Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[BrianLo]

The 2.5X thing often works out just fine. It worked perfectly for the $25 Million loss they just took on The First Omen, for example.

But as I understand it, if a movie over-indexes overseas versus its domestic take, like Elemental did, then the 2.5X model would be more flattering for Pixar than using a 60% Domestic and 40% Overseas box office take that I used in my big, exciting End Of Year tally. Right?

Theoretically. But while you are labeling Elemental as a 75 million loss or whatever, Disney has it as profitable. So 2.5X still is also under-indexing; calling it a 2 million loss (or really just break even). I'm fine if you want to normalize the domestic + international distribution. But you cannot do that and ALSO use a 3X production break even threshold. It's a double hit.

I think in hindsight, we had been years since Disney has had failures to index against. It seemed nebulous and I sort of wearingly followed your premise last year.

But what is wrong is that the Studios reported a loss on financial reports, we have the figures. You've doubled that in your estimates for last year. 2.5X is far closer, 2.5X also more closely aligns with Deadline reported figures on every single movie that we had a reveal for (Marvels, Indy, HM, Wish and Guardians 3) than your estimates had last year.

Isn't it disingenuous to continue pontificating your break evens when they are clearly not accurate and wildly under-calling profit? I know the answer to that is yes, because you seem motivated to over-report their loses. I actually didn't even technically report a single additional film as profitable in the grand scheme of things last year in all technicality. I just didn't drum up the loses so high *outside of Marvels, which you were actually generous to.

All of which is to swing back around to a break even on Apes is 400. A break even on Deadpool 3 is 600. A break even on Inside Out 2 is 438 (which is shockingly no different than its predecessor, I'm surprised they actually decreased its production budget accounting for inflation). If we want to fudge those numbers a bit in the unique scenario one of the films has a 1:4 domestic:international take. Sure, fine.

But in good news, Barbie also made even more money than you think it did.

 

[TP2000]

Theoretically. But while you are labeling Elemental as a 75 million loss or whatever, Disney has it as profitable. So 2.5X still is also under-indexing; calling it a 2 million loss (or really just break even). I'm fine if you want to normalize the domestic + international distribution. But you cannot do that and ALSO use a 3X production break even threshold. It's a double hit.

I think in hindsight, we had been years since Disney has had failures to index against. It seemed nebulous and I sort of wearingly followed your premise last year.

But what is wrong is that the Studios reported a loss on financial reports, we have the figures. You've doubled that in your estimates for last year. 2.5X is far closer, 2.5X also more closely aligns with Deadline reported figures on every single movie that we had a reveal for (Marvels, Indy, HM, Wish and Guardians 3) than your estimates had last year.

Isn't it disingenuous to continue pontificating your break evens when they are clearly not accurate and wildly under-calling profit? I know the answer to that is yes, because you seem motivated to over-report their loses. I actually didn't even technically report a single additional film as profitable in the grand scheme of things last year in all technicality. I just didn't drum up the loses so high *outside of Marvels, which you were actually generous to.

Here's the math and simple formula for box office Mr. Johnson and I use in the Global Command Center:

Production Budget + Half Production Budget For Marketing = Costs
60% Domestic Box Office Take + 40% Overseas Box Office Take = Revenue
Costs plus Revenue = Box Office Profit/Loss

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. What is the 3X model you are referring to? Was that because some films in 2023 that over-indexed overseas, or under-indexed domestically, got closer to a 3X formula to break even using the formula above?

 

[BrianLo]

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+

 

[Disney Irish]

Here's the math and simple formula for box office Mr. Johnson and I use in the Global Command Center:

Production Budget + Half Production Budget For Marketing = Costs
60% Domestic Box Office Take + 40% Overseas Box Office Take = Revenue
Costs plus Revenue = Box Office Profit/Loss

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. What is the 3X model you are referring to? Was that because some films in 2023 that over-indexed overseas, or under-indexed domestically, got closer to a 3X formula to break even using the formula above?

The issue with that is its not cut and dry 60/40 across the board. Some studios have different deals, even per movie, that skews that number. For example we know that Disney had closer to 65-70 on domestic for many movies. Plus not to mention that movies are front loaded, so that 60/40 only really counts for the first week or two. The 2.5x is a more accurate average as its takes away the many different percentages that studio setup. And as @BrianLo stated it lines up directly with Disney's own financial reporting and Deadlines own predictions.

 

[BrianLo]

The issue with that is its not cut and dry 60/40 across the board. Some studios have different deals, even per movie, that skews that number. For example we know that Disney had closer to 65-70 on domestic for many movies. Plus not to mention that movies are front loaded, so that 60/40 only really counts for the first week or two. The 2.5x is a more accurate average as its takes away the many different percentages that studio setup. And as @BrianLo stated it lines up directly with Disney's own financial reporting and Deadlines own predictions.

This is also how the Illumination animated films back-patting also drives me absolutely nuts. About 'how cheap they are'. They completely bury costs and the estimates fall apart for them. I get the point Pixar is making.

Here's a great example;

The Despicable Me recent films (DM3) had production budget of 100 million. Actual expenses? 338 million

Minions Rise of Gru Production 100 - Actual 368
Strange World Production 180 - Actual 317
Wish Production 200 - Actual 362

Then if you want to compare the extreme earners;
Mario Production 100 - Actual 400
Frozen 2 Production 150 - Actual 453

If you used merely the production break even points, you'd think Frozen needed to make 50% more, Strange World 80% more and Wish 100% more to break even. While there is some fluctuation around profit and costs due to residuals, you almost need to treat every Illumination film with a 3X-3.5X to normalize them.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't think anyone disagrees.

What hasn't changed yet is how Disney budgets their movies in this new business environment. That will likely take another couple years to work itself out, but it seems like they need to slash costs and labor by huge amounts ASAP. Along with most other studios, but Disney seems to be the worst at keeping budgets and costs down right now.

I mean honestly, $350 Million for Indy 5? $250 Million for Little Mermaid Live? $275 Million for The Marvels?

Meanwhile, it their only money making division, there's still no night parade and no new rides under construction?

Actually the budgets for Disney do already appear to be going down. You keep posting them, so should know that Kingdom of Apes is a moderate $160M, First Omen is the low $30M. Both of which would be considerably more under the previously higher budget phase of Disney.

So while they will continue to have some higher budget films, they do know how to reign in budgets as needed. And given the same guy that ran Searchlight, which has some of the lowest budgets around Hollywood, is now running Disney Pictures and 20th Century, all other budgets will be moderate in comparison as well.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is also how the Illumination animated films back-patting also drives me absolutely nuts. About 'how cheap they are'. They completely bury costs and the estimates fall apart for them. I get the point Pixar is making.

Here's a great example;

The Despicable Me recent films (DM3) had production budget of 100 million. Actual expenses? 338 million

Minions Rise of Gru Production 100 - Actual 368
Frozen 2 Production 150 - Actual 453
Strange World Production 180 - Actual 317
Wish Production 200 - Actual 362

If you used merely the production break even points, you'd think Frozen needed to make 50% more, Strange World 80% more and Wish 100% more to break even. While there is some fluctuation around profit and costs due to residuals, you almost need to treat every Illumination film with a 3X-3.5X to normalize them.

Exactly, agreed, Illumination (and Dreamworks) just do their cost accounting differently. If Pixar (and WDAS since its likely under the same accounting formula) removed their administrative costs the budget would be likely in-line with Illumination.

 

[BrianLo]

Exactly, agreed, Illumination (and Dreamworks) just do their cost accounting differently. If Pixar (and WDAS since its likely under the same accounting formula) removed their administrative costs the budget would be likely in-line with Illumination.

Actually to edit my speculation - I ran through a bunch of Deadline films and it seems 2.5X holds up well for the Disney Animated Films and 3X for Universal. That seems to more accurately report both films actual profit profiles and normalizes the under-reporting of the initial production costs.

 

[TP2000]

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.



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.

Oh, Jeez...

I appreciate your willingness to explain all this to me, but it just makes my head hurt. I'm here for fun, remember.

Would it be easier if I just noted what 2.5X the production budget was, in addition to the 60/40 take, when we do end of run box office recaps? Like with The First Omen, that would have been the exact same loss of $25 Million regardless of if you did 2.5X or the 60/40 model. I can happily add what 2.5X the production budget was for the final recaps. Deal?

Do you know Barbie cost 588 million In expenses?

It did?!? The production budget for Barbie was $150 Million. If we assume a $75 Million marketing budget for it, that's $225 Million to get Barbie wrapped, publicized, and out into theaters worldwide.

Where does the extra $363 Million come from? Especially in an age where movies are just emailed to theaters digitally, which I was specifically told earlier in this thread was a "free" service that accrued no costs to the studios. Unlike the days they had to create thousands of film reel copies and then physically mail them to every theater on the planet that would show the film.

Where's the other $363 Million to get Barbie out there last summer? And what's the rough outline of its various costs?

 

[MrPromey]

There's usually a lot of chatter in this thread after a Disney film opens, but there's a real silence after Apes. Odd.

Didn't get to see it until yesterday but I for one, thought it was great!

That said, it was a sort of sequel not closely tied to the movies before it without any recognizable stars to show off. The last one had an unhinged Woody Harrelson, didn't it?

I can sort of understand why, despite it being good, it's not a heavy-hitter as a blockbuster.

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh, Jeez...

I appreciate your willingness to explain all this to me, but it just makes my head hurt. I'm here for fun, remember.

Would it be easier if I just noted what 2.5X the production budget was, in addition to the 60/40 take, when we do end of run box office recaps? Like with The First Omen, that would have been the exact same loss of $25 Million regardless of if you did 2.5X or the 60/40 model. I can happily add what 2.5X the production budget was for the final recaps. Deal?



It did?!? The production budget for Barbie was $150 Million. If we assume a $75 Million marketing budget for it, that's $225 Million to get Barbie wrapped, publicized, and out into theaters worldwide.

Where does the extra $363 Million come from? Especially in an age where movies are just emailed to theaters digitally, which I was specifically told earlier in this thread was a "free" service that accrued no costs to the studios. Unlike the days they had to create thousands of film reel copies and then physically mail them to every theater on the planet that would show the film.

Where's the other $363 Million to get Barbie out there last summer? And what's the rough outline of its various costs?

Barbie actually had $150M in marketing, not $75M. So you're really striking out on this big time.

'Barbie' reportedly had a $150 million marketing budget — more than the movie's actual budget

Variety reports that the "Barbie" marketing campaign, which ranged from pink burgers to real-life Barbie dreamhouses, is estimated to have cost $150 million.

www.businessinsider.com

The rest of that is other expenses such as residuals, participation, and other backend deals, as well as other costs associated with distribution.

You can use the below Guardians image from Deadline that @BrianLo posted earlier as an example of other expenses besides just production and marketing.

The point is that while you're just doing this for fun, mostly to rag on Disney for losing money, there is more to this than just the 60/40 you've been using. Its why there is a whole industry reporting on this stuff, its not just a simple back of the napkin math as you like to say. Hollywood math is very complex and done so for a reason, its not called Hollywood Fuzzy Math for nothing. Its kept very tight lipped on all that goes into financing a movie for a reason.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I did not bother breaking down the percentages of domestic v. international. Nor did I bother with proposed marketing, that is all baked into the 2.5X. I just want to compare the results to what the company actually reported fiscally.

Studios
Q2 2023 (-50)
Q3 2023 (-243)
Q4 2023 (-149)
Q1 2024 (-224)
Q2 2024 (-18)
--
684 Loss over 5 quarters
709 Loss Based on the super rough 2.5X rule

It seems like you're using the "Content Sales and Licensing" line in the accounting reports to derive these numbers. But it's important to note what "Content Sales and Licensing" is comprised of. From their 2023 annual report:

• Sale/licensing of film and episodic content to third-party television and video-on-demand (TV/VOD) services
• Theatrical distribution
• Home entertainment distribution: DVD and Blu-ray discs, electronic home video licenses and video-on-demand (VOD) rentals
• Staging and licensing of live entertainment events on Broadway and around the world (Stage Plays)
• Intersegment allocation of revenues from the Experiences segment, which is meant to reflect royalties on consumer products merchandise licensing revenues generated on intellectual property (“IP”) created by the Entertainment segment
• Music distribution
• Post-production services by Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound

This is notable, because @TP2000 is not factoring in any revenue derived from TV/VOD, home entertainment distribution, or royalties on consumer products. His estimates for profit/loss of films is based solely on "Theatrical Distribution." In fact, the numbers actually support @TP2000's argument that the break even costs are far greater than 2.5x on the films. Why? If the "Content Sales and Licensing" business is reporting a loss roughly consistent with 2.5x break even costs AFTER including the additional TV/VOD revenue (and licensing and a whole bunch of other lines of revenue), the true costs must be much larger. I actually think that this lends credence to @TP2000's numbers.

 

[BrianLo]

Oh, Jeez...

I appreciate your willingness to explain all this to me, but it just makes my head hurt. I'm here for fun, remember.

Would it be easier if I just noted what 2.5X the production budget was, in addition to the 60/40 take, when we do end of run box office recaps? Like with The First Omen, that would have been the exact same loss of $25 Million regardless of if you did 2.5X or the 60/40 model. I can happily add what 2.5X the production budget was for the final recaps. Deal?

To oversimply it, instead of running your calculation with the marketing budget being 50%, run it with 25% instead.

No, it’s not going to be actually representative of the marketing budget, but it is going to spit out a better representation of loss or profit.

And yes - if you separately want to simply say a rough figure that a movie needs to clear in the box office to ultimately be profitable, just report 2.5x the production budget.

It did?!? The production budget for Barbie was $150 Million. If we assume a $75 Million marketing budget for it, that's $225 Million to get Barbie wrapped, publicized, and out into theaters worldwide.

Where does the extra $363 Million come from? Especially in an age where movies are just emailed to theaters digitally, which I was specifically told earlier in this thread was a "free" service that accrued no costs to the studios. Unlike the days they had to create thousands of film reel copies and then physically mail them to every theater on the planet that would show the film.

Where's the other $363 Million to get Barbie out there last summer? And what's the rough outline of its various costs?

Barbie had a production budget of 145 million, a marketing budget of 175 (makes sense, it was absolutely everywhere), residuals and other distribution costs of 69 million, interest and overhead of 29 million.

Then participation was triggered, which was 175 million for Margot and Ryan +. Due to the nature of participation, all films have lesser costs when they aren’t clearing the hurdle of break even, but then they sort of march lock step upwards. It’s upside and downside protection.

 

[BrianLo]

It seems like you're using the "Content Sales and Licensing" line in the accounting reports to derive these numbers. But it's important to note what "Content Sales and Licensing" is comprised of. From their 2023 annual report:

• Sale/licensing of film and episodic content to third-party television and video-on-demand (TV/VOD) services
• Theatrical distribution
• Home entertainment distribution: DVD and Blu-ray discs, electronic home video licenses and video-on-demand (VOD) rentals
• Staging and licensing of live entertainment events on Broadway and around the world (Stage Plays)
• Intersegment allocation of revenues from the Experiences segment, which is meant to reflect royalties on consumer products merchandise licensing revenues generated on intellectual property (“IP”) created by the Entertainment segment
• Music distribution
• Post-production services by Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound

This is notable, because @TP2000 is not factoring in any revenue derived from TV/VOD, home entertainment distribution, or royalties on consumer products. His estimates for profit/loss of films is based solely on "Theatrical Distribution." In fact, the numbers actually support @TP2000's argument that the break even costs are far greater than 2.5x on the films. Why? If the "Content Sales and Licensing" business is reporting a loss roughly consistent with 2.5x break even costs AFTER including the additional TV/VOD revenue (and licensing and a whole bunch of other lines of revenue), the true costs must be much larger. I actually think that this lends credence to @TP2000's numbers.

I appreciate the argument. I know what TP is doing. The true costs (of all films) ARE indeed larger. But the revenue is even larger still. That’s my point. The costs aren’t even accurate he is reporting.

So we’ve been receiving a year of inaccurate costs, revenues and ultimately profit. What is the point in continuing to hear about them if they aren’t accurate?

I’m suggesting a way that the pot shots can still be taken, but we actually know what Disney (and other studios of interest) are making instead of grossing up numbers so they are completely inaccurate. Or in fact doubling the studio loses last year.

If we wanted to eliminate all other sources of revenue and include only all true costs, yes films probably need to make their production budget back twice over and then some. But that’s not how movies make money - so why report it that way?

 

[erasure fan1]

If we wanted to eliminate all other sources of revenue and include only all true costs, yes films probably need to make their production budget back twice over and then some. But that’s not how movies make money - so why report it that way?

I'd say because it's the most accurate we can get to compare films. I think everyone knows at this point that box office isn't the end all be all of what a films worth is. The problem is, what's less reliable than box-office? Merchandise sales and post theatrical streaming revenue. So the budget + marketing x 2 is pretty good estimate to compare films from all studios. If we could get true streaming numbers and merchandise numbers I'm sur it would get factored in.

 

[BrianLo]

I'd say because it's the most accurate we can get to compare films. I think everyone knows at this point that box office isn't the end all be all of what a films worth is. The problem is, what's less reliable than box-office? Merchandise sales and post theatrical streaming revenue. So the budget + marketing x 2 is pretty good estimate to compare films from all studios. If we could get true streaming numbers and merchandise numbers I'm sur it would get factored in.

It’s not the most accurate way. I’ve literally demonstrated that. You can still use the two factors we do have (production budget and box office) to more accurately predict final take home studio grosses (accounting for everything) or rough break even box office takes.

I know what the point is. It’s to over-inflate Disney films (Elementals, Mermaid in particular is how this started) and imply some strange level of misplaced success elsewhere, in extremes.

We literally have people thinking Pixar did poorly last year, needs to be closed - and Dreamworks was a beacon of success. All because of differences in studio accounting. Ya, I hate to tell you all Trolls was an incredible disappointment that lost money and Ruby Gillman a complete dud.

But that’s the point isn’t it? Clearly this isn’t a discussion or search for accuracy, it’s a continued smear campaign.

 

[_caleb]

I don't think anyone disagrees.

What hasn't changed yet is how Disney budgets their movies in this new business environment. That will likely take another couple years to work itself out, but it seems like they need to slash costs and labor by huge amounts ASAP. Along with most other studios, but Disney seems to be the worst at keeping budgets and costs down right now.

I mean honestly, $350 Million for Indy 5? $250 Million for Little Mermaid Live? $275 Million for The Marvels?

Meanwhile, it their only money making division, there's still no night parade and no new rides under construction?

Plenty here seem to disagree! This thread is full of folks claiming that the industry is viable and that the pandemic, the writer's strike, and streaming wars were all just minor setbacks and that in short order, things will get back to "normal" for cinemas.

Others still point to the few successes and Disney's recent failures as indications that box office failures are a problem unique to Disney.

 

[Minnesota disney fan]

Welcome to the 21st century, TP!

That's Emma Stone -- Oscar winner, star of Poor Things.

I didn't know who played Cruella either, but loved the movie. Guess I'm not up to date on all the actors either, LOL.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I appreciate the argument. I know what TP is doing. The true costs (of all films) ARE indeed larger. But the revenue is even larger still. That’s my point. The costs aren’t even accurate he is reporting.

So we’ve been receiving a year of inaccurate costs, revenues and ultimately profit. What is the point in continuing to hear about them if they aren’t accurate?

I’m suggesting a way that the pot shots can still be taken, but we actually know what Disney (and other studios of interest) are making instead of grossing up numbers so they are completely inaccurate. Or in fact doubling the studio loses last year.

If we wanted to eliminate all other sources of revenue and include only all true costs, yes films probably need to make their production budget back twice over and then some. But that’s not how movies make money - so why report it that way?

I think having a discussion on the efficacy of box office vs. total revenue is fair. In fact, this is an argument that Ike Perlmutter made. Perlmutter was frustrated that Team Disney has an obsession with looking at the success of films in terms of box office rather than holistically. So, Bob Iger and Disney's executive leadership team actually seems to judge the success films more like @TP2000. Perlmutter views things more like you.

I think both provide useful data. Pre-Covid Disney could reasonably expect to make money on their theatrical runs. That means that any TV/VOD revenue was simply extra money to enjoy. Moreover, theatrical performance is a good indicator of the performance of TV/VOD revenue (obviously not perfect, as sometimes films blow up in the secondary market as you well know). But your point that Hollywood doesn't stop tabulating a film's success when the last theater drops
the film is well taken. A lot of money is made through other forms of distribution.

But all of this is rather separate from the argument on estimating the breakeven point for a film to earn money on its theatrical run. @TP2000 is making a narrow argument that the breakeven point for Apes 9 is around $460 Million USD in earnings on its theatrical release based on his method of calculation. You argued that the 2.5x rule is more appropriate based on Disney's accounting, but there is too much interference from other revenue streams to use Disney's accounting as a useful benchmark for inferring the cost of a film. I also see some indication that Disney doesn't expense the entire production cost of a film at the time of the film's release. They expense it over the life of the asset, so you don't actually see the total cost of the film hit the financial statements at the time of release. They have internal models for expensing the costs, but we aren't privy to them. So, it's not extremely useful to try to deduce the production costs of individual films or even groups of films from the financial statements.

For more precision, it could be argued that @TP2000 could say something along the lines of "Disney Studios has lost x amount of money when looking revenue derived from theatrical releases exclusively." But I think there is an understanding that @TP2000 is looking at box office performance. It's also just demonstrably true that Disney is struggling to control costs (specifically at Marvel and Lucasfilm) and box office performance has been pretty terrible recently. Theatrical runs used to be a significant profit center for the company, and now Disney is not generating the money they used to.

Moreover, Disney has a responsibility to use their money well. Some of these films might be making a profit, but they have to weigh the benefit of spending money on a particular film next to spending it on other investments. Right now, Disney could invest their shareholder's money into an S&P 500 index fund and they would make a better RoI. That's humiliating.

 

[erasure fan1]

But I think there is an understanding that @TP2000 is looking at box office performance.

Absolutely. There's only so many times "profit in the theatrical window" or "it's not the only measurement..." can be said. If people think TP is being disingenuous, just move along. We all know there's more to it than what's being reported. But like you said, we aren't privy to that information.

and Dreamworks was a beacon of success. All because of differences in studio accounting. Ya, I hate to tell you all Trolls was an incredible disappointment that lost money and Ruby Gillman a complete dud.

That's why that formula works for our stupid discussion on an internet forum. You can apply the same formula for everyone. So if trolls didn't make back its budget, it can't be hidden. It needed just over 300mil, it did 200, that's a box office flop.