Apology accepted and false accusation forgiven.
But that was the main point of the discussion. To recap, the implication is that as long as the studio breaks even, then it will continue the franchise. Two of us argued that FWIW that's not how a for-profit business operates. Rather, it may postpone making a sequel if there is another project that will be more profitable, or may continue a sequel if it has assurances that the next movie will make more. Whatever it does, it will do so to maximize profits.
For some reason, you found our arguments perplexing, and came up with the following arguments:
1. That it will shelve a project if it finds out that a rival company has something better.
Actually, that's not what we argued. Rather, it may work on another project first if that will guarantee more profits.
2. A studio may work on several minor project and may continue them even if they provide a small gain, as the cumulative gains may make up the annual income of the studio.
I don't think Covenant
is a minor project.
I also forgot to add that I don't understand this point: if a company has, say, 100 such projects and has a profit margin of only 1 percent for each one, then its profit margin is still 1 percent, right? Shouldn't it consider projects that can earn more, especially if it has investors who are expecting better returns, not to mention rivals who can do better?
3. Studios may work on more than one project.
If it does so, it's because it has a good reason, and very likely connected to maximizing profitability. In this case, it assumes that a sequel to Covenant
will not simply break even or provide a small gain. Or that one tent pole will provide funds to support another in case the latter is expected to gain slowly.