Disney is usually accused of milking a franchise too hard, not cutting off nearly completed projects at the knees.
Shelving Batgirl makes sense economically. Batgirl was meant for streaming only, not a theatrical release. Reports are that it was a bad movie. Releasing the movie on streaming won't generate any revenue. Existing subscribers watching the movie doesn't create revenue. A bad movie is not going to attract new subscribers to add revenue. You're not going to put a movie made for streaming, on a streaming production budget rather than theatrical blockbuster budget, out in the theaters, especially if you know it's going to be a bad movie. If you're not going to make money on the project, releasing it could be bad for the brand: John Campea makes a good point that the last Matrix movie has basically ruined that franchise's future. Shelving it permanently for a tax write-off is the best option to get something out of the project. Now, if Batgirl were a great film, that would be another story. And people can be cynical that studio insiders are playing up that it was a bad movie, to explain shelving it. But I don't know why saying that about a shelved project would help the studio. Separate from Batgirl, what is harder to understand is why Scoob! Holiday Hunt also got shelved. That news has gotten overshadowed by Batgirl's shelving. Also, HBOMax has been quietly removing movies that were made for the streaming service, and already up on the streaming service: Variety article. Unclear why they did that, and what his happening with the HBOMax streaming service. During the pandemic, Jason Kilar (former CEO of WarnerMedia, who resigned just before Discovery acquired Warner Bros) had a "streaming first" strategy that prioritized HBOMax above theaterical releases. They did day-and-date releases of theatrical movies. They greenlit projects for the streaming service, like the Batgirl movie. You can point to increasing subscriber numbers on HBOMax. But there was a long-term cost to a "streaming first" strategy. For example, Chris Nolan left Warner Bros. Is losing great talent in the best interests of the studio, long-term? I don't think it's an easy answer how to deal with HBOMax, and juggle a streaming service and theatrical releases. Zaslov has shown that he doesn't agree with the "streaming first" strategy of old management. And he's said that he won't enter the arms race with Netflix and Disney+ to try to outspend them on absurdly expensive projects for the streaming service. There's sense in that: look at where cutting blank checks as a strategy has gotten Netflix -- they are saddled in enormous debt, their subscribers numbers are now falling, and their stock price has tanked. I can see the sense in cutting loose the old. But it's not clear yet what the future strategy is. There's no Kevin Feige lined up to helm the DCEU. Maybe we will get more insights about the future plans for the studio and the streaming service when Warner Brothers Discovery does its 2Q earnings release later today.
The Joker sequel has a title. Variety - Joker: Folie a Deux to be released on Oct 4, 2024. The upcoming “Joker” sequel is set to be a musical. Director Todd Phillips posted the screenplay’s cover to Instagram on June 7, revealing the “Folie à Deux” subtitle. Lady Gaga confirmed her casting in “Joker 2” by posting a musical teaser to social media. The sequel, officially titled “Joker: Folie à Deux,” will star Gaga opposite Joaquin Phoenix.
Certainly may be part of it. WAY more people have heard about this than were ever aware it existed in the first place. I don't have much interest in Batgirl other than as an occasional sidekick for Batman. Batman is my favorite super hero. I'd never even heard of this. The little bit I saw of the CW show was cringe inducing awful. But I think you're right this could be part of hyping a decision reversal to come. At least floating the idea to see how much interest they can generate.
But that wasn't was provided. Posting an image of some random dude in a Batman costume does not answer the question that Keaton himself is or isn't back. He was not actually photographed wearing the costume at all, AFAIK. Anyway, not a big deal.
Looks awful. Was anyone really clamoring for a Batgirl flick? Seriously... I also thought the recent Batman movie was trash. Heard all these great things about it and it was a snoozefest. Not to mention it was comically dark - both visually and plotwise. Terrible.
It was just going to be more ABSOLUTE GARBAGE, straying away from the SOURCE MATERIAL is the DEATH NAIL!
Though I rarely read comics/graphic novels anymore, & don't care for any cinema versions at all, I can say this; anyone that thinks they're still meant to be fun comics for kids has been living deep in a cave for the past 30+ years. I can remember comics of the '70s, (Green Arrow anyone?), tackling drug addiction head on. And since the '80s/'90s such progressive & adult changes have only increased.
Looking at some of the behind the scenes video and still photos this looks a lot like 'my' '60s Batgirl. So now I do wish it was going to be available!
Speaking of movies that have been shelved: here's an article on no less than 11 films that were shelved, mainly due to legal problems, creative disputes, lack of money, or a combination of all of those. In a lot of cases, they were also "not very good" (which may be the case with Batgirl): "Batgirl' And 11 Other Unreleased Movies That Will Probably Never See The Light Of Day I have inside knowledge on one of them, since I actually dealt with the producer on another business deal, but I can't say which one. He insists the writer/director went crazy and would not compromise, so they're at a standstill on actually getting the film released. There's always a danger in giving creative people too much control, because then when they start going off the rails, there's no way to stop them. There's also a less-discussed classification of movies that barely got released, and maybe they were screened in 15-20 theaters before collapsing. There's a ton of those that came out, usually because there was a change in regime at the studio or distributor and nobody cared about the film anymore, and it was easier to write it off than it was to spend millions to actually advertise and distribute it properly.
that doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they release it to at least make back some money? Unless additional expenses to have it released exceed expected revenue? Would that be possible?
Exactly! We are on a text forum, and we appear only as our written words. So I endeavor to express myself as clearly and consistently as possible. I don't always succeed, and the spell checker has absurdist tendencies, but I do try.
The Louie CK movie mentioned in this article, “I Love You, Daddy” was up on YouTube in a rough looking, but seemingly finished print for awhile after it was cancelled. It just had a generally bad feel to it given the scandal.
Yeah, anytime the lead actor or most visible person in a film is tainted by scandal, it casts a pall over the entire production. For that reason, I'd be shocked if they're able able to shoot, finish, and release Alec Baldwin's Rust movie, where the DP was killed and the director was injured by a stray bullet.
And the latest from the WB/Discovery CEO... “We’re not going to launch a movie until it’s ready,” Zaslav said during the Q&A portion of the call, when asked directly about “Batgirl” getting the ax. “We’re not going to launch a movie to make a quarter and we’re not going to put a movie out unless we believe in it.” 'Batgirl' Shelved: Warner Bros. Discovery CEO Defends Decision - Variety
Made Zero sense to not bring back the Keaton Batman in anything less then a top of the line, Summer or Holiday Blockbuster
Staring!?! As in "main character above the title" role? Keaton is almost 71 years old. Somehow I doubt that the world is clamoring for a geriatric Batman. Actors do age out of roles. I sincerely hope you were being ironic.