Will the International Audiences Save This Film? - Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) Discussion

3+ hour movie. The theater here doesn't refill drink and popcorn any more for free. I'll rent it and save the money.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

I'm curious to see it, but I never saw the first one. I'd like to see it in a theater in 3-D, but that probably isn't an option in time to catch part 2 while it's still in theaters.

Also-- who can finish a movie theater sized drink or popcorn? And then want more?? Wow!

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

Did they ever do that? Never heard of free refills.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) a year ago

Harris county movie taverns did that with popcorn and drink. A good money maker for young people to work at them. Getting tips from people taking their food stuff to them during the show.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

Cinemark and AMC both do it, or at least did pre-pandemic. I don't know if the practice has been resumed yet. I never partook, as even the small sizes are too large to finish in a theater, and the free refills are only given to those who purchase the large sizes.

reply

[–] 123Guy (6336) a year ago

i hope it does not do great ever.
would be nice to get away from seriously dumbed down films, and back to quality entertainment.

reply

[–] eastangliauk (372) a year ago

This was at our Clacton cinema today

https://youtu.be/c8HvXIAhld0

Normally the cinema is very empty
We don't even have a 3d screen too.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

It's hard to tell because of how dark it is, but it looks like an empty theater. Was that the case?

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17267) a year ago

2 billion?

You people and your ridiculous breakeven estimates.

The film cost $250 to make.
$50 million was spent on TV ads.

Disney has partnered with advertisers so the marketing budget is basically free.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90822702/avatar-way-of-water-disney-james-cameron-marketing-genius

Looking around this week, mere days before Avatar: The Way of Water’s premiere, it’s actually hard to find any marketing beyond the teasers and trailers. In terms of brand partnerships, Kellogg’s has adapted Frosted Flakes to Pandora Flakes (featuring blueberry blue moons!), and Mercedes-Benz created both an electric concept car dubbed AVTR and a new ad aligning its sustainability goals with Avatar’s underlying ecological messages.

After 3 days:

Domestic Ticket Sales: $135,000,000
International: $301,00,000

Disney's cut:

Domestic: $88,000,000
International: $121,000,000
Total Net from Ticket Sales: $209,000,000

If the math and logic won't convince anyone, perhaps they should consider that if Disney weren't making massive profits on these films they would not continue to make 3 or 4 every years.

If making $2.9 billion on the first film is juvenile then sign me up James to make a movie with you.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4363) a year ago

Flop incoming

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17267) a year ago

Based on the numbers it wont be a flop but wont make as much as the first.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Hmmm... You haven't seen either film, but you know it's juvenile crap? Marvel movies have been raking abroad for a long time too. Psst... maybe they're connecting to the juvenile in a lot of adults as well, both here and there.

And you said 25-40M is the "accepted math" for marketing these tentpoles, and that claims like "it needs to bring in $2 bil" are just "hype" to sell movies that don't need to make nearly as much to be in the black. It's as if your whole analysis strangely changes when a non-Marvel movie climbs the box office charts. Whatever the final tally, a whole lotta Marvel movies are gonna drop a peg on the all-time, worldwide charts when it's finished. Is that what bothers you? Like Top Gun: Maverick? Which you described as a "fake hit" despite it making 1.5bil without China?

When it's all finished, do a post-mortem with your Marvel glasses on, and you'll surely determine that it was a success. If there's something as pre-sold as a Marvel movie, it's a James Cameron spectacle, with all the favorable splits, partnerships and other downstream bells and whistles. The money they put up to make these movies says more than the "what if it isn't one of the top 5 grossing films of all time!?" hand-wringing narrative. Cameron said he told the studio about how expensive it was getting, and how it needed to make 2bil to break even -- as if the studio would have no idea, like he's spending 1bil on these Avatar sequels in the background, without studio bean counters paying attention. Right.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

I posted a link to what the filmmaker said. How you inferred all the rest of that nonsense is beyond me.

I have no idea what the film actually cost to make, or what they are spending to promote it. I've been hearing $425 million from a lot outlets. This article has it between $350-400 million.

https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/avatar-2-budget-how-much-did-it-cost-1982240/

That feels about right, considering how long it has been in the works, and the sort of film it is.

If Cameron has openly stated that the film needs to sell $2 billion worth of tickets to break even, I'll take him at his word. Based on the fact that movies like Avatar 2 tend to sell more tickets overseas than they do at home, he's probably thinking along the lines of $800 million domestic, $1.2 billion overseas.

I'm assuming Avatar 2 is getting 60% of its domestic ticket sales rather than the typical 55%, so $800 million in sales nets the studio $480 million in profit. The studio gets 40% of the international sales, except for China where they get only 25%. About 15% of international sales will be in China, so that's from $408 million from global tickets and $45 million from China.

Add it all up and if the film makes $2 billion, the studio keeps about $930 million. That suggests a production cost closer to $500 million and another $400 million spent promoting the film. Can those numbers be accurate, or is James Cameron exaggerating? I wouldn't say it's impossible, especially the $500 million price tag to make it, but we'll never know for sure.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Really? When anyone brought up reported promotional costs for Marvel movies, you called it hype that only a Brooklyn Bridge buying rube would believe, but you're saying maybe it's true for $400M(!!) for Avatar 2?? You laughed at cracking 9 figures for a Marvel tentpole promotion, but 4X(!) that for this is not impossible?? What happened to the 25-40 "accepted math"(that you could never quite provide a source for when I asked)? Now 10X(!) the high end of accepted math is somehow plausible? But I thought no one spends that -- ever?? C'mon, don't believe all that hype, right? You said the 200M+ marketing, reported by the trades, for Endgame was nonsense.

So the powers that be just decided to blow up tentpole promotion costs from 25-40mil to 400mil for Avatar 2. Wow, Cameron is a true pioneer once again -- or maybe your accepted math was never accepted at all, b/c it isn't true. It seems that you saved that conjecture for Marvel movies, then massaged it into fact to shoehorn their weaker offerings into the big win column.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17267) a year ago

I appreciate your valiant effort but Filmbuff will just move the goal posts. See my post:

https://moviechat.org/tt1630029/Avatar-The-Way-of-Water/639feded3075012c05e3bada/2-billion-looks-easy-at-this-point?reply=63a4a2230fc3c241e94f7bd6

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Satan2016 (23722) a year ago

Yes, budget is $350-400m. $1.2b is the break even point.

I doubt Cameron said $2b to break even. That would be $800m more, and the studio get around half.
What he means is he need $400m to pay debt or finance the next film. If he's borrowing 4 X $400m, the lenders what a return on investment.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

Cameron said it will need to make $2 billion to profit. I don't know if he is right or wrong, but he said it, albeit in a roundabout way.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/avatar-2-budget-expensive-2-billion-turn-profit-1235438907/

The actual break even is difficult to calculate. Most of Avatar 2's box office is likely to come from overseas markets, where 40-75% of the ticket sales stay with theaters. $1 billion in ticket sales in China would be only $250 million to the studio, for example.

We don't really know how much has been spent during the 13 years this film has been in the works. How many false starts, rewrites, reshoots, CGI re-dos, and reedits did it take? The $425 million cost estimate seems entirely believable, and I wouldn't be shocked if the true cost were even higher. How much more was spent promoting it? How much, if any of that was negated by corporate partnerships? Disney is pretty good at that. Eternals got $100 million from such partnerships, paving its way to profitability, and the current Black Panther sequel had even more. I've not seen a figure for Avatar 2. Meanwhile, I've seen an onslaught of TV ads, leading me to believe a lot was spent to hype this film.

If I had to pull numbers out of thin air, I'd guess that the actual total cost of the entire film from start to finish, promotion included, is in the neighborhood of $750 million. I'll take a completely wild guess that $100 million of that was in the form of corporate partnerships, meaning the studio needs to net $650 million to break even. How can that happen?

Domestic $450 million gross, $270 million net
International $900 million gross, $360 million net
China $150 million gross, $38 million net

Total $1.5 billion gross, $668 million net

That would be $668 million, and just get them into the black. Optimistic? Maybe, but the first one made boatloads, so maybe this one will, too?

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Wow, lowering the hurdle already. But what's a half bil in a few hours? So much for taking JC at his word, huh?

But where's that cynic who desperately needs each Marvel movie to cost less to promote, so he can claim that it made more money?

Don't you remember your answer to those high promotional costs??

[–] FilmBuff (5384) a year ago
Again, I'm relying on numbers that are considered the norm, not outlier "we spent hundreds of millions!" reports that likely exist to justify tax writeoffs.

Boom! There's the reason. Tax writeoffs, right? Why didn't you think to use that here to wave off these silly claims of astronomical costs?? Outliers are BS, right? Jim can't fool you. Now put on those Marvel glasses, then rely on the "norm" marketing numbers to lower the hurdle even more than you just did. Unless the "norm" itself was BS all along.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

Do you even read what I write? You constantly respond to my posts, but seldom address anything I've written, instead going off on tangents in response to things I haven't mentioned.

I posted earlier that Cameron said the film needs to break $2 billion to break even, and I analyzed that statement. Above I am posting my own guesswork about what the costs may be. No hurdles were ever set, and none have been lowered. I'm joining in with others, speculating about how the sequel to the film that grossed the most ever at the global box office will perform.

I don't know if you genuinely can't understand what you read, or if you have some weird grudge against me for who knows what reason, so the best I can do is tell you not to bother responding to me if you don't want to discuss the topic at hand.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

From the guy who dodged this right out of the gate?

"You haven't seen either film, but you know it's juvenile crap?"

And didn't reply to this at all:

Really? When anyone brought up reported promotional costs for Marvel movies, you called it hype that only a Brooklyn Bridge buying rube would believe, but you're saying maybe it's true for $400M(!!) for Avatar 2?? You laughed at cracking 9 figures for a Marvel tentpole promotion, but 4X(!) that for this is not impossible?? What happened to the 25-40 "accepted math"(that you could never quite provide a source for when I asked)? Now 10X(!) the high end of accepted math is somehow plausible? But I thought no one spends that -- ever?? C'mon, don't believe all that hype, right? You said the 200M+ marketing, reported by the trades, for Endgame was nonsense.

So the powers that be just decided to blow up tentpole promotion costs from 25-40mil to 400mil for Avatar 2. Wow, Cameron is a true pioneer once again -- or maybe your accepted math was never accepted at all, b/c it isn't true. It seems that you saved that conjecture for Marvel movies, then massaged it into fact to shoehorn their weaker offerings into the big win column.

Stuffed with your inconsistencies where your analysis of Marvel movies conveniently chop down promo costs to this "norm" "common" "accepted" "standard" that you can't provide a source for despite myself and others asking over and over. Now you won't even acknowledge 25-40, so much for this nonexistent norm.

[–] FilmBuff (5389) a year ago
Use the accepted math:
Cost to promote film = between 25 and 40 million

[–] FilmBuff (5389) a year ago
If you believe studios are spending $100 million or more to market a film one can only assume you own about half a dozen Brooklyn Bridges by now.

Forget addressing my words, you won't address your own past claims (like writeoffs). They're in a box labeled "Use only for Marvel".

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

I ignored all the meaningless chatter that had nothing to do with what is being discussed.

You seem like you want an argument. I'm here for friendly discussions of films. Even the way you respond is strange, as if you're trying to build some kind of case by pulling in unrelated topics.

Let's agree to disagree, even though I'm not at all sure what we are disagreeing about because I sincerely cannot make heads or tails of most of what you post. If you'd like to engage in polite banter about film, I'm down.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Of course, the "no answer" answer. You can't answer b/c you know Marvel FilmBuff contradicts non-Marvel FilmBuff.

It was all relevant to this point I made from the start. There's two FilmBuffs. The one that cooks books for lower performing Marvel movies, and there's the one who's talking about Avatar 2 and other big non-Marvel movies. And unlike you with "accepted math", I was able to support my claim with evidence --ie, your own words when breaking down Marvel movies with this "norm" you made up to make them look better. My references to a norm for marketing costs are now "meaningless chatter"? How convenient. I thought norm, accepted, common, etc, should mean it applies to this one as well. Why wouldn't it? Like YOU said, gaudy outlier claims are BS that only idiots would buy into. Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Marvel FilmBuff wants to know. None of what you said about accepted math, or scoffing at anyone who buys into giant promo costs (that you claim are for tax purposes) comports with what you say now about Avatar 2.

And of course you want to sidestep everything I said to focus on Avatar 2 in isolation, b/c if you didn't, you'd have to admit one of the two FilmBuff's is full of shit, rather than some unbiased, number cruncher, who just likes to analyze these things in an objective way.

Gee, I wonder if Bubba's post comparing Wakanda to Avatar 2 was the inspiration for your OP? I hadn't read that until after our first exchange, but it makes sense now. Prop up Marvel or chop down the box office competition. Bubba fired shots the Marvel way using Avatar 2. Can't let that stand, huh? Interesting that it begins with that "juvenile crap" swipe, huh? Never quite answered how you knew without ever seeing it. Or was that off topic too?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

When I respond to posts about a film's box office, I use whatever numbers are available, and make what I believe to be as accurate an assessment as I can. I don't care what the movie is, who directed it, what franchise it's from, or anything else. I'm just crunching numbers as part of a conversation about crunched numbers. I'm using data found online, just like anyone else. I don't now what qualifies as "evidence" for you, and honestly, that sounds like a very argumentative word to use. But that's your thing, isn't it? Everything here is a debate. Everything must become a fight, where you can prove you're right and everyone else is wrong. That's why you pull random snippets of text from other threads and try to force-fit them into the discussion at hand. Misrepresenting someone's words is a great way to slander them, and great tool for proving them wrong.

By the way, isn't Avatar also a Disney film, the same company that produces the Marvel films? I'm both pro- and anti-Disney? I still don't fully grasp what it is you are accusing me of doing, or why.

As for Avatar being juvenile, well, that's my impression of the film. I don't see a lot of blockbuster-type movies, so I may be off base, but I think of films like Avatar, The Fast and the Furious, Transformers, and others as lowbrow fare meant to sell popcorn and keep the masses entertained. Nothing I've heard from others, or read, has suggested to me that this isn't the case, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. For whatever reason, Avatar and its sequel are both films that I don't have an interest in watching. I'm sure you have evidence to prove I'm wrong and that my opinion here is invalid, so go ahead. Maybe you can find a post I made where I wrote "I liked it" about some other film, and quote just that bit to prove that I liked Avatar?

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Force fit? You weren't applying reported 9 fig marketing costs for Black Adam a month ago? The same kind of reporting that you waved off for Black Widow and others to replace with your much lower "accepted math" to paint a rosier picture? If it's accepted, common, and the norm, why could you never produce a source? Can you do it now? That's how it ended back then. No answer. No source. Just an assertion that conveniently turned a few lower Marvel movies into big winners. The idea that you're not prone to Marvel is absurd. Disney or not is irrelevant. It's Marvel or not. But DC? Or another tentpole? Suddenly, like Avatar 2, that "accepted math" flies out the window. You buy Brooklyn Bridges left and right when your goal is throwing cold water on it. You quoted 9 fig promo costs for Shazam -- then changed to your "norm" for a few weaker performing Marvel movies -- then back up to 9 figs for Black Adam. Are you really claiming you're down the middle with this stuff? There's no slander. You know what you said. You know what you do. You probably did the same thing elsewhere a few times over that I never witnessed.

As far as popcorn entertainment, why don't you mention Marvel? You think all those tix sold for Avatar are unique to a different audience? You don't think Marvel is a product engineered to keep the masses entertained, churning out film after film? Talk about buying a Brooklyn Bridge! Are you saying Marvel is highbrow fare? Neither Avatar 2, Top Gun, or the latest Marvel/DC movie are highbrow fare. They play well internationally b/c there's plenty of action and visual spectacle, little nuance, and with the sound down and no subtitles, you won't miss anything except the score. They're all happy meals: sugar, fat, and salt in a colorful container. If anything, Avatar tries to sell its seriousness more than most comic movies. And for the record, I didn't like Avatar. Pretty, but trite. But the idea that it's lower than Marvel on the high-lowbrow scale is silly.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

I did answer you in the Black Adam thread back then, or at least I answered someone there. I wrote in response to a post in which that poster used those figures. I told you at the time, too, that I'm using the original poster's math to come up with the answer.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Yeah, then I asked why you didn't use the "accepted math", the right math, according to you. Just like I asked again here as to why you didn't apply it to Avatar 2.

You just said this...

When I respond to posts about a film's box office, I use whatever numbers are available, and make what I believe to be as accurate an assessment as I can.

So how can you be accurate if you're using someone else's numbers, or these inflated reports (according to Marvel FilmBuff), that you already know to be false based on your "accepted math"? You know the truth. You said it over and over when dismissing 9 figs for Marvel promotions, right? You threw out the available numbers I provided for Marvel promos, but you buy into it to make Black Adam seem worse? And you claim no bias? All about accuracy? Nope.

No one claimed any marketing costs at all for Avatar 2, so where's that 25-40m default? Man, you're sure allergic to that "norm" now. You still won't acknowledge it at all.

But more importantly, I asked a lot more questions above than what you answered. Why might that be?

Here, maybe you missed them.

If it's accepted, common, and the norm, why could you never produce a source? Can you do it now?

As far as popcorn entertainment, why don't you mention Marvel?

You think all those tix sold for Avatar are unique to a different audience?

You don't think Marvel is a product engineered to keep the masses entertained, churning out film after film?

Are you saying Marvel is highbrow fare?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

I'm here to enjoy discussions of films. I don't enjoy arguing. And beyond that, I don't think anything I say is going to matter, as above when I pointed out that I responded to someone who said "the film cost x" with "if the film cost x, then..." Just as I did here, in response to James Cameron, the film's director, saying "the film needs to gross $2 billion to break even." Just as I've shown you the links to the sources I used to obtain the numbers I crunched.

It doesn't matter. You have an axe to grind, and I'm not interested in this conversation at all. I've tried to be polite, and respond each time, but I'm now politely excusing myself from this.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

That's what I thought. You just sidestep again b/c of the obvious inconsistencies. Anything to avoid that 25-40M now. Couldn't stop reiterating it back then, but now it doesn't exist, much like the source you could never produce.

Like I said from the start, there was only one difference between then and now. You were breaking down lower performing Marvel movies that needed some help back then, so you made up a range that cleared them all well into the black. Other films don't get that same benefit, especially big films that others are comparing to Marvel.

reply

[–] Anotherday (7754) a year ago

The movie could make it's money back. There's virtually no competition in the market and people know it's a safe bet for viewing. Personally, I think it will be a movie that people rave about, they buy it at home, and then never watch it again.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) a year ago

You lose all credibility of your "facts" and "math" when you suggest Avatar 2 will be a flop.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17267) a year ago

It's his M.O. No amount of fact or logic is going to sway him.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

I get that he is biased, and forego all logic to tout the films he loves and denigrate those he hates.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking if the international audience for the film will be large enough to push it into the black. A fortune has been spent to make and promote this film, and there is no guarantee it's going to earn it all back. It probably will, but that is far from guaranteed, especially if most of the people who watch it are outside of the U.S.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) a year ago

this hasnt aged very well

WORLDWIDE
$2,248,868,884

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

Hasn't aged well? You tried the same line before, but I was pretty much spot on-- the film made most of its money overseas.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17267) a year ago

This hasn't aged very well. lol

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

It's as accurate today as it was when I wrote it. The film is not putting up great numbers domestically, but it is doing very well overseas. If the film *actually* needs $2 billion to break even, it may be in trouble. If that was an exaggeration, it may soon turn a profit. Not much has changed.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

It just posted the largest domestic daily grosses of the year for tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

In what universe does that translate to not putting up great domestic numbers? Those are the best numbers of the year. If the best isn't good enough then what is good enough?

The $2b number was always silly, a bit of puffery based on one off the cuff comment. Even high end estimates with production cost of $450m plus promotion will put it in the black at $1.4b or so.

Cameron himself has corrected it.

https://youtu.be/hilYs1pmfOE

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

We seem to be talking about two different things here. In my post I was discussing specifically its opening weekend, when it made $134 million. That's a great total for most films, but a disappointment for the sequel to Avatar. When you compare that to the top films this year, it's a bit short, especially opening in the prime pre-Christmas spot.

Top Gun 2 - $161 million
Black Panther 2 - $181 million
Doctor Strange 2 - $185 million
Jurassic World - $145 million

And again, while $134 million is a great opening, one expected Avatar 2 to do numbers closer to last year's big December release, Spider-Man: No Way Home and its $260 million opening weekend.

That disappointing opening in conjunction with the film's massive cost to make-- $425 million plus promotional expenses-- meant the film had an uphill climb to profitability.

Even today, after 14 days, Avatar 2 has a net profit of $512 million, meaning it probably needs at least another $60 million plus in profit to break even.

Above and beyond the profit angle, there is also the sense that the sequel to Avatar-- the highest-grossing film worldwide of all time-- will be held to a higher standard than nearly any other film. If it doesn't join the $2 billion worldwide gross club, something went wrong.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

No one expected a $260M domestic opening for Avatar 2 ever. You just pulled that out of the air. Just b/c it's mid-Dec, you don't expect a number like that for every big tent pole. And pretending that the lead in to Spider-Man:NWH, with all those recent movies, plus the gimmick of bringing the other actors back into the fold, should have the same effect as 13 years of nothing, is silly. Like Titanic, and the first Avatar, it was always about the long game, aka its legs, not opening weekend front loading.

https://screenrant.com/avatar-way-water-opening-weekend-box-office-doesnt-matter/

Using your examples, here's how long they took to reach the $350M US mark:

Avatar 2 - 14 days
Top Gun 2 -15 days
Black Panther 2 - 16 days
Doctor Strange 2 - 20 days
Jurassic World - 31 days

All the ground and more was made up in 11 days, despite even a $50ishmil head start for both DS2 and BP2.

Here's the difference between poor domestic legs

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Black-Panther-Wakanda-Forever-(2022)#tab=box-office

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Doctor-Strange-in-the-Multiverse-of-Madness-(2022)#tab=box-office

good domestic legs

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Avatar-The-Way-of-Water-(2022)#tab=box-office

and great domestic legs

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Top-Gun-Maverick-(2020)#tab=box-office

Obviously, Bubba was referring to what has happened on the domestic side since your post. Now the US is eating up this "juvenile crap" as much or more than the other juvenile crap you listed

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

well, i think you're being more than a bit disingenous here. the other possibility is that you just don't know what you're talking about, and that would mean your username is a lie.

because you surely know that no one expected this to perform like no way home or any marvel film, which open massively and show standard blockbuster declines. & the poster above me has nicely explained that this film is going to surpass the marvel films from this year by a good margin.

wow opened slightly below expectations. a bit. but not much. maybe because of weather. maybe because people were holding out to see it on premium screens with good seats. maybe because they weren't sold on it.

whatever reason, what we do now know is that it's holding very nicely and is shaping up to be quite a success. it will pass $400m domestic sunday. we'll see how well it runs in january. i'm not nostradamus, but i wouldn't be shocked it if bumps up against $600m domestic. but even if it doesn't, it's still a pretty smashing success, one that was not guaranteed at all.

you are saying one thing that is more or less true, in that when you are the sequel to the biggest movie ever made, there are expectations. but it's also true that this is 13 years later and lots and lots of people were very skeptical of how an avatar sequel would perform. there were many saying that this was a movie no one wanted and that it would likely land with a bit of a thud. a person with the username filmbuff would know that surely.

so if avatar ends up around 1.8b or whatever, then some people will say 'didn't meet expectations.'

that seems uncharitable and cynical to me.

i think that more accurate take would be that a film that ends up somewhere in the top 15 all time domestic gross list (maybe higher) & probably the 6th or 7th (maybe higher) world wide gross list can't really be called an underperformer.

it's doing the business quite nicely, i reckon.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

well, i think you're being more than a bit disingenous here. the other possibility is that you just don't know what you're talking about

It's both. Bias driven bullshit, and being obtuse at times. If you doubt the latter, look at his use of the term "profit" below.

Even today, after 14 days, Avatar 2 has a net profit of $512 million, meaning it probably needs at least another $60 million plus in profit to break even.

It's made all this profit, and it'll need even more profit to break even?? I've never heard of a movie making so much profit before reaching profitability.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yeah, I noticed that too. I assumed it was a typo or a weird edit that mangled his point.

Bottom line is that he's doing a lot of heavy lifting trying to make something that's successful seem not successful. Strange thing for him to do.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

If I had not seen him break down things that way in the past, I might agree. Back then, I thought he was just frantically typing and just jumbled his terms, but not any longer.

He just loves Marvel, but he's the type that takes it so far that he has to prop them up and/or diminish any threats to them. Easy to do with most DC and others lately, but Avatar 2 (and Top Gun 2 before) is just too much. This one is going to bump off way too many Marvel movie box office hauls for him to just stand by and not pick at.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

We don't really disagree on much, so maybe you didn't quite get my initial meaning, or maybe I wrote it unclearly. I was writing primarily in response to a quote from James Cameron that had been making the rounds online, where he said the film will need to gross $2 billion to break even. I was wondering if the film could do that. I expect Avatar 2 to bring in a lot at the box office, but $2 billion is a steep order for any film. I pointed out that while it was doing very well overseas, the studio keeps less of that money, making it a slower climb to profitability than if it was making that money at home.

The expectations for Avatar 2 were that it would have a huge opening weekend, especially since it was released in the big money time frame just before Christmas. The Force Awakens, Spider-Man: No Way Home, and other films with high expectations typically get that spot, and its $134 million opening was below all the "expert" predictions I'd read leading up to its opening. $175 million seemed to be the target for U.S. gross, and $525 million was the international target; it made $434 million. Good numbers, but well below what had been predicted.

The comparison to No Way Home is a valid one. Both were expected to be the year's top-earning film, and to make boatloads of money. After 15 days, No Way Home had made $573 million domestically, while Avatar 2 is at $383 million. Both are large numbers, but one is significantly larger. That doesn't mean Avatar 2 is a failure, or destined to lose money, or anything else.

Again, I'm not trying to make any kind of case for or against the film, or brand it as an under-performer. I pointed out that it made less in its opening weekend than had been expected, and was making most of its money globally, so if it really needs to hit $2 billion to break even, it's going to be an uphill battle.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4074) a year ago

Even NWH wasn't expected to make anything close to $260M. It was a complete surprise.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/spiderman-no-way-home-box-office-opening-weekend-pandemic-record-1235137725/

The final chapter in the Tom Holland-led trilogy had initially been expected to gross $130 to $150 million over the weekend, but it quickly squashed those estimates.

Like I said, the idea that $260M should be the expectation is another FilmBuff creation. You're basically taking a surprise, record-smashing opening, and pretending that's the benchmark for big mid-Dec releases.

And why are you still using 2bil as the line? As mentioned more than once, Cameron has revised that. Not taking his word for it any longer? B/c it's lower now?

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

https://twitter.com/SonnyBunch/status/1608933896313524224?t=1ZHr24eSCeW5fq8WsX1-kQ&s=19

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17267) a year ago

You are either confusing me with someone else, or pulling that out of your ass.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) a year ago

this hasnt aged very well. lol

Worldwide Box Office $1,916,282,103

hana

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6752) a year ago

Did you read what I wrote? I was pretty accurate, wasn't I? If it gets to $2 billion it will be primarily overseas box office that gets it there, which is exactly the case.

reply