By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Acevil on 29 March 2016
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
Acevil said:

See I like using absolutes, but since I can not use absolutes financial statements, here have this 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/10/22/how-batman-v-superman-can-turn-its-allegedly-sky-high-budget-into-a-marketing-hook/#312a11bd2419

As for the other costs associated, I am sorry I cannot provide that evidence, because that is well hidden in books that I would never have access to. 

You guys know I am stating this movie will be profitable, right, just saying the statement at 420 million WW it isn't profitable yet, because that isn't how financial data works. 

Based on your link the movie would now be profitable.

Not exactly, but I cannot prove that like I said. I cannot prove other costs because I WILL NEVER HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION, unless it is leaked like the Harry Potter was. However it being 410 for marketing + production budget. 

However using the revenue source you guys are using BOX OFFICE MOJO:

Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures.

Gross refers to gross earnings in U.S. dollars. On average, the movie's distributor receives a little more than half of the final gross (often referred to as the "rentals") with the remainder going to the exhibitor (i.e., movie theater). The money split varies from movie to movie, but, generally, the contract favors the distributor in early weeks and shifts to the exhibitor later on.

Now the evidence is on my side, prove me wrong. 

MIC DROP!

However like I said, I believe the movie will be profitable. That is all I am arguing, that the movie is not profitable yet.