Is this true, guys?
Rule of thumb. Production budget x 2 = in the black.
Not correct and out of date. It used to be that the rule of thumb was 2.5 x production budget = break even point.
That is probably no longer feasible as more & more money comes from the foreign grosses where the amount that is returned to studio varies enormously. China, for example, only returns 25%.
Some territories are entirely pre-sold because the region is so notoriously corrupt that the studios don't want to deal with attempting to get what was promised so they simply take a few million dollars (if even that) for a film that goes on to gross, say, $30 million (and those are estimates by outside sources and not the cinemas themselves).
But one of the biggest areas of inflation is the marketing budgets as the studios have come to depend even more on these "tentpoles" covering losses on other films so they spend more to ensure that success. The old 2.5 x prod. budget took into account what was the typical marketing budget for films of the 80s. But these days, it's not uncommon for a film to have a marketing (which yes includes advertising) budget of around $100M alone.
Warcraft has an estimated production budget of $160M (could easily be $200M). It and Jason Bourne are the only big tentpoles for Universal this summer (Central Intelligence is a co-production with WB) and hence the the marketing budget is probably at least $75M. That's $235 and with the old 2.5X method means that Warcraft needs to get to $587.5M to break even.
-1
And per Deadline:
The bigger play for this $160M production +$110M P&A vehicle is overseas. Global B.O. currently stands at $286.1M with 55% coming from China. Industry sources tell Deadline that breakeven is at $500M worldwide.