Completed movies that were entirely wiped out of existence

Registered User

02-14-24

Originally Posted by skizzerflake

It's an interesting hypothetical question.....if someone offered you 20 million in return for making a great movie that they would claim, make money from and put their name on, would you do it? What would be your price?

I would do that for way less than 20 million

If I'm getting paid handsomely, who cares if my name is attached? My name doesn't mean anything.

And now I would have the freedom to do whatever I want from here on in and not worry if it makes little to no money.

Little Ash

he/him

02-15-24

Originally Posted by FilmBuff

Re: citations, this has been reported extensively in the trades.

To some degree, touche, in that I didn't even bother to google. I've seen enough hyperbolic, misconstrued claims that I often don't feel the need to do research other people's claims.

But just trying to find evidence of the claim with Batgirl, I'm just seeing that the directors rushed to get clips of the movie from the WB server before the film was deleted and were too late. Less so that Zaslav was on a warpath, trying to lock down the film to make sure that no one got a copy of it, a la the Thought Police in 1984. Which, writing it out, I wouldn't put it past him (given what I perceive to be his ego), that he might have. While the outcome is the same regardless of machinations here, if it's less about locking it down and just, "we're done, just delete it," there seems more of a window for directors to be more careful in the future to pre-emptively back up copies of their movies in progress on home machines (or maybe write it into their contracts to get a copy of their work if the project is cancelled) if this trend continues.

And related to the conversation about lost films, if we want examples of films never released, if we extend it to original cuts of films, a famous one would be we never got the original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons because it got dumped at the bottom of the ocean while Welles was in Brazil. I'm guessing that was a greater loss than these three films so far.
And a lot of lost films that were then recovered, happened because people kept copies of the film that they weren't supposed to have had (released films, people at theaters kept copies instead of sending them back, people smuggled copies out of studios, etc). I'd say, I'm not sure what the equivalent of it would be here, but it sounds like transfer it to a thumb drive (though, it depends on how locked down these systems are for making copies and smuggling them out, which I'm guessing they're getting more and more locked down) or apparently film it on your phone based on the article.

citation that I found that seemed to match the other ones: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/batgi...b0f72c09dc4361

I'm seeing The Mothership has been cancelled I'm not seeing anything about it being deleted from existence.
Googling "Coyote vs Acme", I am seeing people using the phrase "deleted from existence," about its cancellation, but I'm not seeing confirmation that the film actually got deleted and the filmmakers weren't able to get a backup copy (my googling may just be wanting). I'm not saying even if someone smuggled out a copy of Coyote vs Acme, it's all a-okay and there's nothing to be worried about, but I'm just trying to get a better sense of the beast the public has to currently worry about wrestling with.

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

02-15-24

Originally Posted by Little Ash

[...]

I created the thread expressly for the purpose of discussing the new trend that has been happening post-pandemic. I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me that giving specific examples of how this has been happening post-pandemic wouldn't be enough to get the point across that I'm talking very specifically and exclusively about what has been happening post-pandemic.

Look, the issue of lost films in general (by which I mean ALL lost films ever) is one that is very dear to my heart; but it is also very, very, very old news. We've known about that for decades and, sadly, there is absolutely nothing to be done about it.

But what is happening post-pandemic is a whole new phenomenon altogether, one that doesn't involve a) political censorship by the state; or b) long, drawn-out battles between stubborn directors and equally determined studio chiefs over which version of a movie to release to the public - or a studio simply taking the movie out of the director's hands, re-editing it to their hearts desire, and then releasing the truncated version (think Terry Gilliam's Brazil).

The new phenomenon is simply different because the studio just shuts down everything and doesn't even attempt to release a butchered copy of the movie the director made. They simply decide the movie is never to see the light of day, period. And part of the deal with using those movies as a tax write-off is that they must ABSOLUTELY make sure the movie never gets to see the light of day, at least as far as the reporting on the matter from the most reputable trade publications in Hollywood (I'm no tax expert, but I take their word on this, since they've cited their sources).

It would be bad enough to see a butchered version of Batgirl or Coyote vs. Acme, which would at the very least allow us to imagine what a director's version might have looked like. Instead, we are left with nothing but (at best) a few stills and wardrobe images, and pretty much zero footage (except possibly some cellphone video taken during the shoot, but I mean actual footage that was meant to be in the finished film).

That's just the gist of it - we had definitely seen studios taking away movies from directors before, but at least they released something, however badly butchered it had been.

Now, we're getting pretty much zero.

skizzerflake

Registered User

02-15-24

Originally Posted by crumbsroom

I'd probably do it too, but I bet James Cameron would not. I'd be good with the knowledge that I made one "Big" movie and quite willing to live with the money, but I'm not a megalomaniac. It would be like working really hard for a year and then being able to live well for the duration.

crumbsroom

Registered User

02-16-24

Originally Posted by skizzerflake

It would be like working really hard for a year and then being able to live well for the duration.

No one said anything to me about working hard.

Pass.

Dive Bar Casanova

Registered User

02-16-24

Bill Cosby bought out a movie he did and "shelved" it.
Strong talk around the TMZ Disney may shelve the live action Snow White.
An episode of Disney's Davy Crocket was shelved, it was brutal. The series was filmed with the intention to be shown in theaters.
The Magic Christian with Ringo Star & Peter Seller could never be shown in it's original length. Haven't seen it in decades. If ya find a copy it'll be severely cut.

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

02-16-24

Only the live-action Snow White remake would fit the criteria - if the online gossip even turned out to be true, which I doubt. Anything on TMZ has about a 10% chance at best of actually being true.

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

02-24-24

As �Coyote vs. Acme� Hangs in the Balance, Warner Bros. Discovery Takes $115M Write-Down on Mystery Projects

Those following the saga of Coyote vs. Acme waited with bated breath Friday for Warner Bros. Discovery�s earnings report to hint at any signs of the animated film�s fate.

The feature became the most talked about movie in town on Nov. 10, when The Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Warners intended to scrap the movie. The outcry from filmmakers on social media was swift, and Warners soon reversed course, and decided to allow director Dave Green to shop the film to other buyers � something Green had been preparing to do when Warners surprised him by scrapping the film. Green ultimately showed the film to multiple buyers, with at least one bid coming in at around $40 million, according to one source.

Friday brought no definitive news on Coyote vs. Acme�s future, but there are troubling signs for those rooting for its release. As part of an earnings filing, Warner Bros. Discovery said it wrote off $115 million in content due to abandoning films in the third quarter of 2023 as part of a �strategic realignment plan associated with the Warner Bros. Pictures Animation group.�

Notably, Warners relaunched its theatrical animation division last year under the lead of Bill Damaschke and the plan is for the unit to have two features a year on its slate beginning in 2026, WBD CEO David Zaslav added on Friday in a call with analysts.

Part of those $115 million in newly disclosed write-down costs could conceivably belong to Coyote vs. Acme, an $70 million feature whose fate has been hanging in the balance for several months. Will Forte, John Cena and Lana Condor star in the film, a live-action, CG animation hybrid, alongside classic Looney Toons character Wile E. Coyote. Warner Bros. had no comment one way or the other.

The move arrives 18 months after Zaslav stunned Hollywood by canceling Batgirl and Scoob! Holiday Haunt for tax writeoffs. The strategy has made him a controversial figure among creatives, though his film division has managed to build relationships with top talent such as Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Paul Thomas Anderson, Margot Robbie and Ryan Coogler, who have all inked deals with Warners in recent months. (�Our partnership with Tom is off and running,� Zaslav said Friday, noting that film chiefs Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy �spent a couple of days hard at work with Tom in London earlier this month.�)

Since last fall, there has been a grassroots campaign to save Coyote vs. Acme, with voice actor Eric Bauza among those championing the hashtag #ReleaseCoyoteVsACME. Observers were aware Friday could be judgment day for the project, as it was assumed the earnings disclosure would reveal its fate. Wrote Bauza Friday morning on X: �The fight to release �Coyote Vs ACME� goes far beyond saving a great movie. We are trying to preserve the integrity & importance of these icon legacy characters, while protecting the creative process of storytelling all together.�

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

03-04-24

The controversy continues...

In Fiery Monologue, Patton Oswalt Calls Out David Zaslav for Dumping Movies

skizzerflake

Registered User

03-05-24

This seems like grist for the lawyers. Somewhere in the contracts it probably specifies who owns the movie. If they want to burn film copies, delete and wipe digital contents, it seems fairly open and shut to me, no matter what I think about the artistic process.

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

03-06-24

Originally Posted by skizzerflake

This really isn't a legal problem.

skizzerflake

Registered User

03-06-24

Originally Posted by FilmBuff

This really isn't a legal problem.

It's about intellectual property (the movie) and who else has any claim....grist for lawyers. Sadly, a movie isn't some sort of public right, it's a piece of private property, generally owned by a corporate entity unless they donate it to someone else.. They can burn it if they want.

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

03-06-24

Originally Posted by skizzerflake

They can burn it if they want.

Don't give them ideas!

skizzerflake

Registered User

03-07-24

Unfortunately, if you want to control the art you produce, you need to own it and not sign any agreements like that. I can't give the studios any ideas about ownership that they don't already know. I'm not even in the movie business, but once in my career, had to sign one of those agreements that stipulated that all of my work products belonged to my employer to do with as they wish, including taking my name off of it, and I just got a paycheck. It wasn't a bad paycheck and I didn't want the work products, but I'm glad that I knew that up front.

ActionRocks

Hong Kong action film buff.

03-11-24

Game of Death's original screenplay, the way BRUCE LEE himself imagined it. The film wasn't finished but the remaining footage was wipen from the face of the Earth and now we have the crappy 1978 version.

skizzerflake

Registered User

03-12-24

Back on topic - "One of the most distressing new trends in the movie industry is taking a movie that is finished/nearly finished and, instead of just shelving it indefinitely like they used to do in the old days, wiping out the movie altogether."

That almost happened to Nosferatu. It was considered to violate the rights of Bram Stoker, who "owned" the concept of a vampire. Copies of the movie were destroyed and it was out of circulation long enough that film rot set in on film that was not destroyed. Eventually, once sanity was restored, partial copies were used to reconstruct the movie along with digital repairs. Back in the mid-2000's, I recall going to a high-zoot presentation of a restored copy that was on tour and shown in our local opera house, complete with well dressed patrons and a live performance of music written for the movie by a small chamber ensemble.

I tried to see who it was that did that music, but a lot of small ensembles have published Nosferatu music.

That was actually a memorable night.

kgaard

Msg

Registered User

03-13-24

Originally Posted by skizzerflake

So, somewhat related: it was Bram Stoker's wife, Florence Balcombe, who learned of Nosferatu's existence and took legal steps to have it destroyed (Stoker had died in 1912). She wasn't entirely unreasonable: the film was clearly adapted from the book (the handbill of a 1922 screening in Germany even said as much).

But anyway, the part I find interesting is that before she married Stoker, she was Oscar Wilde's girlfriend. At the time Wilde wrote her some rather tetchy letters (asking for the return of a crucifix he had given her) but was later friendly with both her and Stoker.

Last edited by kgaard; 03-13-24 at 02:31 PM.

John McClane

You ready? You look ready.

03-13-24

I'm waiting for someone with enough pull to add a rider to their contract that says "you can't do this shit with my movie unless you pay me lots and lots of money".

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

skizzerflake

Registered User

03-14-24

Originally Posted by kgaard

That whole Stoker drama is interesting. The idea of her being a girlfriend of flamboyantly gay Wilde, as well as launching a le gal drama about Stoker's novel suggests some serious ambition on her part. One of the stories I recall reading is that she argued that the book originated the concept of a vampire and hence was subject to copyright itself seems like a difficult argument to make. Vampires have been the subject of legend and myth almost as long as there has been legend and myth, so it would be hard to claim to have invented them. Even the word nosferatu has much older roots in Romanian myth.

Dracula too, is problematical since there was a historical character by that name (Vlad the Impaler), but this all seems to have been happening back in the earlier days of copyrights and patents when there were not squadrons of lawyers who make their living of these cases. Nobody could check the Wikipedia article on Vlad back then.

An interesting little tidbit on this is from the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula, in which Van Helsing pronounces the neck biter's name as Vlad Drăculea, an updated piece of fictional history, but closer to the name in the old texts.

kgaard