We will look at the reasons why studios shelve movies and what its implications are for the industry. Firstly though let’s contextualise this phenomenon.

Warner Bros

Recently Warner Bros has made several headlines relating to the shelving of complete or almost complete films. Famously in 2022, the studio shelved Batgirl, which was almost finished. The $90 million production was intended for release on HBO Max before its release was cancelled. Then earlier in November, they shelved the animation/live-action hybrid movie Coyote vs. Acme, based on the Looney Tunes franchise. Which cost around $70 million. This film was going to be released on streaming before being upgraded to a theatrical release and then cancelled. Only allowing the filmmakers to shop the project around after significant backlash.

Why?

So why would a studio that spent so much on these films not release them? Historically studios have shelved movies to protect the studio’s image, due to internal politics like mergers, changing rights etc., or to wait for better release opportunities. Among other reasons. But Warner Bros. permanent shelving is reportedly purely financial. Warner Bros. Discovery planned to cut $3 billion in debt within two years of the merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery. 

As a result, Coyote vs. Acme was shelved for a tax write-off of around $30 million. Meanwhile, Batgirl was part of a package of cuts that saw $2-2.5 billion written off.

Several factors may explain Warner Bros. decision to sacrifice these films. These films did not have comparatively big budgets but with Batgirl originally going to be released on streaming it may have been harder to make its budget back. Cinema distribution could have remedied this but the studio would have had to spend money on marketing. Which could increase costs by up to 50%. Additionally, as Batgirl has not led a live-action feature before and Looney Tunes films have struggled to make huge profits recently the studio may have feared for their box office performance. So they could have viewed the write-off money as more beneficial in the long run. 

Art and Business

However, these claims do stretch credibility when we factor in a few things. Firstly considering these movies were both part of well-known franchises with big actors involved it’s easy to see them making their money back with the right amount of marketing. Some may point to the diminishing numbers for the most recent DC superhero movies and the last Looney Tunes-related feature (Space Jam: A New Legacy) as a point against releasing the films. However, Space Jam was released during the aftermath of the pandemic and the last two DC films encountered problems from bad press and releasing during a strike where union members weren’t doing marketing promotion. It’s easy to see smaller-budget films performing well given ample marketing opportunities and release territory. 

Beyond the money calculations though it also raises grave questions about the trustworthiness of studios. Considering that actors and writers spent months fighting with studios for adequate recognition of their value in the industry locking away projects that many artists put a lot of hard work into, so studios can make their money back, will not encourage artists to work with Warner Bros. And it also makes a bad impression on audiences as it robs them of the chance to see something they may have wanted to see.

Conclusion

This is not the first time we have seen movies shelved for financial reasons. But these permanent shelving attempts feel more pronounced given the time in which they come.

In the aftermath of a pandemic that saw many turning to entertainment for comfort and historic strikes that saw actors and writers taking studios to task for undervaluing them for a studio to wipe away many artists’ hard work, potentially severely denting the confidence of the artists and viewers whose support they need to make and buy their projects, can’t be seen as a business-savvy move.

The post The Maths Behind Studios Shelving Movies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Synopsis

A group of aliens called Nerdlucks come to earth and try to kidnap the Looney Tunes (who live underground) to rescue their boss Swackhammer’s failing theme park, Moron Mountain. Outmatched technologically, the Looney Tunes, challenge the aliens to a basketball game to earn their freedom, expecting an easy victory. But the aliens steal the talent of Earth’s best basketball players, becoming the intimidating Monstars. The Tune’s only hope is to get Michael Jordan (playing himself) to coach and play with them. But with Michael having retired from basketball to play baseball professionally does he still have what it takes to save the Tunes?

What Did I Like?

Space Jam’s best elements are its animation and direction. The animated characters move smoothly and have a great level of energy that feels in keeping with the classic Looney Tunes aesthetic. In addition, their incorporation into live-action settings along with the real actor’s interaction with the animated world feels natural and well done. The eye-lines, framing, use of props, and stage actions gives everyone a feeling of presence and weight in the world, which helps audiences buy into the world being shown.

Another positive is the voice acting which gives every animated character a distinct feel. Billy West is suitably self-assured as Bugs Bunny, Dee Bradley Baker shines as the selfish Daffy Duck, and Kath Soucie is certainly memorable as the sultry Lola Bunny. The voices of the Monstars add a real level of danger to proceedings with their intimidating and maliciously evil tones and Danny DeVito feels truly slimy as Swackhammer.

Then there’s the delightful soundtrack. Full of RnB and hip-hop tracks which are undoubtedly endearing to those who love 90s music. But the subject and emotions communicated by each song fits and adds to the scenes they are used in. And of course, the Quad City DJ’s theme song is infectious; remaining permanently ingrained in many people’s heads to this day.

What Did I Not Like?

Space Jam’s story is incredibly underdeveloped and doesn’t seem to know who it’s aimed at. The excuse to involve the Looney Tunes in the story feels flimsy at best (Swackhammer sees them on TV and decides to make them his star attraction. Why exactly?). Michael’s story also feels lazy. Despite the initial setup of Michael leaving basketball to play baseball the movie spends little to no time with him away from basketball or doubting his ability when the Looney Tunes ask him to play. Thus, it lacks any impact and makes the human’s story feel mostly pointless. With everything else being a cookie-cutter, cliched underdog story. Tonally the film is also inconsistent. With the Looney Tunes’ child-friendly over-the-top slapstick and funny voices contrasting awfully with long stretches showcasing humourless sports drama and Michael’s private/business life.

The human characters also lack interesting dimensions. The actors are written as either bland versions of themselves or stock characters. Which quickly becomes boring. The acting doesn’t help. Wayne Knight aside, all the human actors are clearly putting in no effort. And the athletes featured in the film are terrible at acting. The worst offender is undoubtedly Michael Jordan who just doesn’t have any discernible personality or charisma to latch onto as the main character. Because no characters make an impression and the lack of enthusiasm or talent from the human stars is palpable it also diminishes most of the attempts at comedy. Making large portions of the film a chore to watch.

Finally, because the film’s story, characters and much of its humour fails to engage viewers the blatant product placement for McDonald’s, Nike, Gatorade etc. and the use of the film as a branding exercise for Warner Bros animation properties and a vehicle for NBA players becomes more difficult to stomach. Contrary to films like the Lego Movie, which showed it’s possible to make great movies from merchandising opportunities, this movie feels uninterested in being anything more than a commercial. Which sincerely sours the whole enterprise.

Verdict

Space Jam’s animation and direction which mixes animation with live-action remains incredible. The voice actors are distinct, and the great soundtrack really enhances the viewing experience.

But the poor story, which doesn’t seem to know its audience combined with lazily drawn or stock human characters and mostly bad performances (Michael Jordan being the worst) makes it impossible to invest substantively in the action. While also making many jokes flounder, and the films aggravating use as a vehicle for product placement and branding harder to ignore.

Ultimately, Space Jam doesn’t hold up without the rose-tinted glasses.

Rating: (1.5 / 5)

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Retro Review: Space Jam appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.