I'm happy to reconsider that, if someone has a good industry source or two that says that formula no longer works for whatever reason in 2024.
Did you not read my previous post? I cited my sources. Disney Financials and Deadline Financial estimations. I showed you how your formula over-estimated Disney's loses by over 2 times reality. It also poorly predicted every films final take homes that we have sources for from Deadline.
What is the 3X model you are referring to?
I'm simply talking about your estimates to break even. You are requiring every film to triple its production budget (more or less) as a threshold.
By taking 1.5x production costs and half of box office take (if domestic and international are roughly even), you are essentially yielding a financial estimate that requires a film to make 3x its production to break even. It does not account for revenue from ancillary sources. It isn't even a good figure for costs, because it misses a large source of other costs such as Participation. So every single figure you report is simply inaccurate. If you are going to use funky made up numbers, at least the results can be right.
The revenues, the expenses and the actual earnings. None of them are the actual numbers - well apart from just the production cost, that's the only thing we know upfront. And the box offie figures, which are merely an estimate of some of the films final revenue. But you keep implying those are the full and only real numbers and then use them to derive a calculation of profit that is ultimately inaccurate.
(2.5X Production - box office)/2... or if you really want 1.25x production minus 60:40 splits is a far better estimate on if the studio actually makes or loses money. It's a better barometer of what it takes to break even. It doesn't actually tell you what the film truly cost in production, it doesn't tell you what the film truly made in revenue, but it does more accurately predict what the studio took home.
Do you know Barbie cost 588 million In expenses? No, because you are using a weird formula that assumes the production cost of 145 million is the actual implicit cost. It isn't. It scales with more financially successful films. We don't try and estimate that, we simply try and estimate what the studios are taking home.
There's always going to be some breakdown on extremes. Extremely high earners, Extremely low earners and then movies within a stones throw of break even as the studios have upside risk with participation. Or Comcast animated films that wildly under-report their production costs as a percentage of the films actual expenses.
So while 2.5X Deadpool's production budget implies the studio probably starts taking home money around 625 million, the studio probably remains in a weird break-even state between a 575-625 band, because it isn't yet triggering extra money for Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds.
The actual costs on Deadpool 3? I dunno, it's probably going to be 500 million+
-1-Full.jpg)
-4-Full.jpg)
