Frankly I find Avatar emblematic of the issues I have with Hollywood in general. Avatar was a pretty good movie, but not because it was a good movie, if you get my drift. It was pretty...
Frankly I find Avatar emblematic of the issues I have with Hollywood in general.
Avatar was a pretty good movie, but not because it was a good movie, if you get my drift. It was pretty cookie-cutter in a lot of ways, but it got away with it because Cameron is the king of execution; he made a movie that was forgettable to its core and made it fresh and interesting.
Then they decided to make a sequel, and that was fine. I didn’t see it, personally but it had potential. The problem was that they decided to turn it into a five-film franchise then and there. It’s obvious that it’s going to get stale by the time they make that fifth film, and likely far before then.
But honestly the thing I hate the most about this situation is the headline issue; even a billion dollars isn’t enough for them. What kind of behemoth of a company can’t be happy with having an extra billion dollars? It’s emblematic of the reason I dislike most Hollywood blockbusters. The films they produce are not meant to be artistic endeavors, they are products for people to consume, and more cynically they are advertisements for either IP branded merch or any number of paid product placements. Movies are produced to have interchangeable writers and directors because the producers want to have control enough to maximize their metrics. Often times these films having artistic merit is “accidental”. Let’s not forget that the company who paid to produce the Barbie movie is the same one who made “gems” like Ouija, Battleship, and the infamous Jem and the Holograms.
It’s ironic that when these companies do decide to risk on artistic vision, they often don’t market them at all. A while back Disney tagged a director I like, Justin Simien, to make a Haunted Mansion movie, and it ended up being my favorite film of a year still tainted by the long shadow of the COVID pandemic’s movie plague. It ended up bombing because it came out at about the same time as Barbenheimer, so naturally Disney will forever be pointing to it as an example of why they will not be making those kinds of risks anymore.
A billion dollars is absolutely enough for them, and if every avatar movie was guaranteed to make $1.4b that would be fine. The issue is that, like everyone else, they can notice that avatar’s box...
But honestly the thing I hate the most about this situation is the headline issue; even a billion dollars isn’t enough for them.
A billion dollars is absolutely enough for them, and if every avatar movie was guaranteed to make $1.4b that would be fine. The issue is that, like everyone else, they can notice that avatar’s box office numbers are on an exponential decline if you plot it.
The risk is that it goes the way of many, many other series, like Jurassic Park going from one of the most influential movies of its era to being dinoslop.
I think it’s ironic that people complain about how movie studios keep releasing sequels that eventually degrade into being crap no one cares about because they want more incremental revenue from the franchise, and in this case Disney is trying to be more cautious about the exact same thing and is getting heat about it.
Does Avatar need 5 movies? Can it really support 5 movies?
Hollywood accounting is always weird, but I can't imagine that that billion dollars of profit factors in the park, or the plushies, or any of the rest. I know that's the franchise as a whole and...
Hollywood accounting is always weird, but I can't imagine that that billion dollars of profit factors in the park, or the plushies, or any of the rest. I know that's the franchise as a whole and not Avatar 3 in particular, but it still seems disingenuous for them to be talking about the movie in a vacuum.
The profit trending lower is something to keep in mind sure. But thinking out loud about wrapping up the whole project seems silly.
The billion dollars was revenue, not profit. The movie + advertising is going to be in the 500-600m range. They’re not thinking out loud? They’re thinking internally and we get bits and pieces...
The billion dollars was revenue, not profit. The movie + advertising is going to be in the 500-600m range.
But thinking out loud about wrapping up the whole project seems silly.
They’re not thinking out loud? They’re thinking internally and we get bits and pieces from 3rd degree of separation hearsay which may or may not be real to begin with.
That $1.4b number is the gross box office receipts for Avatar: Fire and Ash. That's the total before the exhibitor's cut and any backend points owed to the people who made the film. That number is...
That $1.4b number is the gross box office receipts for Avatar: Fire and Ash. That's the total before the exhibitor's cut and any backend points owed to the people who made the film. That number is also up against the film's $400m budget, which notably does not include the cost of all the marketing done for the movie, which itself was likely another $200m.
All these factors are why the general rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make 2.5x its budget at the box office to break even.
To be fair, an Avatar Movie without Cameron sounds like a Michael Bay movie without explosions. That's just asking for disappointment (even if it can end with a better film). Big directors do...
Movies are produced to have interchangeable writers and directors because the producers want to have control enough to maximize their metrics.
To be fair, an Avatar Movie without Cameron sounds like a Michael Bay movie without explosions. That's just asking for disappointment (even if it can end with a better film). Big directors do matter for people to get butts in seats.
Errr no, that's not the timeline at all. Cameron has been vocal since the release of the first that he had a storyline spanning many movies. The 2nd and 3rd were shot at the same time, and that...
Then they decided to make a sequel, and that was fine. I didn’t see it, personally but it had potential. The problem was that they decided to turn it into a five-film franchise then and there. It’s obvious that it’s going to get stale by the time they make that fifth film, and likely far before then.
Errr no, that's not the timeline at all. Cameron has been vocal since the release of the first that he had a storyline spanning many movies. The 2nd and 3rd were shot at the same time, and that was the plan since 2010. Five films were confirmed in 2016.
To a degree, the cost of the movie can be whatever Disney wants it to be. Finding ways to maximize cost on the books is the classic way to screw people whose contracts specify a percentage of the...
To a degree, the cost of the movie can be whatever Disney wants it to be. Finding ways to maximize cost on the books is the classic way to screw people whose contracts specify a percentage of the net, after all.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're just putting pressure on Cameron and trying to force him to accept poorer terms by threatening to cancel the project he's the most attached to.
This series is such a missed opportunity to me. They have a cool world, the best special effects I've ever seen, and really masterful use of 3D. But they had to go and skimp on the actual plot....
This series is such a missed opportunity to me. They have a cool world, the best special effects I've ever seen, and really masterful use of 3D. But they had to go and skimp on the actual plot. The third one especially just felt like the second one again. As it is now, the first was popular and people showed up to see the sequels. But if we got a genuinely great plot this could've been the new Star Wars.
For me the 2nd one really feels like the high point of the series. It did a lot to expand on the first movie's worldbuilding while telling a story that felt a lot less derivative. All the...
For me the 2nd one really feels like the high point of the series. It did a lot to expand on the first movie's worldbuilding while telling a story that felt a lot less derivative. All the underwater sequences also really impressed, to the point that other movies with underwater scenes look cheap and lazy by comparison (looking at you, Aquaman movies).
It’s a missed opportunity for me because he’s spending all those years making mediocre movies instead of the good ones he used to make. I think he took the wrong lessons from Titanic. That movie...
It’s a missed opportunity for me because he’s spending all those years making mediocre movies instead of the good ones he used to make.
I think he took the wrong lessons from Titanic. That movie shouldn’t have worked. It was too expensive to make, and required a lot of people to see it multiple times for it to make money. The fact that it did make money because people did watch it multiple times shouldn’t be a baked-in expectation for his movies.
With the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, I haven’t even watched the 2nd or 3rd movies. The first one was impressive visually, but the Pocahontas story was a huge turnoff and it put the...
With the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, I haven’t even watched the 2nd or 3rd movies. The first one was impressive visually, but the Pocahontas story was a huge turnoff and it put the whole franchise on my “not interested” list.
The second one is easily far better than the first. It tells a compelling story that isn't so derivative, and greatly expands the world, with additional well-realized characters. The third was...
The second one is easily far better than the first. It tells a compelling story that isn't so derivative, and greatly expands the world, with additional well-realized characters. The third was good...but it's still stuck on Cameron's water obsession.
Also, they're visually stunning. There were some major leaps in VFX in the interrim.
How long do Avatar films take to make? It was 10+ years between the first and second films. Given James Cameron is 74, I think it's understandable to review the series' continuation just on that...
How long do Avatar films take to make? It was 10+ years between the first and second films. Given James Cameron is 74, I think it's understandable to review the series' continuation just on that alone.
I think you had a typo there. I'm fairly sure what I just watched was not something called "Fire and Ash", but "Way of Water 2". Jokes aside, it was an odd movie. There was like 5 minutes of...
I think you had a typo there. I'm fairly sure what I just watched was not something called "Fire and Ash", but "Way of Water 2".
Jokes aside, it was an odd movie. There was like 5 minutes of actual fire and ash. The rest was repeats of Way of Water. It was a disappointment.
Yeah the biggest complaint I had was the ending was the same and took place in a similar place. You'd think they'd set the last action piece at a Volcano with a title like Fire and Ash.
Yeah the biggest complaint I had was the ending was the same and took place in a similar place. You'd think they'd set the last action piece at a Volcano with a title like Fire and Ash.
Frankly I find Avatar emblematic of the issues I have with Hollywood in general.
Avatar was a pretty good movie, but not because it was a good movie, if you get my drift. It was pretty cookie-cutter in a lot of ways, but it got away with it because Cameron is the king of execution; he made a movie that was forgettable to its core and made it fresh and interesting.
Then they decided to make a sequel, and that was fine. I didn’t see it, personally but it had potential. The problem was that they decided to turn it into a five-film franchise then and there. It’s obvious that it’s going to get stale by the time they make that fifth film, and likely far before then.
But honestly the thing I hate the most about this situation is the headline issue; even a billion dollars isn’t enough for them. What kind of behemoth of a company can’t be happy with having an extra billion dollars? It’s emblematic of the reason I dislike most Hollywood blockbusters. The films they produce are not meant to be artistic endeavors, they are products for people to consume, and more cynically they are advertisements for either IP branded merch or any number of paid product placements. Movies are produced to have interchangeable writers and directors because the producers want to have control enough to maximize their metrics. Often times these films having artistic merit is “accidental”. Let’s not forget that the company who paid to produce the Barbie movie is the same one who made “gems” like Ouija, Battleship, and the infamous Jem and the Holograms.
It’s ironic that when these companies do decide to risk on artistic vision, they often don’t market them at all. A while back Disney tagged a director I like, Justin Simien, to make a Haunted Mansion movie, and it ended up being my favorite film of a year still tainted by the long shadow of the COVID pandemic’s movie plague. It ended up bombing because it came out at about the same time as Barbenheimer, so naturally Disney will forever be pointing to it as an example of why they will not be making those kinds of risks anymore.
A billion dollars is absolutely enough for them, and if every avatar movie was guaranteed to make $1.4b that would be fine. The issue is that, like everyone else, they can notice that avatar’s box office numbers are on an exponential decline if you plot it.
The risk is that it goes the way of many, many other series, like Jurassic Park going from one of the most influential movies of its era to being dinoslop.
I think it’s ironic that people complain about how movie studios keep releasing sequels that eventually degrade into being crap no one cares about because they want more incremental revenue from the franchise, and in this case Disney is trying to be more cautious about the exact same thing and is getting heat about it.
Does Avatar need 5 movies? Can it really support 5 movies?
Hollywood accounting is always weird, but I can't imagine that that billion dollars of profit factors in the park, or the plushies, or any of the rest. I know that's the franchise as a whole and not Avatar 3 in particular, but it still seems disingenuous for them to be talking about the movie in a vacuum.
The profit trending lower is something to keep in mind sure. But thinking out loud about wrapping up the whole project seems silly.
The billion dollars was revenue, not profit. The movie + advertising is going to be in the 500-600m range.
They’re not thinking out loud? They’re thinking internally and we get bits and pieces from 3rd degree of separation hearsay which may or may not be real to begin with.
That $1.4b number is the gross box office receipts for Avatar: Fire and Ash. That's the total before the exhibitor's cut and any backend points owed to the people who made the film. That number is also up against the film's $400m budget, which notably does not include the cost of all the marketing done for the movie, which itself was likely another $200m.
All these factors are why the general rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make 2.5x its budget at the box office to break even.
To be fair, an Avatar Movie without Cameron sounds like a Michael Bay movie without explosions. That's just asking for disappointment (even if it can end with a better film). Big directors do matter for people to get butts in seats.
Errr no, that's not the timeline at all. Cameron has been vocal since the release of the first that he had a storyline spanning many movies. The 2nd and 3rd were shot at the same time, and that was the plan since 2010. Five films were confirmed in 2016.
To a degree, the cost of the movie can be whatever Disney wants it to be. Finding ways to maximize cost on the books is the classic way to screw people whose contracts specify a percentage of the net, after all.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're just putting pressure on Cameron and trying to force him to accept poorer terms by threatening to cancel the project he's the most attached to.
This series is such a missed opportunity to me. They have a cool world, the best special effects I've ever seen, and really masterful use of 3D. But they had to go and skimp on the actual plot. The third one especially just felt like the second one again. As it is now, the first was popular and people showed up to see the sequels. But if we got a genuinely great plot this could've been the new Star Wars.
For me the 2nd one really feels like the high point of the series. It did a lot to expand on the first movie's worldbuilding while telling a story that felt a lot less derivative. All the underwater sequences also really impressed, to the point that other movies with underwater scenes look cheap and lazy by comparison (looking at you, Aquaman movies).
It’s a missed opportunity for me because he’s spending all those years making mediocre movies instead of the good ones he used to make.
I think he took the wrong lessons from Titanic. That movie shouldn’t have worked. It was too expensive to make, and required a lot of people to see it multiple times for it to make money. The fact that it did make money because people did watch it multiple times shouldn’t be a baked-in expectation for his movies.
I loved the first one. But the sequel didn't hold my interest past the halfway mark. It could have been subtitled: "how much war can you stomach?".
With the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, I haven’t even watched the 2nd or 3rd movies. The first one was impressive visually, but the Pocahontas story was a huge turnoff and it put the whole franchise on my “not interested” list.
You are missing out on beautiful and spectacular - and boring - movies.
The second one is easily far better than the first. It tells a compelling story that isn't so derivative, and greatly expands the world, with additional well-realized characters. The third was good...but it's still stuck on Cameron's water obsession.
Also, they're visually stunning. There were some major leaps in VFX in the interrim.
Good to hear the story is less derivative. That would definitely nudge me to give it a shot.
How long do Avatar films take to make? It was 10+ years between the first and second films. Given James Cameron is 74, I think it's understandable to review the series' continuation just on that alone.
Both Way of Water and Fire and Ash started shooting in 2017.
I think you had a typo there. I'm fairly sure what I just watched was not something called "Fire and Ash", but "Way of Water 2".
Jokes aside, it was an odd movie. There was like 5 minutes of actual fire and ash. The rest was repeats of Way of Water. It was a disappointment.
Yeah the biggest complaint I had was the ending was the same and took place in a similar place. You'd think they'd set the last action piece at a Volcano with a title like Fire and Ash.