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:

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!

Except the very link you posted suggests it's already profitable, it has a rumoured figured for the budget at 410m, this budget as it explains has all costs lumped in and 410m would make it the second most expensive movie in history as the link explains. If the figure is correct than the film has already made all the money back with profit, your own link is contradicting you.

All you've said here is that a cut goes to other organisations, this doesn't dispute the movie being profitable at all in fact nothing you posted does. You need to look up what the word evidence means as well as it means something concrete like figures, you flat out said you cannot prove your stance.

Well do you consider it game profitable, if the game company that made the game does not see a profit on the game? The Store might make a profit, the distrubtion process might make a profit, however if the company itself does not seem a dime, is it profitable? Also I will say, I like arguing you with you, respect you more. (I really do just love arguing, I would have easily taken the opposite of the argument and argued that). 

(Carried this part into next post)