Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
In cost accounting, there is the concept of the break-even. This is when cost and revenue are equal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_even_analysis
So, for a movie like "Man of Steel", this is $225 million (production budget=gross profits). This film has reached the break-even stage.
For the film to be successful, it needs to make $450 million, which is twice the budget. This will cover the cost of marketing and distribution.
The formula for a film is,
Negative Cost=Development Cost+Pre-Production Cost+Production Cost+Post Production Cost
Negative Cost is known aka as "production budget". Man of Steel was $225 million.
Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?
Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success...
Except that the formula doesn't have anything do do with reality.
And anyone who buys that malarkey is simply unhinged.
Worst. Accounting. EVER.
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982