay taxes on all that fancy new equity theyve built, it also wipes out 195M of taxable income from their actually profitable ventures. Ain't Hollywood wonderful?
But this would mean everything they even upload would need to have a certain level of popularity/views to ever justify including it in the catalogue.
That’s crazy. It doesn’t sound like a profitable model at all. Why would they ever go in for something like that to begin with, knowing that they were about to start making bomb after bomb?
My ACTUAL hope of this complete bloodbath of bombs lately is that the studios are going to finally realize that making films with absurdly inflated budgets (that don't offer anything more than Person You Recognize or Franchise You Remember and a squeaky-clean script polished and whittled down to a nondescript inoffensive blob) isn't going to make them their money back any more.
I'm sure that even direct-to-streaming films like this have budgets that are massively overblown for what they are. What did the budget of a straight-to-VHS Disney product or Disney Channel movie of the mid-2000s look like compared to this flop?
2014-2023+ (until the woke era ends) is going to be remembered as a dark period for western media. Even though storage and transference has never been easier, I wouldn't be surprised if literally 80% of the endless crap that nobody wants that they've produced becomes lost media over the next fifteen years.
Not watching that. If it was worth preserving, somebody would figure it out. The problem is that tumblr fanfiction doesn't suddenly become worthy of your time if you give it a budget and call it official.
>If it was worth preserving, somebody would figure it out
If you watch the video you would understand that is not "the worthiness of the content" is the quality of it
make your own research instead of just spewing just your own opinions then
11 months ago
Anonymous
Stfu Linus simp. You unironically watch the biggest soiboy cuck and copy paste his dumb opinions instead of forming your own. I bet you even pay to watch his content. Lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
dude you think this makes you smart but actively avoiding information from people who know a lot more about the subject than you do actually makes you really fricking dumb
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Linus >knowing more about the subject
Lmao. That cuck doesn't know shit about software and thinks adblock is piracy. Let me guess, you're a clueless pajeet and this is your first day on the internet? moron.
I actively avoid corporate shills and sellouts like that ginger c**t.
If you've heard of it, it won't become lost media anytime soon.
What I'm talking about are all of the shows plastered all over streaming services that almost literally nobody watches but that got made because they thought that they had endless money that would last forever. You know, the ones in the LGBT/black/[group that's so oppressed that megacorps will flush millions down the toilet telling you about how oppressed they are by evil white Christian men] section.
>he ones in the LGBT/black/[group that's so oppressed that megacorps will flush millions down the toilet telling you about how oppressed they are by evil white Christian men] section.
such as?
If Disney survives this period, very little of the current leadership will remain in the company. The people in the driver's seat will be whining from outside the cathedral.
Ah, set onna Moon. Thought it was a ripoff of John Barnes's _The Sky So Big And Black_ for a second - about pioneering-style martian teenagers surviving a trip across some vast Martian landscape.
it's not lost media if you can readily access it through torrenting
besides, the movie was an antiquated youth story akin to huckleberry finn and tom sawyer, only it's set in space and the 'poor element' is injected as exploitation instead of as a source of solidarity
>streaming, especially with UHD content, is way more expensive than companies wanted to think about >cut shit that doesn't get play time >normalize content going missing from services >normalize monthly payments add--ons if the viewer wants access to UHD content >eventually roll-out "premium" access add-on that gives the viewer access to all the old cut content >this will be sold as the service "listening to it's audience"
>streaming, especially with UHD content, is way more expensive than companies wanted to think about >cut shit that doesn't get play time
Anon if no one is watching it it's not expensive to stream
This is a terrible precedent getting set now. Everyone's joking but this is a big paradigm shift in vastly lowering the whole point of streaming services and their "catalogs"
Disney is in a death spiral, isn't it?
Yes and it's very exciting. I want Disney to die. I want all of Hollywood to die. The only way to save film and television is for Hollywood to die. The only way out is through.
>I want Disney to die.
Is there other places in the US where a movie industry is building up?
TikTok
Made In Georgia (Atlanta)
New York has always been a second Hollywood definitely since Woody Allen.
Mark Wahlberg is trying to make Vegas a thing
"Angel Studios" in Utah too. Actually produces good shit despite being Mormon and me being an atheist.
Texas. There’s a new film studio being built in DFW
>Texas builds movie studio
>Libshits flee California just to vote for the same shitty politics
Where will it go after Texas in about 20 years?
it's in a death spiral until the next Renaissance
The American indie scene is as bad as Hollywood but it's a good start.
one can only dream
New trailers avoid saying Disney and instead say "from the studio that brought you"...
It's bad.
One can hope.
It's called the Doom loop and it's san Franciscan culture you frickin CHUD
didnt the star wars theme park close down? or sections of it?
Everything is in death spiral. The entirety of Hollyjew, Internet giants, banks.
Amazon might be the only survivor since they just fricking own concept of buying shit now.
how is removing it saving them money?
If the film was produced by another company and Disney was paying a license to distribute it on Disney+
It was removed in a wave with a hundred other shitty titles, presumably the cost of streaming all of them adds up.
They probably stave off having to buy more storage now that they cleared up some space.
They have to pay residuals even if no-one watches it
remember the disney vault when they tricked moms into buying VHS tapes by taking them "off the market" for a few years? same shit modern day except no one gives a frick about this
probably distribution rights
they have the numbers
if 0 people is watching the show, why pay the rights to distribute it
Their hard drive got full
Actual answer
Studios remove their own content from streaming platforms for a few reasons
1. it removes it from any residuals considerations which vary wildly per film (and probably didnt affect this film this much) and any viewership contingent bonuses (also probably not in play here)
2. any licensed assets, music, footage, photos, etc might not be licensed in perpetuity - this was never a problem when films would do a theatrical run of a couple months and then a single physical print run, but in an "evergreen content" world these licensing fees can go through the roof - however, for a movie like this, probably also not really in play (maybe some music but the minimum would be one year so doubtful this is the cause)
3. the actual reason for this film - yanking this film makes it extremely easy to write it down as a tax loss. Everyone has heard of the term "Hollywood Accounting", but here is a crash course in how it works in this film: Disney put together a budget for this film, a budget which included every expense - labor, equipment rentals, facility rentals, purchases, participations, etc. Built into this budget is a lot of stuff that has built-in equity - Disney builds out four new cutting edge edit suites in their new facility, and they bury it in this budget. Lets say this film was budgeted for 200M. Well, in reality they probably only spent 120M. And lets say this film had 20 million viewers in its first 30 days. How much actual revenue does that generate? Does anyone know? The IRS sure doesn't, so when Disney says it only drove 5 million dollars in new subscriptions, the IRS can't do anything to prove them wrong. So they yank it from streaming, and its a nice and tidy 195M loss write down; meaning not only do they not pay taxes on all that fancy new equity theyve built, it also wipes out 195M of taxable income from their actually profitable ventures. Ain't Hollywood wonderful?
But that would mean Disney(Tm) were being dishonest… I find that hard to believe, anon.
But you can already write off all your buisness expenses. And if the IRS doesn‘t know how much streaming is worth, you might as well keep it on
Its not just an expense if you are making money with it on your streaming site, it is just an expense after it has been yanked off and isn't generating revenue.
The trouble is, it's hard to prove any individual title is "generating revenue", because all that matters is subscriber count, which is a function of the total content.
It's like asking how many grains of sand make a heap. Take one grain away, and it's still a heap. And if every grain is costing you money to be in the heap, removing one will be more profitable than keeping it.
But at some point it DOES stop being a heap, and you lose subscribers.
No, streaming services make their money
from subscriptions. The IRS doesn’t give two shits about viewership because that’s not where the revenue is. Whose to say the 20 million viewers are subscribers but rather profiles? Whose to say that people definitively signed up subscriptions just to watch Crater? All Disney can go off is analytics and the buzz online. I’m not saying viewership doesn’t matter but it only matters to streaming services who can use it in their analytics. If they release a movie it gains popularity online and the subscription goes up then it’s a win win.
You’re forgetting that the movie industry receives more tax cuts than any other industry in the US. Just do some basic research on MPI and cash rebates and you know what I’m talking about.
its in hopes that someone else buys the streaming rights cause its just losing them money, if someoone else pays thems to have it on their streaming service its just passive income
Actual accountant here.
Removing it from distribution allows them to write off the fair value of the IP against their revenue for the year and reduce their net tax liability.
https://www.paychex.com/articles/payroll-taxes/what-is-a-tax-write-off
It was 2.59GB, and they needed that space for The Flash
How does pulling a movie you own on a streaming service you own “cost cut”
tax wrtie-off
I would guess some of the actors or production crew had contracts that paid residuals based on streams. If Disney believes that the costs of paying those residuals outweighs the benefit to the subscriber count, then removing it saves money.
>I would guess some of the actors or production crew had contracts that paid residuals based on streams.
Interesting, that's a good point. I can't imagine bandwidth would cost much, youtube and tiktok have billions of videos.
I agree but youtube is going to delete videos from inactive channels. Then you have Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft closing down their online stores on older consoles.
That may not be Disney's case because they're deleting new stuff, but something is going down with these corporations' attitude.
This is in fact the case. Streaming-exclusive shows pay the cast & crew residuals for having the show available. If nobody is watching then it makes sense to simply remove it.
what doesnt make sense is spending all that money making a series/movie and then doing zero marketing. I had no idea this "Crater" thing existed until now.
royalties
how does removing a movie off the service save costs?
Writing it off for tax purposes. It's basically trying to bandage a wound.
They don't have to pay out anything related to streaming residuals from existing contracts, and can write off the film as "losses" for taxes
This all could have been avoided if they just structured their contracts based on # of views, similar to how streaming music works, instead of fixed residuals.
But then these frauds would have to open up their books and actually provide real numbers on how many people are really watching their crap.
>can write off the film as "losses" for taxes
The cost of making a film is already a business expense.
They do capitalize their costs but it gets amortized like any other asset
That is not how accounting works.
residuals must be paid out according to the number of subscriptions, not the number of viewers or minutes watched
But this would mean everything they even upload would need to have a certain level of popularity/views to ever justify including it in the catalogue.
That’s crazy. It doesn’t sound like a profitable model at all. Why would they ever go in for something like that to begin with, knowing that they were about to start making bomb after bomb?
My ACTUAL hope of this complete bloodbath of bombs lately is that the studios are going to finally realize that making films with absurdly inflated budgets (that don't offer anything more than Person You Recognize or Franchise You Remember and a squeaky-clean script polished and whittled down to a nondescript inoffensive blob) isn't going to make them their money back any more.
I'm sure that even direct-to-streaming films like this have budgets that are massively overblown for what they are. What did the budget of a straight-to-VHS Disney product or Disney Channel movie of the mid-2000s look like compared to this flop?
aahhhhh its so hard to store a few gb of data on my servers, thats like $4!
Go woke
Go broke
What was woke about this movie? I've not watched it.
Anon it's 2023 you can't expect a triumph of the will
2014-2023+ (until the woke era ends) is going to be remembered as a dark period for western media. Even though storage and transference has never been easier, I wouldn't be surprised if literally 80% of the endless crap that nobody wants that they've produced becomes lost media over the next fifteen years.
4k is to blame, I saw it on a linus tech video I think
ye
Not watching that. If it was worth preserving, somebody would figure it out. The problem is that tumblr fanfiction doesn't suddenly become worthy of your time if you give it a budget and call it official.
>If it was worth preserving, somebody would figure it out
If you watch the video you would understand that is not "the worthiness of the content" is the quality of it
I don't watch that ginger soiboy Linus.
make your own research instead of just spewing just your own opinions then
Stfu Linus simp. You unironically watch the biggest soiboy cuck and copy paste his dumb opinions instead of forming your own. I bet you even pay to watch his content. Lmao
dude you think this makes you smart but actively avoiding information from people who know a lot more about the subject than you do actually makes you really fricking dumb
>Linus
>knowing more about the subject
Lmao. That cuck doesn't know shit about software and thinks adblock is piracy. Let me guess, you're a clueless pajeet and this is your first day on the internet? moron.
I actively avoid corporate shills and sellouts like that ginger c**t.
>tfw in the future collectors of woke content will be a thing and these will pay hundreds for crap like the little mermaid live action
If you've heard of it, it won't become lost media anytime soon.
What I'm talking about are all of the shows plastered all over streaming services that almost literally nobody watches but that got made because they thought that they had endless money that would last forever. You know, the ones in the LGBT/black/[group that's so oppressed that megacorps will flush millions down the toilet telling you about how oppressed they are by evil white Christian men] section.
>he ones in the LGBT/black/[group that's so oppressed that megacorps will flush millions down the toilet telling you about how oppressed they are by evil white Christian men] section.
such as?
Most qubi and apple tv stuff is already lost media guaranteed. Or only exists on a handful of hard drives and will disappear when those people die.
Isn't qubi stuff all free on roku's streaming service?
Apple Tv still exists anon..
>another Disney plus show that dissappear
If Disney survive this era they won't tell good things about these woke times
If Disney survives this period, very little of the current leadership will remain in the company. The people in the driver's seat will be whining from outside the cathedral.
>McKenna Grace
why does she have surname as firstname and firstname as surname?
>complaining about her name when her costar is literally called ‘Kid’
Seems that 'Crater' CRATERED on Disney+, hoho.
All Liberals will burn in hell
>all these people falling for a fake ai image show again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_(film)
https://ondisneyplus.disney.com/movie/crater
Doesn't look that bad but the premise doesn't look like anything that could last more than 4 episodes
Anon, it's a movie, not a TV show.
Oh
Ah, set onna Moon. Thought it was a ripoff of John Barnes's _The Sky So Big And Black_ for a second - about pioneering-style martian teenagers surviving a trip across some vast Martian landscape.
>that formatting
go back to wikipedia ya chroon
it's not lost media if you can readily access it through torrenting
besides, the movie was an antiquated youth story akin to huckleberry finn and tom sawyer, only it's set in space and the 'poor element' is injected as exploitation instead of as a source of solidarity
basement tapes
so epic, I wish I could see them again
The storyboard for rugrats where Stu sexually harasses Angelica.
>sexually harasses Angelica.
I would have do the same to that little brat
Throatfrickable
Crypto Kenny thread so well concealed that many people missed the point
Piratechads can't stop winning
?
>coon on the moon
>Nothing but nigs for the first 15 minutes
Oh lord, thanks Disney.
>budhist holding big mallet about to strike big bell.png
huh how does this cut cost? freeing up 20gb on their server?
I believe that they can tax write it off.
>streaming, especially with UHD content, is way more expensive than companies wanted to think about
>cut shit that doesn't get play time
>normalize content going missing from services
>normalize monthly payments add--ons if the viewer wants access to UHD content
>eventually roll-out "premium" access add-on that gives the viewer access to all the old cut content
>this will be sold as the service "listening to it's audience"
>streaming, especially with UHD content, is way more expensive than companies wanted to think about
>cut shit that doesn't get play time
Anon if no one is watching it it's not expensive to stream
another movie ruined by diversity casting
>"Mckenna Grace"
They printed her name wrong way around LOL!
Kenny got paid now she can eat donuts.
You will own nothing
This is a terrible precedent getting set now. Everyone's joking but this is a big paradigm shift in vastly lowering the whole point of streaming services and their "catalogs"
Should’nt they produce their own shit so they can retain value to their catalog? How dumb is this model