The formula is still valid for comparing box office results against the cost.
It's not. That is my entire point. NOBODY in the industry is using that formula anymore, because it's missing a major component of profits. For some movies, whatever it makes at box office is considered purely bonus money and it makes ALL of its money back from streaming. Nothing about that formula is "still valid" for this kind of question given how much it is missing.
And the pandemic is over (I mean, not really, but most people act like it is). Streaming services are not quite as hot. Paramount has a library of their own but if D&D is exclusive to their much smaller streaming service than maybe not as much revenue there.
The pandemic is considered over but Hollywood is permanently changed from it. How they calculate profits from a movie is no longer based on that formula. RIGHT NOW THIS WEEK the writers of Hollywood voted to authorize a strike partially on this very issue. This is the #1 big issue with movie profitability formulas right now and you and Zard are trying to hand-waive it as $0 because you don't have the necessary data to apply it to your outdated formula. That's not how math works. If you don't have the data and you don't have a good basis to guess on the answer (and you don't) you just say that and you use what indications you have from those who do have access to the data. You don't just make up an answer based on your own guesses from the outside with zero to go on.
Do you think that streaming is really going to cover the pretty large hole that HAT will be in?
Yes. I absolutely believe that (and it's not that large a hole at all). And I believe that because the people who have access to all the data seem to all think that's the case.
Did you actually think, as an amateur with no access to most of the relevant data, that your personal instincts were better than the experts who do have access to the data?
Maybe $200M global box office (call it $100M to the studio) compared to estimates of $150M cost plus $100M marketing. Even if the marketing is $50M, that is a $100M hole.
I think “box office flop” is guaranteed. What is your guess in tne rest of the revenue?
I don't have access to the relevant data, much like you do not. So I am making no guess, and purely going off what the studio seems to think. WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS FOR THIS QUESTION. There is no meaning to that question other than what the studio seems to think. It being marked as a hit of flop by you or mean has no impact on anything meaningful in life - all that we should be caring about here is if the studio thinks it's a hit or flop. They seem to be, right now, thinking it's in the hit category.
BTW - this strike is about resetting formulas but the extreme of 100% streaming for Black Widow are quickly going behind us. Streaming exclusives are known much more in advance now. So your point is a little stretched.
My post wasn't about streaming exclusives in any way. Nothing stretched at all in my point. When a movie is released to both theaters and then streaming, the current formula used by the studio to determine if they made money or lost money includes, as a meaningful portion, the streaming revenue. Which is a very complicated question, but which determines what people in that industry are paid for their work on such movies.