If they spent $100M and get an asset out that is worth $30M then they have a loss of $70M. Lighting the $30M shouldn't count as additional loss that they can write off, IMO.
I think what actually happened is that they paid $100m to make the movie. Later they determined that releasing it would be detrimental to the success or value of the company (e.g. because of reputational damage).
To avoid causing this damage they deleted the movie making sure it doesn't get out and wrote off the asset. The act of deleting the movie is not what made it worthless.
If executives had really deleted the movie in spite of believing that releasing or selling it would have a net positive value of $30m, then it could still be written off.
It's the same as employees stealing inventory or vandalising an office. The company could then fire and sue those employees, but that doesn't change the fact that the asset is now worth zero for accounting purposes.
No, the specific reasoning people are mentioning here over and over again is that we, as a people, should not subsidize businesses lighting their property on fire.
If they want to completely toss out the movie then they can. But it's insane to think the government should pay them for doing so because they say it has no value.
It's not subsidizing, government isn't paying the studio. It's just that the studio will pay less taxes because the tax is based on profit and the studio had a loss.
