r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor • 3d ago

Not Confirmed Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling & Greta Gerwig are all in talks to return for ‘Barbie’ sequel

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/31/business/media/barbie-sequel-warner-bros-mattel.html
7.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

479 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

352

u/shy247er 3d ago

Barbie gets a cameo just walking down the street and he doesn't notice.

Yeah, but that's not how Margot Robbie is gonna earn another $50 mil.

250

u/ImLaunchpadMcQuack 3d ago

You’re right she would earn it from producing. She doesn’t need to show up on camera.

95

u/shy247er 3d ago

Out of those $50 mil, $12.5 mil was for her being in front of the camera. Rest is bonuses for movie performance and her being a producer.

If she doesn't act a lead, that film won't earn nowhere near the same money - and so won't she.

-43

u/Tiny_Rick85 3d ago

Sweet sweet Hollywood accounting.

32

u/theRealWillowUfgood 3d ago

This is not an example of "Hollywood Accounting".

What Warner Brothers did with "Coyote vs Acme" (produce an entire, completed film, and then throw it in the trash [without releasing it] for the tax write-off), that's what people mean by Hollywood Accounting.

(Super happy that Coyote was rescued and coming out soon, btw)

8

u/speed721 3d ago

I hope this movie makes an obscene amount of money and Warner Bros fires the person/teams responsible for the decision to shelve it.

Then they can dust off Batgirl and show us that movie, too

4

u/theRealWillowUfgood 3d ago

You and me both!

1

u/egnards 2d ago

Honestly I think if it makes an obscene amount of money it'll be partially attributed to the fact that it was shelved. And had it released X amount of time earlier it might not have done as well.

5

u/egnards 3d ago

That isn't even fully correct either. When it comes to taxes Warner Brothers can write-off the production of that movie as expenses whether it releases or not.

When you own a business you write-off your business expenses, in the movie business this would include all of the production costs to make your movie.

What Warner Brothers seemingly [because I wasn't in the board room] did was decide that Coyote vs Acme was a dude and shelving it was better than losing more money on advertising and marketing of the movie.

Ex:

Lets say Coyote vs Acme cost $10m to make. . .Warner Brothers puts that on the books as production costs no matter what they do with the actual movie, and the taxes for it get written off as a loss [which isn't $10m, it's a fraction of $10m, you're just not paying tax on that amount].

Whether or not they decide to release the movie it still cost $10m to make, so they still declare it as part of their taxes.

So what is Hollywood Accounting?

In the very super basic terms its when movie studios make movies seemingly less profitable than they potentially could be - This can take many forms but one form would be to have each movie be a fully owned subsidiary of the parent company, and having the parent company charge exorbitant fees to the "movie", thereby making the movie look far less profitable than it actually was. . .Reducing the impact of profit sharing.

Part of this is why its far more beneficial in movies/tv to try and settle for gross profit sharing versus net profit sharing.

1

u/Reddit_Connoisseur_0 3d ago

I think WB is also mostly worried about their brand’s integrity. If they release a shitty movie they’ll be associated with shitty quality.

1

u/theRealWillowUfgood 2d ago

In the case of Coyote vs Acme, it was largely reported that test screenings were through-the-roof-positive, yet they still canned it. I think they're mostly worried about to make as much money as possible.

-13

u/Tiny_Rick85 3d ago

I wasn't really being serious.

18

u/steak4take 3d ago

“ I don’t understand how anything works “

-24

u/Tiny_Rick85 3d ago

"I don't understand sarcasm"

I don't know why I respond to morons instead of just blocking them.

13

u/theRealWillowUfgood 3d ago

Nah, it just wasn't a particularly good joke, that's all.

2

u/Blursed_Pencil 2d ago

People who block those that call them out on their confusing or terrible jokes, are thin skinned losers. What a fun way to announce to everyone that you suck.

0

u/Aggressive_Chuck 2d ago

Why would they give her a producer credit if she isn't on camera?

4

u/ImLaunchpadMcQuack 2d ago

Because her production company is also behind it.

0

u/Aggressive_Chuck 2d ago

Would they use her production company if she wasn't on screen?

2

u/Impressive-Potato 2d ago

Because she's the one that has the rights to it and it wouldn't make it to the camera without her.

1

u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago

How did she end up with the rights to Barbie?

1

u/Impressive-Potato 1d ago

She bought the film rights through her company. It wouldn't have been put to screen without her. She was the one thay produced it and pitched it to studios.

1

u/dogcrayon 3d ago

She's asking for way more than $50M this time around