Somebody online called this ‘the definition of the sunk cost fallacy,’ and I can see the point.
What makes this interesting is that the same could be said of the BATGIRL flick, and they ruthlessly suppressed that one right down to its component atoms. I have a certain aesthetic appreciation for the way Warner Bros has decided to just… do it, man. Will it work? Maybe, if THE FLASH turns out to actually be worth watching*. Will watching the train wreck if it’s not have its own entertainment value, all on its own? Most assuredly.
Guess we’ll see!
Moe Lane
*Horrible and/or mentally troubled people can be good actors.
“What makes this interesting is that the same could be said of the BATGIRL flick”
Which means, all else being equal (company, market, etc.) quality becomes important.
Sunk cost goes toward cutting losses – sell it for whatever you can get or throw it away, but for god’s sake stop spending money on it.
1) There are no buyers from other studios so it’s worthless there.
2) I am no expert on this particular films accounting structure, but most do not start to pay our bonuses, percentages, or some full salaries until release; and when you combine that with prints, marketing, etc, even an unsupported VOD release (which in practical terms is free) might actually cost more than expected return.
So since you can’t sell it and any release costs money, this leaves only 3) Throw it away. Or in this case shelve it, which is essentially the same.
All of this leaves unstated the explanation: Batgirl isn’t good.
Like AT ALL.
And since criticism of such a woke endeavor publicly is suicide in Hollyweird, everyone will keep saying nice things and claim to have no idea why it’s been shelved.
But WE know.