Eric I'm not confused about gross and net and I could write an entire post on numbers of tickets sold vs gross receipts and how to measure profitability in the industry - but then you have to get into studio ing... and studio "ing" practices are always suspect and deviate significantly from GAAP...prime example: look at Art Buchwald's suit against Paramount for Coming to America (1990) where the studio claimed it didn't make a net profit on grosses of $300M and used what the court deemed to be "unconscionable" practices to more than double count expenses, costs, and interest payments. Generally speaking, outside of the ubiquitous huge tentpole films or franchises that can generate money in many formats and serve to extend existing IP, making 3x to 4x more than one's production budget minus advertising costs is considered a solid return -- unless it's a very small (inexpensive) film, in which case the tax credits on even a loss are often more valuable than any gross receipts; unless the film is insanely successful e.g. the Blair Witch Project. I've been in this business a long time and there are many nuances to this discussion but generally speaking, a $25M film from 1993 that doubles its production budget domestically and adds another 30% internationally is a solid hit -- in baseball, it would be a standup double --but not usually thought of as a "smash". Ok -- we've all written more words on my silly comment than the original author wrote in their post 😂

Nitpicking comment: While it's true the movie grossed $56M domestically, it was made on a budget of $25M -- and even at $56M that put it at only the 20th highest grossing movie for 1993 -- and was easily sured in box office $$ by movies like Cliffhanger, Sister Act 2, Demolition Man -- heck, it almost made less than Dennis the Menace -- so it wasn't exactly a "smash hit". Smash hits of that year were Jurassic Park, The Fugitive, Mrs. Doubtfire, Sleepless in Seattle, In the Line of Fire, Schindler's List, and The Pelican Brief -- all of which made more than twice as much (Jurassic Park nearly 20x) as Tombstone's box office. What is fair to say is that it was a hit for the western genre and is still in the top 30 grossing westerns since 1979. Context: Django Unchained (2012) is the all time box office western champ at $450M -- but westerns made around the same time as Tombstone that made far more money include Dances with Wolves (1990) at $425M, Unforgiven (1992) over $150M, Maverick (1994) $183M, and Legends of the Fall (1994) $160M.

I like the line in the story that "paying out $10B would NOT represent a significant loss". What planet is the writer from? Lucasfilms was purchased for $4B in 2012, Marvel was purchased for $4B in 2009, Pixar was $7.4B (all stock) -- but somehow Moana franchise is worth so much money that paying out a $10B lawsuit is not a significant loss? As of this writing, Moana 1 did about $650M in box office and 2 is about $1B and still playing. Great numbers but you have to explain your reasoning for the $10B comment.