James Cameron's "Avatar"... forgotten?

[robcat2075]

I'm reminded of the old show-biz remark, "But what have you done lately...?"

The biggest box office smash in the history of big box office smashes is nearly forgotten.

Long think-piece, unlocked for you to read.

‘Avatar’ and the Mystery of the Vanishing Blockbuster

 

 

[Roger]

9 hours ago, robcat2075 said:

I'm reminded of the old show-biz remark, "But what have you done lately...?"

The biggest box office smash in the history of big box office smashes is nearly forgotten.

Long think-piece, unlocked for you to read.

‘Avatar’ and the Mystery of the Vanishing Blockbuster

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if the people writing these articles are blowing smoke up our backsides.

I remember seeing Avatar in the theater, and thinking it was an interesting movie with decent CGI, but the absolute last thing I'd say about that movie is that I was depressed after seeing it, due to some sort of "withdrawal".

I've heard in the industry press that this "Avatar 2" is going to have to clear $2 billion to even break even.   I don't see that happening in this economy.  Was anyone clamoring for this movie?   To read this person's article, you'd think throngs had been sitting around with straight razors ready to slash their wrists if James Cameron didn't grace us with another movie.   🙄

[Roger]

Yeah, this dumpster fire doesn't have a chance in Hell of making its money back:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/11/30/avatar-the-way-of-water-director-james-cameron-claims-testosterone-is-a-toxin-that-you-have-to-slowly-work-out-of-your-system/

[Wildsided]

I think blockbusters are disappearing because Hollywood is far more interested in virtue signalling than producing anything decent.

"Hey everyone look at our super inclusive new movie. It's directed by a racial minority, LGBT person and stars the most diverse cast ever put to film!"

"Cool, what's it about?"

"It's about a strong female character who's also a racial minority who doesn't need a man taking on an evil white man in his 40s who just wants to exploit women because white middle aged men are just the worst. Doesn't that sound exciting?"

"Yeah, Hollywood....Great....Can we have a Highlander Reboot? "

"Only if Connor MacLeod can be a trans woman and doesn't fight with swords because they're too phallic and might upset Twitter,"

"Oh..."

Edit for clarity.

I want to point out that I have nothing against, members of the LGBT community, or minorities. It just feels like a lot of movies and TV are more concerned with box ticking and meeting a representation quota than they are with making a compelling product.

[robcat2075]

On 12/1/2022 at 3:45 PM, Wildsided said:

I think blockbusters are disappearing because Hollywood is far more interested in virtue signalling than producing anything decent.

Prior to COVID the  problem was too many blockbusters.

Only films that studios hoped to gross $100 million or $200 million or more at theaters were getting green lit because small films were hard to promote and wouldn't pull in enough ticket buyers to pay it off.

Now that theaters are open again it looks like... mostly blockbusters again. Superheroes, action movies and big-budget animation on screen at the mall. The quirky rom coms  and dramas are getting just the token theatrical release before they go to streaming. They are still getting made (by and for streamers) but they may never have the theatrical presence they used to have.

The old Hollywood formula used to be to make mostly cheap movies and hope for one to be a runaway hit like "Jaws" or "Star Wars". Hollywood accounting made the successful movies pay for the losers and those losers helped the studios from having to return much money to the investors.

Now, the investors who finance movies want home runs every time. The blockbuster is perceived to be the safe choice, somehow.
 

[detbear]

After the first 1000 CG films, it just isn't as impressive nor interesting anymore. I actually quit going to watch Feature animated films. I'll

wait for the video/ stream. All the character designs seem "cookie cutter."  They bank on sequel after sequel after sequel.

The excitement just doesn't seem there anymore. 

I think the fall of 2D features suffered the same fate. Now it seems like that same fate has landed on CG features.

 

[robcat2075]

22 hours ago, detbear said:

After the first 1000 CG films, it just isn't as impressive nor interesting anymore. I actually quit going to watch Feature animated films.

Yup. "Cars 2" was what did that for me. I realized I was just watching a toy commercial.  😀

 

 

 

[Roger]

I am beginning to think, with the kind of crap that Hollywood is putting out now, that it is some kind of money-laundering operation.   Because I can't think how they expect to spend 250 million, or 500 million, or a billion on stuff the audience doesn't want to see and then make their money back.

Nobody wants to go see a movie where the male lead is turned into a clown or an incompetent dope, or a cherished hero brought low in order to make a new character seem better.    Nobody wants to go see a movie where women are just magically good at everything because "girl power!".   

Just watching the sort of movies that have been getting greenlit over the last ten years, I can't help but think that this is exactly what is going through the studio execs minds:  "I know what will get asses in the seats!  Let's ruin the franchise forever!"

So I'm going with some combo of money-laundering, catering to China, or hell even an active demoralization campaign.  Because they sure as hell don't seem to give a crap about actually making a profit from the ever-shrinking American middle class.

[Tom]

Thanks for posting the Avatar article.

I applaud any creative person (like Cameron) striving to share their vision. I don't applaud snarky journalists with dismissive tones carping over others peoples successes. The Irish playwright Brendan Behan had a great quote about critics, ""Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves."

The Times should hire better writers...

[robcat2075]

 

 

I guess in a week we'll find out.

The early reviews, at least the ones excerpted here, are are very positive...

 

Avatar: The Way of Water First Reactions: We Never Should Have Doubted James Cameron

Quote

Critics on social media say the long-awaited sequel is a visually astounding technical marvel (as expected), but also a complex, emotionally resonant story with breathtaking action.

 

 

 

On 12/9/2022 at 4:37 PM, Roger said:

Nobody wants to go see a movie where women are just magically good at everything because "girl power!".

But isn't that pretty much how the Hollywood male heroes worked?

What ever expertise is implied by their job title is at not use in the movie and they just somehow know a mavericky thing to do instead.

Dirty Harry doesn't follow police procedure, he shoots up the town and it all works out.

Captain Kirk doesn't follow Star Fleet regulations but always tops Spock, who is the resident book-smart guy.

Luke Skywalker has actual magic that tells him when to swing the light sabre.

MacGiver?

Almost every Tom Cruise movie imparts him some superiority that places him above all the others for no reason except that he's... Tom Cruise.

Superman has no merit for his powers other than the rays of the Sun. Likewise for the other comic book supers.

I think the male heroes have been benefiting from story conventions that are mostly unexplained magic.

 

[Roger]

I'll reserve judgement on Avatar 2 until I actually see it.  But I don't think it is going to make its money back.  

I'll give you that Superman is a bad hero, he's always been way too overpowered.    

Luke has an actual character arc.   He goes from being an impatient, whiny farm boy to apprentice Jedi in Empire to Jedi Master in Jedi.    In Empire he gets his ass handed to him by Vader because he stops his training to run off to save his friends.   In Jedi he realizes that force is not the way he is going to defeat Palpatine and redeem his father, so he lays down his weapon rather than kill his own father and potentially become like him in the process.

Contrast this with Rey, who handily beats Kylo Ren at the end of Force Awakens with virtually no training.  We are constantly told Kylo is so dangerous, yet he turns out to be a paper tiger.  Each time he goes up against Rey, she beats him.   You don't see Rey suffer any setbacks or hardships.  Rey has new abilities in each film, but we don't get any sense of how these were developed they are just "there".  Contrast with Luke, who has a fairly limited set of powers yet is shown being more competent in their use throughout the trilogy.  

Since you mentioned male heroes benefiting from magic, how about Bruce Willis in Die Hard?   There's no magic there, only a character who is relying on his wits and improvisation in a dangerous scenario and (admittedly) a ton of luck. 

If you want examples of well-written female leads, I give you these:

Sarah Connor:  she is an everyday woman working as a waitress, is thrust into a dangerous situation.  With help from a mysterious stranger, she manages to destroy an unstoppable killing machine mainly by finding the courage to not give up.   By Terminator 2 she is a legitimate badass.

Ellen Ripley:   She's essentially a space trucker who watches her entire crew be slaughtered, but manages to keep her wits about her and work up a plan to kill the alien by using the self destruct on the ship.  At the end when she is in the escape pod and realizes the alien is still alive, she keeps her cool and flushes it out the airlock, despite being terrified.

Clarice Starling:   Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling uses solid, procedural detective work to track down a killer.   When she goes maverick and tries to bring him in on her own, she is nearly killed.   While she does benefit from a bit of luck at the end, it is her FBI training that allows her to capitalize on that luck, and kill the bad guy.

I'm struggling to think of more examples from the 90s and 00s, I'm sure there are some I just can't think of any right now.   The writing for female characters really started to take a nose dive from roughly 2010 on.  

Yes, there is a lot of hand-wavy "because its magic" business with super hero movies, I mean...how could there not be?  Thor is a literal god, after all.  But when Thor gets booted out of Asgard, he has to be worthy to pick up Mjolnir again.   He can't actually pick it up until he's worthy of having that power back.  

Don't get me wrong, I like well-written female leads.   I really, really wanted to like Rey.   I thought she had a lot of potential for development, but she was badly written.

Rey is an example of a Mary Sue.   So is Captain Marvel, and Ms. Marvel, and several more I could name.

What's a Mary Sue?   https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits

 

 

[Roger]

Here is how you fix Rey, and turn her into a more believable/likeable character:

Keep the early stuff with her on Jaku, that was good.  Keep the scene where she takes Luke's saber back at Maz's.   In fact, Force Awakens can be left mostly as-is, with the major change coming in the final act.    Where Rey goes to fight Kylo though, you have Kylo come at her with a flurry of savage blows.  She manages to parry, but only just.  Kylo makes one last strike, taking her saber arm off at the elbow and closes in for the kill.   Everything appears lost, but you start to see Luke's saber move, and a hooded and robed figure force pulls it, activates the blade and drives off Kylo, scarring him in the process.  The character comes to tend to Rey, Finn says "who are you?  How did you know we needed help?"   Character removes his cowl and we see it is Luke, who says "I felt a disturbance in the force, something I haven't felt in a long time.   Come, help me get Rey to my ship, we have to leave before the base is destroyed"

I can virtually guarantee the audience would have lost their minds.

You then get Luke back to the rebel base, where he has a brief reunion with Han and Leia.   I would have kept Han around until the 2nd movie, maybe have Kylo try to kill him but he just can't bring himself to do it.  This shows that there is some conflict, sets up an opportunity for Snoke to confront him, etc.

Have Luke explain to everyone that he's been in hiding because he felt the presence of a powerful darkside user, and did not want to endanger everyone with his presence. Maybe he had a vision of Snoke while poking around some Sith ruins, and that corrupting presence was what turned Kylo and made him attack Luke's students. 

Luke explains he needs to train Rey in secrecy, if they are going to have any hope of defeating the corrupting influence (Snoke).

Luke heads back to his hideout with Rey.

Now here is where you spend nearly all of episode 8 with Luke and Rey, building Rey up.   You could even have *shown* that Rey is powerful/unique, by having her heal her arm.  Maybe she was fitted with a prosthesis, but it never functions quite right.   She is having a training duel with Luke where we can see she is getting better, but Luke uses a force push and knocks her back, knocking her out.  Luke rushes over to aid her, grabs her arm and here is where Rey siphons of some of Luke's lifeforce.   You can see the prosthetic fall off and her limb starts healing.   She comes to and Luke says something like "you are very strong in the Force, I've heard of rumors of those that could use the Force for healing but I've never run into anyone that could actually do it.   But you still have a lot to learn, if you want to be able to face Kylo Ren and aid me in stopping this dark presence that has come back".

This fixes a lot of what is wrong with the final act of Force Awakens.   It shows that Rey has some ability, but needs a lot of work to develop it.   It establishes Kylo as a credible threat.   It introduces us to the heretofore unseen power of Force healing, also setting Rey apart as being unique but she very nearly kills Luke accidentally when instinctively employing it, so she has to spend a lot more time learning how to wield and control her abilities. 

There's other stuff you could do to fix Last Jedi, but having it primarily be about Rey's training and then cutting back to the other plot with the rebels, would go along way towards fixing what fans didn't like about it.   If you were still going to kill off Han, Last Jedi is where to do it.    You can then set Rey up for an "Empire" style confrontation with Kylo, but she fails because he gets in her head, trying to seduce her to the dark side.  She only manages with great effort to fend him off.

I could go on, but I've already written a wall of text and, well....we got the movies we got.   I would love to see the George Lucas cut,of episode 9 that they decided to not use.   It would be interesting to see how he would have fixed things.   Rumor has it, that it was superior to the edit they went with, but I guess we will never know.

[robcat2075]

There will be action figures...

MiceChat Review – AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER Figures from McFarlane Toys

 

22 moveable parts...

[Roger]

Wow that is a lot of articulation.  Might not be a bad idea to pick up a set for experimenting with stop motion.

[robcat2075]

Here is the full NY Times review (by a different writer)

‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ Review: Big Blue Marvel

James Cameron returns to Pandora, and to the ecological themes and visual bedazzlements of his 2009 blockbuster.

Quote

Way back in 2009, “Avatar” arrived on screens as a plausible and exciting vision of the movie future. Thirteen years later, “Avatar: The Way of Water” — the first of several long-awaited sequels directed by James Cameron — brings with it a ripple of nostalgia.

The throwback sensation may hit you even before the picture starts, as you unfold your 3-D glasses. When was the last time you put on a pair of those? Even the anticipation of seeing something genuinely new at the multiplex feels like an artifact of an earlier time, before streaming and the Marvel Universe took over...

 

[robcat2075]

I haven't seen it yet, but someone is going. It's taken in $950 million world wide ($290 million domestic) as of Monday.

Boxoffice mojo

If a third of that gets back to the studio then they are probably break-even or better already and they still have one more holiday week to pull idle people in.

Anyone gone to it yet?

[Roger]

7 hours ago, robcat2075 said:

I haven't seen it yet, but someone is going. It's taken in $950 million world wide ($290 million domestic) as of Monday.

Boxoffice mojo

If a third of that gets back to the studio then they are probably break-even or better already and they still have one more holiday week to pull idle people in.

Anyone gone to it yet?

I'm still thinking about going to see it, I may go Friday or Saturday.

They are not anywhere close to break-even, the movie reportedly cost 2 billion to make.    They would have to pull in 3 or 4 billion in order to make a profit, I don't see that happening.  They might just break even over time, if the movie can eke out another 500 million before it is pulled from theaters.

[ivanbryan82]

The Avatar sequel shows that 3D technology has made little to no improvements since the first. I donno, I could be wrong. 

[robcat2075]

There's no way it cost $2 billion. No studio would spend that.

This article says $250 million.

‘Avatar 2’ Is So Expensive It Must Become the ‘Fourth or Fifth Highest-Grossing Film in History’ Just to Break Even

$2 billion is quoted as a break even figure.

Maybe $2 billion is the cost of all five proposed sequels.

But those are all Hollywood numbers. Hard to know what is real costs and what is the studio charging itself to do something.

 

[Roger]

I'm just quoting the figure I've heard multiple sources throw around.  That it would have to make 2 billion to break even.   So that could be roughly 650 million for production, a similar amount on marketing and then 650-700 million as the theater take.   So that would be roughly equal to the 2 billion break even point.  So I misspoke in my previous post regarding the cost (I was rolling production, marketing and theater take all into one figure) but it is still going to need to make a stupid amount of money to be profitable.

But Hollywood does a lot of "movie magic" with their accounting, so short of actually being shown the books, I don't think we are going to get a clear picture of what the actual costs are.

[Roger]

Well I went and saw Avatar 2.  

It was honestly better than I expected it to be.  I could easily believe every bit of half a billion dollars ended up on the screen.  But if they truly spent that much then I wouldn't expect anything less than amazing CGI. 

This is probably the least woke thing to come out of Hollywood in a while.   There is a strong, pro-family message and the dad is actually a strong dad, not a bumbling doofus. 

The female characters are well-written.   The only thing I found to be a stretch was a pregnant Navi woman going into battle, but I suppose you can hand-wave that away with "alien biology".

It's definitely a long movie, but it seemed to go by fairly quickly.   You will probably need to stretch your legs at some point.  Right after any big fight is probably the best time. 

They set themselves up for a sequel, so there may be an Avatar 3 at some point.  

To recap: 

The good:   looks amazing.    The 3D is well done and doesn't detract from the story.    It's mostly a family friendly movie, although the violence         might be a bit much for children under 12.   It's far less gory than say, The Walking Dead.   Roughly on par with the first Avatar, I guess.

The bad:  at times I felt like I was watching a mashup of The Abyss, Titanic and Dances with Wolves.  The environmental messaging seemed a bit heavy-handed in parts.

The silly:   if you want to play a drinking game where you'll end up blacking out or dying of alcohol poisoning, every time one of the kids says "bro" take a swig of whiskey. 

Final verdict:  go see it, but if you're taking the whole family, maybe shoot for a matinee or skip the concessions.   You could easily blow through $100 on movie night these days.  Overall, I'd say it is easily 2.5 out of 4 stars.

[Fuchur]

On 12/31/2022 at 9:17 AM, Roger said:

Well I went and saw Avatar 2.  

It was honestly better than I expected it to be.  I could easily believe every bit of half a billion dollars ended up on the screen.  But if they truly spent that much then I wouldn't expect anything less than amazing CGI. 

This is probably the least woke thing to come out of Hollywood in a while.   There is a strong, pro-family message and the dad is actually a strong dad, not a bumbling doofus. 

The female characters are well-written.   The only thing I found to be a stretch was a pregnant Navi woman going into battle, but I suppose you can hand-wave that away with "alien biology".

It's definitely a long movie, but it seemed to go by fairly quickly.   You will probably need to stretch your legs at some point.  Right after any big fight is probably the best time. 

They set themselves up for a sequel, so there may be an Avatar 3 at some point.  

To recap: 

The good:   looks amazing.    The 3D is well done and doesn't detract from the story.    It's mostly a family friendly movie, although the violence         might be a bit much for children under 12.   It's far less gory than say, The Walking Dead.   Roughly on par with the first Avatar, I guess.

The bad:  at times I felt like I was watching a mashup of The Abyss, Titanic and Dances with Wolves.  The environmental messaging seemed a bit heavy-handed in parts.

The silly:   if you want to play a drinking game where you'll end up blacking out or dying of alcohol poisoning, every time one of the kids says "bro" take a swig of whiskey. 

Final verdict:  go see it, but if you're taking the whole family, maybe shoot for a matinee or skip the concessions.   You could easily blow through $100 on movie night these days.  Overall, I'd say it is easily 2.5 out of 4 stars.

I would say 4/5 stars for todays standards.

I do not see a problem in a pregnant alien woman going into a fight if she, her family and her tribe is attacked by an overwhelming army striving to kill everybody.
It does just not make any sense to not fight in that scenario because otherwise she, her unborn baby and everybody attached to her will die. That she is that effective in melee battles and still able to deliver a supposable healthy child even after getting hit is of cause only possible because of alien biology, but not impausible for a stronge, warrior like tribe alien like she is. It somehow makes sense to be able to do that if they are harder to kill anyway.

Concerning the strong woman images vs. traditional family image: I do not care too much either way. Things change, but there are still and I assume will still be people more people living the more traditional approach in future too. Both are fine with me. I find it irritating, that most movies today are too much focused on one of the sides and there is an unproportianal amount of stories about "non-traditional" life styles based on the numbers of people who are non-binary/homosexual, etc. from the statistics anyway, but I guess it is newer and more interesting to show those than the once which have been around for thousand years.

Best regards
*Fuchur*

[Roger]

5 hours ago, Fuchur said:

I would say 4/5 stars for todays standards.

I do not see a problem in a pregnant alien woman going into a fight if she, her family and her tribe is attacked by an overwhelming army striving to kill everybody.
It does just not make any sense to not fight in that scenario because otherwise she, her unborn baby and everybody attached to her will die. That she is that effective in melee battles and still able to deliver a supposable healthy child even after getting hit is of cause only possible because of alien biology, but not impausible for a stronge, warrior like tribe alien like she is. It somehow makes sense to be able to do that if they are harder to kill anyway.

Best regards
*Fuchur*

 

 

Again, it’s a minor quibble and given the narrative they set up for themselves the character’s actions make sense.

 

[robcat2075]

Boxoffice Mojo says Avatar has grossed $1.4 Billion world wide thru Monday, Jan 2.

The US take has been a pretty consistent $20+ million per day without a big fall off.

I'm going to project they hit $3 Billion before it falls out of theaters.

[Roger]

33 minutes ago, robcat2075 said:

Boxoffice Mojo says Avatar has grossed $1.4 Billion world wide thru Monday, Jan 2.

The US take has been a pretty consistent $20+ million per day without a big fall off.

I'm going to project they hit $3 Billion before it falls out of theaters.

They will have to keep it running well into February, then.    That would put them at 2.6 Billion if they make roughly 600 million per month.   Still won't crack 3 billion, though.

Care to make a gentleman's wager? 

 

[robcat2075]

I'll bet you a dollar.

To the end of February would be 8 more weeks and it's only been out three so far. I think it can stick around that long especially if it is thought to be contender for any significant oscars

[Roger]

You're on.   One dollar it is     

Just to clarify:  it has to crack 3 billion by end of February, if it does then you win and I pay you one whole USD.  If not, you owe me $1. 

 

[robcat2075]

Avatar 2's domestic (USA) gross is not growing as fast as Top Gun 2's but the worldwide total gross has gotten to $1.4 billion in 20 days while it took TG2 about five  months to do that.

Top Gun 2 is obviously a huge hit in the US but Avatar 2 has more international appeal.

And yet, I haven't seen either one.

[robcat2075]

After the weekend Avatar 2 is up to $1.7 Billion

It gained theaters also, from 4202 to 4340, which is unusual for an already wide-release that has been out for a month.

 

The US boxoffice so far is $516 Million which is 30% of the worldwide total. That suggests that for Avatar 2 to reach $3 Billion worldwide the US gross will have to top $900 million.

That has only been done once, by Star Wars Episode 7

But maybe Avatar 2 is a better movie!

 

[Roger]

Don't get too excited, we still have another 1.3 billion to go.  

 

[Roger]

Hmmm well it looks like I'm going to lose our bet, most likely:

https://www.the-numbers.com/daily-box-office-chart

Shall I send it to you via US postal service?  

[robcat2075]

PayPal will be fine.

But don't mortgage the condo yet. It might stumble.

[Roger]

If I were you, I'd start planning on what penny candy shop I want to spend my dollar at. 

 

[Roger]

Holy crap, Avatar 2 has grossed over 4.6 billion dollars.   That's a whole lotta cabbage.

Rob, I'll be sending you your dollar shortly.

[robcat2075]

I'm still seeing $1.9 Billion. Who is reporting $4.6?

[Roger]

3 hours ago, robcat2075 said:

I'm still seeing $1.9 Billion. Who is reporting $4.6?

It's in that "daily numbers" box office link I posted a few posts back.   Unless that's not accurate info.

[robcat2075]

I see

Quote

Worldwide Box Office $2,023,961,353

[Roger]

51 minutes ago, robcat2075 said:

I see

No, you're correct, I looked at the daily gross and thought read that as the overall take in billions, somehow.  So the correct number is $2 billion.  

[robcat2075]

Avatar probably isn't going to make it to $3 Billion by the end of February.

It only added about $16 million Domestic since last weekend and the WW total is stalled around $2.17 Billion.

Maybe it will make $2.5 Billion by the time it leaves theaters, maybe into Spring.

But It's done well. I think it will be deemed profitable, more than enough to warrant a wide release of the sequel they already have in the can.

I still haven't seen it however.

[Roger]

4 hours ago, robcat2075 said:

Avatar probably isn't going to make it to $3 Billion by the end of February.

It only added about $16 million Domestic since last weekend and the WW total is stalled around $2.17 Billion.

Maybe it will make $2.5 Billion by the time it leaves theaters, maybe into Spring.

But It's done well. I think it will be deemed profitable, more than enough to warrant a wide release of the sequel they already have in the can.

I still haven't seen it however.

Oh there's no question that it's done well.  I was surprised that it hit profitability.  But yeah you're probably correct that the best it is going to do is 2.5 billion.

[robcat2075]

This undersea villain in "Stingray" looks just like...

[Roger]

13 hours ago, robcat2075 said:

This undersea villain in "Stingray" looks just like...

I mean....have you ever seen James Cameron and this puppet in the same place?  You never know...

[robcat2075]

Well, @Roger, it looks like you have won!

Avatar: The Way of the Water has grossed a mere  $2.26 Billion worldwide at the end of February, not the $3 Billion I had predicted.

I shall PayPal you $1.

[robcat2075]

This Variety article, from January, says $1.4 billion was the break even point.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/james-cameron-avatar-2-turn-profit-box-office-1235480925/

Quote

 

When Cameron said in November that “The Way of Water” would need to become “the third or fourth highest-grossing film in history” just to “break even,” it appeared he was referring to the $2 billion mark. The director clarified his comment to Chris Wallace, saying, “I never actually gave it a number. I said it would has to be among the highest-grossing films in history and somebody else applied that number and it got picked up. The number is actually less.”

Sources have told Variety that “Avatar: The Way of Water’s” break-even point was set at roughly $1.4 billion, a figure the movie has already crossed.

 

But I'm thinking even that much must include the already-spent cost of shooting Avatar 3, which would have been money lost by someone if Avatar 2 had not done well enough to merit finishing #3.

I guess he knows what he's doing.

[Roger]

I guess anyone that can convince someone to give them a few hundred million to make a movie about 8 foot tall blue rabbit people has to know what's up. 

[robcat2075]

9 hours ago, Roger said:

I guess anyone that can convince someone to give them a few hundred million to make a movie about 8 foot tall blue rabbit people has to know what's up. 

He is rare among high-profile directors to have never had a box-office flop. Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarrantino have all had expensive disappointments but not Cameron. Even "Piranha II" seems to have done well enough to encourage a "Piranha 3D".

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000116/

 

I bet he never has to buy lunch, for all the studio VIPs and agents inviting him out, eager to do some project with him.

 

 

[Roger]

3 hours ago, robcat2075 said:

He is rare among high-profile directors to have never had a box-office flop. Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarrantino have all had expensive disappointments but not Cameron. Even "Piranha II" seems to have done well enough to encourage a "Piranha 3D".

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000116/

 

I bet he never has to buy lunch, for all the studio VIPs and agents inviting him out, eager to do some project with him.

 

 

Eh, I don't know if it was a flop exactly, but I think The Abyss was widely panned by critics at the time and just barely eked out a profit.    

But the majority of his movies have been profitable, if not outright blockbusters.  

[robcat2075]

This article in TIME pegs the cost at a mere $350 million:

 

James Cameron Is Reconsidering a Few Things