@LAX re: April 10, 2012 at 10:02 pm --

"IT IS DRIVING ONE SCUM BAG SO NUTTY THAT THEY HAVE MADE THE MOVIE BE 450 MILLION AND IF THEY DON;T RECOUP THAT AMOUNT THEN THE MOVIE IS A TOTALLY LOSS, DUMB ASS SCUM BAG."

*raises "scum-bag hands ME! ME! ME! OVER HERE..!!*

LAX, you could, at the very least, call me by my "official" "scum bag" name: X,Y,"and Z".. Also, if you read any of the links I provided, you'd see for yourself that the "P/A" costs for a movie are AT LEAST EQUAL to the actual promotion budget for the film!!

If a film cost, say, $50-Million to make, it'll then cost, at the very least, that much to finally bring-it-to-theaters.. So if a film has a production budget of $50-Million, it'll have a final "get-to-theater" cost of $100-Million..!!

Here are some examples and definitions of the costs for a movie: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2001/aug/31/artsfeatures Now, mind you, this article is OVER 10-years old. Needless to say: "EVERYTHING HAS GONE UP SINCE THEN"!!

"Battleship" is close to "John Carter" in production costs, I found this article that'll I think offers some perspective:

"With an estimated production budget of $250 million, "John Carter" needs to generate at least $400 million in box office receipts to generate enough theater, home video and television revenue to cover the film's production and promotion costs, Davenport & Co analyst Michael Morris estimated."
Here's the link, read: reuters(dotcom)/article/2012/03/13/us-disney-film-idUSBRE82819920120313

And I'll close with material I've already referenced:

"SNL Kagan, the financial analysis firm makes its projections based on a ratio that compares a film’s estimated revenue from all sources to the costs that Kagan can calculate — which DON'T INCLUDE distribution fees, overhead, interest, profit participation, and residuals. A movie with expected revenue 1.75 times higher than the known costs is projected to be a winner, while those with a ratio of at least 1.4 are on the bubble. Here, read: deadline(dotcom)/2011/09/kagan-the-help-is-the-most-profitable-film-from-a-month-with-few-successes/

$200-Million = "Battleship" production cost. $50-Million = Just added to promotion costs - totaling $250-Million! THIS IS NOT INCLUDING THE FINAL PRINTS AND ADVERTISING (P/A) COSTS..!!!

Let's say that by some act of..."divine generosity", this film's distributors got it for free, or on consignment. Let's also say "Battleship" needs no "advertising", this means that $250-Million X 1.45 = $362.5-Million NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A FAILURE..!!
And since $125-Million is projected to be returned from U.S. screens, it'll then mean, for "Battleship" not to fail, it'll have to do $237.5-Million from overseas/foreign screens!!
..And $250-Million X 1.75 = $437.5-Million for "Battleship" to be considered a "success/profitable"..!!

And, as I've said, this $250-Million is NOT the "final" costs..!! The "final costs" are FAR MORE..!!

X,Y,"and Z" -- OUT..!!