BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Individuals have said "we know its inaccurate," when in fact there is reasonable evidence that it's a useful tool. There might be outliers like Elemental that do not fit within the model, but that does not mean we throw the model out completely as useless or invalid.
Perfect, so let's tweak it to something slightly more accurate!
The 2023 loser films you mentioned (Indy, Wish, Marvels, etc.) likely have hundreds of millions more to amortized. Disney will be slowly paying down Indy 5 and Wish until the early 2030s. Unless they determined that those films were not going to make any “Ultimate Revenue” over the next decade, which they have not indicated. That’s where @TP2000’s missing hundreds of millions went.
Correct, so by your own understanding, the "Ultimate revenues" are accounted for. TP is and has misinterpreted this like there is another 600 million of loses yet to be reported, but really it's all reasonably accounted for. They know a very clear trajectory of all these films post-theatrical lifecycles at this juncture. The net results are a neutral amortization over a decade. The actual loses were front-loaded.
Anyways, I'll just re-iterate the figures also continue to not match the trades either. There's still an over-accounted for 600 million, because the calculations are in fact inaccurate and non-holistic. As you say.
It's really quite simple to fix, fortunately. We've got a ton of data now thanks to all their recent failures.