Yeah, I totally get what you're saying. My post took a lot of that into consideration. It still makes no sense; if you make 467m and your budget is 190m, if you spent half of that budget on marketing, you're still only up to 285m invested. That's with nearly 100m on marketing alone. At that point, if you're not profitable, your business is fucking broken. And, frankly, that may be the real take away from this article; the movie business is broken for most movies outside of the Disney golden eggs.
I think at that point it depends on what side of the pond the bulk of that $467 million was made on. If you made $100 million domestic, and $367 million international, it cuts into your profit, because there are a lot of addition costs, fees, taxes, etc that need to come out of that total. It heavily depends on the country the film is being released in. But yeah, if you can't turn a profit from that kind of gross to budget ratio, then sure, your business should probably be reevaluated.
I agree that the industry is operating with a jacked up mentality. A lot of the problem is that the vast majority of studios are run by old Hollywood money and dynasties. They're stuck in their ways, running the studio based on what worked in the past. It's why you still have studio heads talking about "star power" being the reason why Scarlett Johansson is headlining Ghost in the Shell. Why they're chasing the billion dollar grossers instead of just trying to make good movies. Then you have the filmmakers themselves fighting tooth and nail to get their projects made, while the people holding the purse strings are trying to dictate the project.
The fact that we get any good movies at all is kind of impressive, really. I almost feel like good blockbusters like Star Wars are entirely incidental. Not all smaller films are gold either, but there is a reason why indie films tend to be held in such regard. Seems like less red tape most of the time. Sometimes.