Not sure if I buy this, the only other significant party that takes its share of profit are the theater owners, and even the theater profit split is greatly exagerrated, the studios take home usually like 70+% of box office for the first couple of weeks (which means front loaded films are actually good in a sense for studios). After that it becomes a 50-50 split. Overseas splits are even more favorable for studios. 

This is why you popcorn and drink costs $10 at the theater, because concessions are where theater chains make real money, not off the actual movies. 

But other than that, WB owns DC Comics so they're not splitting that with anyone. 

And there's a metric asston of Batman Vs. Superman merchandise and forthcoming Blu-Ray/Digital/Cable On Demand/TV rights for Batman Vs. Superman to come, they will easily make a profit on this film. 

Studios also often inflate production costs because they want profits to appear as small as possible to avoid paying out large point deals for actors/directors (ie: many big actors/directors often structure their salary to get "points" as in a percentage of the profits). 

It doesn't go down to maximum 50-50 after a while. It starts in the favour for the studios but after weeks it's more like a "most goes to the cinema". That's why people always use this 50-50. It's probably more like a 60-40 in favour of the studios for frontloaded movies like BvS was but still...

That's why we have cinemas "specialized" in showing older movies, they get almost everything when they show them. The few people who go in these cinemas aren't really enough if it would be really a 50-50 split + popcorn and coke...

Then you have markets like China where only 25% go to the studio even on day 1 so a 50-50 WW sounds plausible. Maybe a 55-45. 

Even so, 55% would net Warner Bros. 480 million, plus then you factor in merchandising sales (BvS had a ton of merchandise), Blu-Ray/DVD, Video on Demand, Digital ... safe to say that's another $150 million in WB's coffers, you have 630 million take home, which is an tidy profit at the end of the day and I'm probably being fairly conservative on merchandising/video sales. 

I enjoyed all 3.

But while I think superbat is clearly the worse of the 3, my GF and I just found Xmen a lot more fun overall when compared to Civil War. Honestly, without SM I feel like Civil War would be somewhat lacking. I think its the better made film, but I enjoyed Xmen more  at the end of the day. 

Not sure if I buy this, the only other significant party that takes its share of profit are the theater owners, and even the theater profit split is greatly exagerrated, the studios take home usually like 70+% of box office for the first couple of weeks (which means front loaded films are actually good in a sense for studios). After that it becomes a 50-50 split. Overseas splits are even more favorable for studios. 

This is why you popcorn and drink costs $10 at the theater, because concessions are where theater chains make real money, not off the actual movies. 

But other than that, WB owns DC Comics so they're not splitting that with anyone. 

And there's a metric asston of Batman Vs. Superman merchandise and forthcoming Blu-Ray/Digital/Cable On Demand/TV rights for Batman Vs. Superman to come, they will easily make a profit on this film. 

Studios also often inflate production costs because they want profits to appear as small as possible to avoid paying out large point deals for actors/directors (ie: many big actors/directors often structure their salary to get "points" as in a percentage of the profits).