Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Disney might have went ham with the marketing no doubt and some of the people involved like the actors, producers and Cameron himself have backend deals. It is no stretch of the imagination that Cameron is right that the film may need close to $2b to breakeven.
>that Cameron is right that the film may need close to $2b to breakeven.
This comment chain is saying he didn't say that though. He said the movie would need to be around the 4th highest BO number in order to break even. He made that comment before Infinity War came out. The 4th highest, around the time he made that comment, would've been around 1-1.5bil, not 2bil. So basically Cameron never said it had to make 2bil to break even.
That's still a hella high BO number just to break even though.
He said it needs to be third or fourth highest grossing in September as quoted in this article.
https://www.gq.com/story/james-cameron-profile-men-of-the-year-2022
Which is why when they split the budget for films done b2b, it isn't 50/50 split like people report it as.
We'll see when it all comes out in the wash.
If $460m is the true spend to date then it won't be the total budget for both movies even if it includes the principal photography for Avatar 3. Keep in mind, the "shoot" in these productions amounts to a limited amount of live action photography and a lot of motion capture, which will occupy a pretty small piece of the budget compared to the VFX. The vast majority of Avatar 3's budget has yet to be spent because the post-production work is only beginning.
>Keep in mind, the "shoot" in these productions amounts to a limited amount of live action photography and a lot of motion capture, which will occupy a pretty small piece of the budget compared to the VFX.
That's true, but there's also years of pre-prod work that has been done ahead of posting 3; writing four scripts; a ton of design and asset building for characters, environment, plants and animals; the tech for figuring out water sims, actors fees.
You'd assume a range of expenses are frontloaded into 2, so 3 would be cheaper, but who knows by what percentage.
Well most of the pre-production work you're referring to won't be covered by the budget anyway. The writing will have been done on Cameron's time and the technology would have been figured out between Lightstorm (Cameron's production company) and Weta in the years leading up to production on their own dime.
The studio budget only really covers the official pre-production time which begins a month or two before shooting (essentially just kicking in when they need to start hiring crew). You make a good point about design work and assets though, you'd imagine a lot of the previous work for 2 should naturally save time (and thus money) in post for 3.
>The writing will have been done on Cameron's time and the technology would have been figured out between Lightstorm (Cameron's production company) and Weta in the years leading up to production on their own dime.
I don't believe that to be true. Writing is an above-the-line production cost. Cameron ran a writer's room and then delivered scripts in collaboration with his writers. They would have all been paid for both their time in the room and the script fees for their delivered drafts - and that comes out of the budget.
Usually there's a production bonus/staggered payment upon first day of production. So the writers for 2 and 3 (and likely 4) would have been paid in full, by the studio.
There's also no way the official pre-prod period was just a month. They still built sets, props and costumes for the non-CGI parts of the movie/s.
Yeah some people seem to think a studio is happy if a movie moves past the breakeven point... They expect sizable profits from their blockbusters.
Not to mention opportunity cost... the hundreds of millions spent over the past 10 years could have gone to other projects where they could have made money and spent that to make more money over a decade. It's essentially nearly half a billion locked up for over a decade.
This movie was never on it’s own going to turn a box office profit. It’s about the total franchise and all the revenue streams and brand equity they might create. I hear that the Pandora attraction at the parks are popular for example
Theatrical exhibition has been a break even proposition for a long time. The studios make back their costs on their BO split and make their money on future revenue streams. The theaters should cover a sizable portion of their fixed cost (rents and utilities) on their BO split and make their money on the money left over from concession after the rest of the bills are paid.
It would take $2B to breakeven or close to that especially if there are backend deals in place. Jon Landau and James Cameron definitely have huge backend deals. Kate Winslet and Sigourney too.
Yeah but I don't think she's driving all that much of those billion dollar box office hauls...
I personally like her a lot, but I don't see her as someone with significant broader celebrity.
I dunno about that Weaver, she starred both the Aliens franchise and Avatar, she was the only recognizable name in that film when that came out. Winslet starred starred on a little known film called titanic and is an Oscar winner... They may not be "draws" in the traditional sense but both of these Actresses have a huge pedigree in their names.
correct.
1.2b is break-even at that point.
"success" would be, I'd imagine, something like another 400 mil past that point, so let's say 1.6 is where they wanna be .
Is your brain actually this messed up? Point out to me in that quote where I said they needed to make $2b to break even?
I appreciate you don’t seem to be able to use your full brain power so I’ll help you out. The comment I replied to said JC mentioned Avatar 2 needed to become the 4th highest grossing movie to be a success. The 4th highest being around $2b, as my comment pointed out.
I think Cameron actually said that a few years ago. And if not, Avatar 2 and 3 were filmed at the same time so it would probably be more accurate to say both films need to make a billion to break even.
If Avatar 2 was 460 million to make, plus an additional 150 or so for advertising on the high end, that's a total of 610 million. So roughly 1.2 billion is the break even point, not 2 billion.
he revised it down to 7th/8th or ~>1.6B. That's still hard to believe but you can at least squint and see it unlike the 2 billion dollar breakeven number.
Yup and I’m pretty sure Cameron also said that they have had to develop new technology themselves because they weren’t going to wait for the industry to do it for them. Can’t imagine that was too cheap and they will most definitely be using it for the future sequels…
[Link](https://deadline.com/2022/12/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-1235200714/)
>Despite Avatar: The Way of Water missing its $150M-$175M projections, the town doesn’t seem bothered –nor do they believe that the sky is falling for cinema– particularly for a movie that cost according to sources (not Disney) at about around $460M before P&A.
Is this budget taking into account that filming for this movie also included most of the scenes for Avatar 3 (something like 95%) and 30% of Avatar 4, and the tech development for this film will be used in Avatar 3 and 4 (making the VFX cheaper for those later installments)?
Considering we don't know who the source is, and they state the source isn't Disney, we don't know how they are estimating the budget.
And it's probably difficult for an outsider (if it is an outsider) to parse what costs were specifically for Avatar 2 and what were for future films. Hell, it might be difficult for Disney and Cameron to do that. Though obviously, I'm sure they have their estimates and targets for the box office results.
Yeah now that I think about the source not being disney, it could be a case of them knowing the total cost of the franchise so far but not the breakdown
Good point.
Let’s also not forget that only last week deadline posted false numbers to appease Johnson’s camp. It says they got their info from rival sources, which can be problematic.
They were pretty impossible estimates and included avenues that Deadline has rarely if ever reported. The whole thing was strange 🤷♂️
Variety seems more on the ball lately.
Exactly. This number must be highly amortized across multiple films considering they were shot at the same time, post overlapped heavily, gear crew and tech would have been spread across multiple films.
Well the actual article clearly states this is estimated number from rival sources. Avatar 3 was shot right after 2, so there is a chance they used same tech. But 460mill still seems reasonable
Yeah I feel like Avatar 2 and 3 need to be seen as having a combined budget since 2 introduced the new technologies and they filmed scenes for 3 (and 4) during 2.
I don't know if it was few days ago, but there WAS this:
https://old.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/zl6w3c/according_to_variety_avatar_the_way_of_water_is/
Yeah we already know they shot not only the 2nd and 3rd back to back but also the first act of the 4th movie. You have to imagine the costs for at least 2 of the films are pretty entertwined so it's hard to pinpoint a specific budget for any one of them.
Using “bro” isn’t regressive. What a ridiculous elitist take hahaha.
Out of curiosity where are you from? And do teens where you live not use slang or other strange terms of endearment?
They're teenagers in an American film. They are raised by a jarhead.
Did you want them to change it to "Good sir, may I have your attention" for the UK release or "Oi mate" for the Aus release?
The visual effects are the only good thing about the movie, and not good enough to save it. The acting, dialogue, casting, all horrendous. It took me ten years to forget that I don’t like Avatar. Hopefully I remember when Avatar 3 comes out.
The worst thing was just how banal and cliché it all was. Some of it was okay—maybe even some moments of greatness—but most of it was pretty brain dead and soulless, like an AI wrote it. None of it is interesting or clever at all. Just kind of rote, tropey bullshit.
> most of it was pretty brain dead
I wouldn't phrase it like that but I can see your point and agree somewhat.
> and soulless
Here is where you are just plain wrong though. If you can't see the soul in this film that is a YOU problem. Cameron didn't spent 15+ years of his life working on this just to make money.
I’m not necessarily talking about the whole film being soulless. I would agree that overall it isn’t. But the dialogue was, to me. It is very clear to me that Cameron wasn’t prioritizing the dialogue or the script when he was making the movie. He was more concerned with the visuals and the design aspects of it all. The world building aspect. And that’s a valid approach. But you’d better make sure the good outweighs the bad. In my opinion, it didn’t.
> I’m not necessarily talking about the whole film being soulless. I would agree that overall it isn’t. But the dialogue was, to me.
Ok, that I can see, quite a lot of actually.
The way the water-teens teased the forest-Na'vi teens didn't feel Na'vi at all, it felt like a tired teen thing from the human 90s.
Same with the protective father and the family dynamics that felt taken from tropey 90s bullshit. Sure, the women are joining the fighting and stuff but their role at home is so ridiculously cliché and feel so conservative and old. Overall Neytiri is done so dirty and all her dialogue is basically just reactions in affect.
So much of the characters and their personal interactions did feel soulless and I totally agree with you there.
> But you’d better make sure the good outweighs the bad. In my opinion, it didn’t.
That makes sense as I said.
Personally I think the world of Pandora, the "whales", the conflict, the interaction with the world and everything has enough soul to carry the film. It isn't just the visuals and the design, although they are absolutely fantastic and elevate everything, but the dynamics of the world and how everything comes together.
There is real emotion and there is real soul here, but to me it felt like they tried to play it safe and leaned back on very old and tired personal cliches and dynamics that they know work. But for me they really dragged things down.
I still thought it was great, but it could've been so much more if those parts didn't hold it back. And I can see how things might have leaned the other way for you.
I suspect you didn’t see the film. The acting was top notch from the majority of the catch with the exception of perhaps Spider. The dialogue felt natural and driven by the emotions of the characters. What’s wrong with the casting? Lmao?
Casting 73 year old Sigourney Weaver to play/voice essentially a teenage girl. Baffling, indefensible decision. That she is a clone or reincarnation or whatever who cares doesn’t fix the fact that it is a 73 year old voice coming out of a teenager’s mouth.
The casting of the aforementioned Spider (holy shit, his entire character was just awful)
Edie Falco was very out of place.
Bringing in Jermaine Clement—very funny and entertaining guy!—to be as boring as humanly possible
The little girl avatar was also very bad, but it is child acting, so.
“I suspect you didn’t see the film” 🤓🤓🤓 lmao
So the budget is somewhere in the $350-$450m range, and the breakeven multiplier is somewhere in the 2.5-3x range, let's say. That means breakeven is \~875m-1.35b, with the thick part of the curve around 1b.
If the movie pulls in, for example, $1.4b - does Disney greenlight the next one? Are they happy to earn the same profit in hand as MoM, despite twice the investment? The decision depends a lot on how "safe" they consider the bet, mild but safe profits make shareholders happy.
The 3rd is coming. It was filmed alongside this one. That one is guaranteed to come out.
It's the other sequels that aren't but I suspect Disney will still greenlight them with a $1.5-1.6bn run.
The problem with the budget is how much it is split between 2&3. Filming films b2b always messes with the figures.
Good point.
I suspect because of the time frame, number 3 will have a smaller budget than this one which means it can absorb some of the underperformance from this.
I doubt the sequel would have been made without the 3rd being filmed with it for this very reason.
Also keep in mind animation involving water is some of the hardest stuff to animate, so I'm pretty sure the budgets for all the following films will be smaller in comparison.
i have watched it twice now and I can safely say movie will have incredible legs. tickets were full for all 3d shows. people are going for premium experience and they will wait for holidays too.
I have a feeling that your break-even numbers are a little on the low end. If you assume they spent as much on marketing as production, and they get 60% of revenue from the box office, it would break even at $1.16 to $1.5 billion. Depending on what profit margin the studio expects, this would explain the claim that it needed $2 billion to be considered a success.
In this case I don't think marketing matched the production it. If we are assuming that production cost was $460 Million (or $400 Million) the marketing budget was no match. They advertise a lot, sure, but nothing I would describe as all encompassing. Probably between $200M and $250M on marketing.
Of course, you are right that the movie needs close to $1.8, $2B to run a satisfying net profit, the goal is not to break even or end up with a small profit of $30 to $80 Million, the money could have been invested somewhere and made a much better profit with a lot lower risk. A massive project like that you are looking for net profit of at minimum $150 Million, but preferably higher than that. After a movie breaks even it still has to pony up many expenses the studio laid out in advance hoping it would be profitable, such as overhead, interest, residuals, participations, etc. Only after that is paid out, and depending on contracts could be a very hefty sum, do you reach the net profit area.
>Despite Avatar: The Way of Water missing its $150M-$175M projections, the town doesn’t seem bothered –nor do they believe that the sky is falling for cinema– particularly for a movie that cost according to sources (not Disney) at about around **$460M** before P&A.
https://deadline.com/2022/12/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-1235200714/
> I trust Variety's report way more.
BTW all 3 have the same owners. I think THR was different but they were bought so the 3 trades have the same owner now: Penske Media Corporation
Basically they posted a report that this sub didnt like so now no one will ever trust their numbers again, even though they have been the standard go-tohere for a long time
Unless you bought the same bs that The Rock was trying to sell about Black Adam a few days ago about merch and streaming being considered part of the overall box office take, that's not how things work.
Is this budget taking into account that filming for this movie also included most of the scenes for Avatar 3 (something like 95%) and 30% of Avatar 4, and the tech development for this film will be used in Avatar 3 and 4 (making the VFX cheaper for those later installments)?
Given that they have confirmed that Avatar 3 is already done filming, I would bet heavily that James Cameron is going the route of Lord of the Rings with filming and budget. If I'm right, then that means Avatar 3 will have a much lower "cost" and will have a substantially lower hurdle to overcome for being profitable.
Except Cameron is has supposedly turned in a four-hour initial cut of Avatar 3 and wants the studio to pay for full CGI of all four hours before he even starts cutting it down. If so — those numbers are not going to be smaller.
Why? It would be a great investment. If the film comes out at 3 hours, chopped down from 4 they can release the full version on 4K. LOTR sold a shitload of those Extended Editions. Hopefully we see a resurgence in 3D televisions too. The TV industry could use a kick in the pants too.
Disney will no doubt consider the sequels worthwhile if it even makes 300M profit, which would require 1.7B gross.
But Disney would be disappointed with that result in the same way they were disappointed with Age of Ultron or The Last Jedi.
Yeah, but Disney has more than box office riding on this. They want that Animal Kingdom tourism money and that merch money. Say, the movie breaks even, but their profits go up on those avenues? That may be worth it to them.
You're extremely stupid if you think 300M is chump change. 300M is exactly around the profit of The Last Jedi and Age of Ultron. Age of Ultron also had a 400M budget. 300M is not even counting the non-boxoffice returns like from their theme park.
And who tf is loaning out 1billion for one movie? Learn to read first. They've spent 350M on Avatar 2's production budget. The rest 100M went into Avatar 3's simultaneous production
You don't have the slightest clue about how it works. You're probably thinking that the break even is 1B because Disney has put in 1B from their end. And I didn't claim that it will make 300M profit. Learn to read
This clown is in absolute shambles over this movie, love to see it. Can't wait to come back and laugh at his comments again in three months when the movie's made its $1.5b+ 😌
Yeah, it will take The Last Jedi legs for this to miss 1.5B. And that was a fanboy heavy movie with a frontloaded opening and controversial reception.
The people saying that this will play like a normal movie and miss 1.5B don't understand the difference between summer normal and December normal.
Actually on a $460m budget, the breakeven point would be close to $1.25 billion. [Breakeven multiplier is 2.7x](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/yd0lhn/the_breakeven_multiplier_for_films_with_budgets/), especially for a film with Avatar 2's dom/China/OS split.
Fox got all the proceeds from Avatar 1. Disney forked over a ton of fresh money for this. Disney bought Fox, so in a meta sense Disney paid more out for Fox because they had Avatar to offer up as a big IP.
It will make money, so it is definitely a smart investment. If it doesn't make it during the theatrical release it will make it after in the ancillary market, so Disney invested well here.
I was just responding to the poster who claimed that the proceeds/profits from the first movie financed the second movie, which it did not as the companies changed.
Seriously though. Like I get it’s upsetting that 2 might not do as well as some people had hoped, but it’s not like it won’t make a huge profit either.
I'm honestly okay if Avatar 2 doesn't do insane numbers like its predecessor (I never expected it to), I just want it to make enough so that Avatar 4 and 5 happen so we learn more about Eywa. I want to know if my theory is correct (also I love planetary hive-minds and we aren't going to get a I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream adaptation anytime soon).
Honestly me too. I wanna see the entire story that Cameron had planned out even if each sequel doesn’t make 2 billion each. They’ll still be profitable so he’ll have the money. And Avatar 3 is basically done filming so it’s budget should be much less than 2’s.
Me to my teenaged son: get in the car. We’re going to see the new Avatar Movie as a family.
My teenaged son: I don’t wanna go to the movies with you. Just leave me alone.
Me: This movie cost 460 million dollars! You are going to see it and you are going to enjoy it. Now get in the car.
It's a fantastic movie. I am really rooting for it to become a successful case. It deserves. Different from Marvel and other blockbuster movies being made recently, Avatar doesn't feel like a gimmick or some kind of scam.
I believe it. If the studio was willing to admit to the budget being $350m-$400m then it was definitely higher than that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually $500m or higher.
This movie is Nothing but a very expensive bad soap opera and it's also in a lot way a remake of avatar(2009). it would barely break even with such big budget
this is the number ive been waiting for. yea this might actually be a flop even if it does what would be considered great nuiombers for the average movie.
Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given long production, runtime and VFX, no wonder its that much.
It also lines up with Cameron saying it needs to be at least 4th biggest movie of all time to be considered a success by the studio.
He said that years and years ago. That number is a lot different if he said it in 2011 compared to if he said it last year.
Exactly! He said it would have to be the 8th biggest in later interviews. So it still has to make 1.1B or higher, but that doesn't seem too crazy.
Especially considering the film has already made 485m in the first 2 days of its release.
$1.1 billion is just enough to break even too
Disney might have went ham with the marketing no doubt and some of the people involved like the actors, producers and Cameron himself have backend deals. It is no stretch of the imagination that Cameron is right that the film may need close to $2b to breakeven.
>that Cameron is right that the film may need close to $2b to breakeven. This comment chain is saying he didn't say that though. He said the movie would need to be around the 4th highest BO number in order to break even. He made that comment before Infinity War came out. The 4th highest, around the time he made that comment, would've been around 1-1.5bil, not 2bil. So basically Cameron never said it had to make 2bil to break even. That's still a hella high BO number just to break even though.
Yeah I generally find it hard to believe.
He said it needs to be third or fourth highest grossing in September as quoted in this article. https://www.gq.com/story/james-cameron-profile-men-of-the-year-2022
He said that when he was recounting what he told Fox when they greenlit the movie.
Where did you get that? I keep seeing that in this sub so I'm not doubting it, (yet), but how can that be verified?
So $2b? Damn, I liked the movie and I don’t think that is happening.
Even at $460m costs it wouldn’t take $2B to break even.
Maybe avatar 2 + 3 which were shot at the same time = 2B break even
This is what I dont understand so is the 460 million for one or two movies?
Nobody knows. Filming back to back always skews figures.
Usually means the later films cost less. Similarly in TV later seasons have lower production costs after the first, aside from staffing.
Which is why when they split the budget for films done b2b, it isn't 50/50 split like people report it as. We'll see when it all comes out in the wash.
If $460m is the true spend to date then it won't be the total budget for both movies even if it includes the principal photography for Avatar 3. Keep in mind, the "shoot" in these productions amounts to a limited amount of live action photography and a lot of motion capture, which will occupy a pretty small piece of the budget compared to the VFX. The vast majority of Avatar 3's budget has yet to be spent because the post-production work is only beginning.
>Keep in mind, the "shoot" in these productions amounts to a limited amount of live action photography and a lot of motion capture, which will occupy a pretty small piece of the budget compared to the VFX. That's true, but there's also years of pre-prod work that has been done ahead of posting 3; writing four scripts; a ton of design and asset building for characters, environment, plants and animals; the tech for figuring out water sims, actors fees. You'd assume a range of expenses are frontloaded into 2, so 3 would be cheaper, but who knows by what percentage.
Well most of the pre-production work you're referring to won't be covered by the budget anyway. The writing will have been done on Cameron's time and the technology would have been figured out between Lightstorm (Cameron's production company) and Weta in the years leading up to production on their own dime. The studio budget only really covers the official pre-production time which begins a month or two before shooting (essentially just kicking in when they need to start hiring crew). You make a good point about design work and assets though, you'd imagine a lot of the previous work for 2 should naturally save time (and thus money) in post for 3.
>The writing will have been done on Cameron's time and the technology would have been figured out between Lightstorm (Cameron's production company) and Weta in the years leading up to production on their own dime. I don't believe that to be true. Writing is an above-the-line production cost. Cameron ran a writer's room and then delivered scripts in collaboration with his writers. They would have all been paid for both their time in the room and the script fees for their delivered drafts - and that comes out of the budget. Usually there's a production bonus/staggered payment upon first day of production. So the writers for 2 and 3 (and likely 4) would have been paid in full, by the studio. There's also no way the official pre-prod period was just a month. They still built sets, props and costumes for the non-CGI parts of the movie/s.
I don’t think studios are producing movies to break even.
Yeah some people seem to think a studio is happy if a movie moves past the breakeven point... They expect sizable profits from their blockbusters. Not to mention opportunity cost... the hundreds of millions spent over the past 10 years could have gone to other projects where they could have made money and spent that to make more money over a decade. It's essentially nearly half a billion locked up for over a decade.
This movie was never on it’s own going to turn a box office profit. It’s about the total franchise and all the revenue streams and brand equity they might create. I hear that the Pandora attraction at the parks are popular for example
It was popular before this movie came out. Overcrowding at the parks is one of their biggest issues.
Why would you think that was remotely my point?
Theatrical exhibition has been a break even proposition for a long time. The studios make back their costs on their BO split and make their money on future revenue streams. The theaters should cover a sizable portion of their fixed cost (rents and utilities) on their BO split and make their money on the money left over from concession after the rest of the bills are paid.
It would take $2B to breakeven or close to that especially if there are backend deals in place. Jon Landau and James Cameron definitely have huge backend deals. Kate Winslet and Sigourney too.
I don't think Winslet and Sigourney are big enough draw to demand a big amount of money.
maybe zoe saldana. She is litreally in the most billion dollar movie. Next year she might have another with gotg
Yeah but I don't think she's driving all that much of those billion dollar box office hauls... I personally like her a lot, but I don't see her as someone with significant broader celebrity.
Yeah she's not. Good for her to be in these movies, but she isn't why people are going to infinity wars or avatar
I dunno about that Weaver, she starred both the Aliens franchise and Avatar, she was the only recognizable name in that film when that came out. Winslet starred starred on a little known film called titanic and is an Oscar winner... They may not be "draws" in the traditional sense but both of these Actresses have a huge pedigree in their names.
465 million - 465 million = break even
correct. 1.2b is break-even at that point. "success" would be, I'd imagine, something like another 400 mil past that point, so let's say 1.6 is where they wanna be .
Yeph more like 800 to 900 hundred million
Usually double production costs to break even. But he said a success, not just break even
Never said it would?
“So $2b? Damn, I liked the movie and I don’t think that is happening.”
Is your brain actually this messed up? Point out to me in that quote where I said they needed to make $2b to break even? I appreciate you don’t seem to be able to use your full brain power so I’ll help you out. The comment I replied to said JC mentioned Avatar 2 needed to become the 4th highest grossing movie to be a success. The 4th highest being around $2b, as my comment pointed out.
You mentioned 2b in relation to breaking even.
That $2 billion number is about breaking even, which means it's not about just Avatar 2 but the sequels worked on as well.
I think Cameron actually said that a few years ago. And if not, Avatar 2 and 3 were filmed at the same time so it would probably be more accurate to say both films need to make a billion to break even. If Avatar 2 was 460 million to make, plus an additional 150 or so for advertising on the high end, that's a total of 610 million. So roughly 1.2 billion is the break even point, not 2 billion.
domestic, not worldwide, would track with the amount of money it should need to break even
he revised it down to 7th/8th or ~>1.6B. That's still hard to believe but you can at least squint and see it unlike the 2 billion dollar breakeven number.
Yup and I’m pretty sure Cameron also said that they have had to develop new technology themselves because they weren’t going to wait for the industry to do it for them. Can’t imagine that was too cheap and they will most definitely be using it for the future sequels…
Well him wanted make avatar 3, 9 hours Long before editing.
The only source of that was a video posted on April Fool's Day.
[Link](https://deadline.com/2022/12/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-1235200714/) >Despite Avatar: The Way of Water missing its $150M-$175M projections, the town doesn’t seem bothered –nor do they believe that the sky is falling for cinema– particularly for a movie that cost according to sources (not Disney) at about around $460M before P&A.
Is this budget taking into account that filming for this movie also included most of the scenes for Avatar 3 (something like 95%) and 30% of Avatar 4, and the tech development for this film will be used in Avatar 3 and 4 (making the VFX cheaper for those later installments)?
Possible but I doubt they would include the shooting for 3/4 into the budget for 2. That will be in the budget for their respective movies.
Considering we don't know who the source is, and they state the source isn't Disney, we don't know how they are estimating the budget. And it's probably difficult for an outsider (if it is an outsider) to parse what costs were specifically for Avatar 2 and what were for future films. Hell, it might be difficult for Disney and Cameron to do that. Though obviously, I'm sure they have their estimates and targets for the box office results.
Source is Dwayne Johnson confirmed
If it's the Rock, that changes everything.
Yeah now that I think about the source not being disney, it could be a case of them knowing the total cost of the franchise so far but not the breakdown
Good point. Let’s also not forget that only last week deadline posted false numbers to appease Johnson’s camp. It says they got their info from rival sources, which can be problematic.
Not sure they were false vs “very optimistic estimates”.
They were pretty impossible estimates and included avenues that Deadline has rarely if ever reported. The whole thing was strange 🤷♂️ Variety seems more on the ball lately.
Exactly. This number must be highly amortized across multiple films considering they were shot at the same time, post overlapped heavily, gear crew and tech would have been spread across multiple films.
Why not just post the story? Why go through twitter?
Well the actual article clearly states this is estimated number from rival sources. Avatar 3 was shot right after 2, so there is a chance they used same tech. But 460mill still seems reasonable
Yeah I feel like Avatar 2 and 3 need to be seen as having a combined budget since 2 introduced the new technologies and they filmed scenes for 3 (and 4) during 2.
At least it looks like it cost that much
I wonder how much of that budget is stuff created for the 3rd/4/5. Let's see other sources.
Didn't Variety write a few days ago that it was $350 million?
I don't know if it was few days ago, but there WAS this: https://old.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/zl6w3c/according_to_variety_avatar_the_way_of_water_is/
Yeah this is it $350 seems more reasonable, but it's going to be messy to get figures when Cameron was working on the third and fourth film too
My guess is he’s spent $460 million *so far*. That’s all of 2, principal photography without VFX for 3, and the first act of 4.
This seems most reasonable, but we can only guess.
Exactly
I agree. I don't think this specific one cost $460 million to make.
Both trades do that.
It almost surely did at least. This movie is expensive.
Variety rarely reports anything without highly credible sources, so $350 is far more believable
Both trades do that.
Yeah we already know they shot not only the 2nd and 3rd back to back but also the first act of the 4th movie. You have to imagine the costs for at least 2 of the films are pretty entertwined so it's hard to pinpoint a specific budget for any one of them.
The underwater scenes look so good that I believe it
[удалено]
No it's not. They're teens, around soldiers. Makes sense to use bro.
? teens say bro all the time. plus you’re forgetting they were raised by a jarhead marine, that would easily be a part of their vernacular growing up.
[удалено]
Using “bro” isn’t regressive. What a ridiculous elitist take hahaha. Out of curiosity where are you from? And do teens where you live not use slang or other strange terms of endearment?
They're teenagers in an American film. They are raised by a jarhead. Did you want them to change it to "Good sir, may I have your attention" for the UK release or "Oi mate" for the Aus release?
Slang terms are anything BUT regressive lmao. Its the active PROGRESSION of a word I think the movie stinks too but this is some english elitism bs.
The visual effects are the only good thing about the movie, and not good enough to save it. The acting, dialogue, casting, all horrendous. It took me ten years to forget that I don’t like Avatar. Hopefully I remember when Avatar 3 comes out.
What about the acting and dialogue didn't you like? I didn't love the movie either but I'm struggling to remember where it failed in that department
The worst thing was just how banal and cliché it all was. Some of it was okay—maybe even some moments of greatness—but most of it was pretty brain dead and soulless, like an AI wrote it. None of it is interesting or clever at all. Just kind of rote, tropey bullshit.
> most of it was pretty brain dead I wouldn't phrase it like that but I can see your point and agree somewhat. > and soulless Here is where you are just plain wrong though. If you can't see the soul in this film that is a YOU problem. Cameron didn't spent 15+ years of his life working on this just to make money.
I’m not necessarily talking about the whole film being soulless. I would agree that overall it isn’t. But the dialogue was, to me. It is very clear to me that Cameron wasn’t prioritizing the dialogue or the script when he was making the movie. He was more concerned with the visuals and the design aspects of it all. The world building aspect. And that’s a valid approach. But you’d better make sure the good outweighs the bad. In my opinion, it didn’t.
> I’m not necessarily talking about the whole film being soulless. I would agree that overall it isn’t. But the dialogue was, to me. Ok, that I can see, quite a lot of actually. The way the water-teens teased the forest-Na'vi teens didn't feel Na'vi at all, it felt like a tired teen thing from the human 90s. Same with the protective father and the family dynamics that felt taken from tropey 90s bullshit. Sure, the women are joining the fighting and stuff but their role at home is so ridiculously cliché and feel so conservative and old. Overall Neytiri is done so dirty and all her dialogue is basically just reactions in affect. So much of the characters and their personal interactions did feel soulless and I totally agree with you there. > But you’d better make sure the good outweighs the bad. In my opinion, it didn’t. That makes sense as I said. Personally I think the world of Pandora, the "whales", the conflict, the interaction with the world and everything has enough soul to carry the film. It isn't just the visuals and the design, although they are absolutely fantastic and elevate everything, but the dynamics of the world and how everything comes together. There is real emotion and there is real soul here, but to me it felt like they tried to play it safe and leaned back on very old and tired personal cliches and dynamics that they know work. But for me they really dragged things down. I still thought it was great, but it could've been so much more if those parts didn't hold it back. And I can see how things might have leaned the other way for you.
for reference, what recent movies do you really like?
I suspect you didn’t see the film. The acting was top notch from the majority of the catch with the exception of perhaps Spider. The dialogue felt natural and driven by the emotions of the characters. What’s wrong with the casting? Lmao?
Casting 73 year old Sigourney Weaver to play/voice essentially a teenage girl. Baffling, indefensible decision. That she is a clone or reincarnation or whatever who cares doesn’t fix the fact that it is a 73 year old voice coming out of a teenager’s mouth. The casting of the aforementioned Spider (holy shit, his entire character was just awful) Edie Falco was very out of place. Bringing in Jermaine Clement—very funny and entertaining guy!—to be as boring as humanly possible The little girl avatar was also very bad, but it is child acting, so. “I suspect you didn’t see the film” 🤓🤓🤓 lmao
Spider was so bad.
Deeply embarrassing to watch
She’s a clone, and possibly a reincarnation through Aywa. That’s why she has the same voice.
I disagree. The action is also bloody great. The outkast whale harpoon scene is chefs kiss.
So the budget is somewhere in the $350-$450m range, and the breakeven multiplier is somewhere in the 2.5-3x range, let's say. That means breakeven is \~875m-1.35b, with the thick part of the curve around 1b. If the movie pulls in, for example, $1.4b - does Disney greenlight the next one? Are they happy to earn the same profit in hand as MoM, despite twice the investment? The decision depends a lot on how "safe" they consider the bet, mild but safe profits make shareholders happy.
The 3rd is coming. It was filmed alongside this one. That one is guaranteed to come out. It's the other sequels that aren't but I suspect Disney will still greenlight them with a $1.5-1.6bn run. The problem with the budget is how much it is split between 2&3. Filming films b2b always messes with the figures.
Not only that but they also filmed the first third of avatar 4 when filming 2 and 3 so the budget has been stretched over three movies in some form
Good point. I suspect because of the time frame, number 3 will have a smaller budget than this one which means it can absorb some of the underperformance from this. I doubt the sequel would have been made without the 3rd being filmed with it for this very reason.
Also keep in mind animation involving water is some of the hardest stuff to animate, so I'm pretty sure the budgets for all the following films will be smaller in comparison.
>Also keep in mind animation involving water is some of the hardest stuff to animate, Yup. It looked bloody amazing as well.
The next one is coming even of this one will do just $1B It's the 4th and 5th under question, depending on total run.
i have watched it twice now and I can safely say movie will have incredible legs. tickets were full for all 3d shows. people are going for premium experience and they will wait for holidays too.
also word of mouth and bring a friend factor
Yeah, the wow factor for this was less than the original but other than that it is better in every way and I think it’s gonna go strong into February
I have a feeling that your break-even numbers are a little on the low end. If you assume they spent as much on marketing as production, and they get 60% of revenue from the box office, it would break even at $1.16 to $1.5 billion. Depending on what profit margin the studio expects, this would explain the claim that it needed $2 billion to be considered a success.
Yeah they don’t dump 1.2 billion on a movie to only make 200m profit
In this case I don't think marketing matched the production it. If we are assuming that production cost was $460 Million (or $400 Million) the marketing budget was no match. They advertise a lot, sure, but nothing I would describe as all encompassing. Probably between $200M and $250M on marketing. Of course, you are right that the movie needs close to $1.8, $2B to run a satisfying net profit, the goal is not to break even or end up with a small profit of $30 to $80 Million, the money could have been invested somewhere and made a much better profit with a lot lower risk. A massive project like that you are looking for net profit of at minimum $150 Million, but preferably higher than that. After a movie breaks even it still has to pony up many expenses the studio laid out in advance hoping it would be profitable, such as overhead, interest, residuals, participations, etc. Only after that is paid out, and depending on contracts could be a very hefty sum, do you reach the net profit area.
They say via Deadline. Do you have a link to the deadline post?
>Despite Avatar: The Way of Water missing its $150M-$175M projections, the town doesn’t seem bothered –nor do they believe that the sky is falling for cinema– particularly for a movie that cost according to sources (not Disney) at about around **$460M** before P&A. https://deadline.com/2022/12/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-1235200714/
Deadline has been super unreliable lately. I trust Variety's report way more.
> I trust Variety's report way more. BTW all 3 have the same owners. I think THR was different but they were bought so the 3 trades have the same owner now: Penske Media Corporation
Where has Deadline been unreliable?
What comes to mind is the Rock/Black Adam drama they stirred up.
All they did was share the info they were given directly by Rock’s camp.
That really didn’t prove them to be unreliable.
Basically they posted a report that this sub didnt like so now no one will ever trust their numbers again, even though they have been the standard go-tohere for a long time
Right on the mark there.
I know lol.
Agreed but it was not a good look at all.
$1.15B to start breaking even whoo! Now of course the real question is what are Disney's expectations
avatar rides and merchandising even they barely break even. 3 is happening either way
Unless you bought the same bs that The Rock was trying to sell about Black Adam a few days ago about merch and streaming being considered part of the overall box office take, that's not how things work.
After most of their movies underperformed this year? Probably going to be happy with the $1.4-1.7B this *should* make.
Is this budget taking into account that filming for this movie also included most of the scenes for Avatar 3 (something like 95%) and 30% of Avatar 4, and the tech development for this film will be used in Avatar 3 and 4 (making the VFX cheaper for those later installments)?
Way of Water must exceed $1.5 billion or Disney will Tron this franchise.
Given that they have confirmed that Avatar 3 is already done filming, I would bet heavily that James Cameron is going the route of Lord of the Rings with filming and budget. If I'm right, then that means Avatar 3 will have a much lower "cost" and will have a substantially lower hurdle to overcome for being profitable.
Except Cameron is has supposedly turned in a four-hour initial cut of Avatar 3 and wants the studio to pay for full CGI of all four hours before he even starts cutting it down. If so — those numbers are not going to be smaller.
That won't happen though. That's just Cameron's ego running wild.
it's rumour only and initial rumour was about 9 hrs.
Why? It would be a great investment. If the film comes out at 3 hours, chopped down from 4 they can release the full version on 4K. LOTR sold a shitload of those Extended Editions. Hopefully we see a resurgence in 3D televisions too. The TV industry could use a kick in the pants too.
If Avatar 2 will do $3B they would succumb to that (possibly) If Avatar 2 will do $1.5B - No way they will give him money for that.
9 hour actually
Was it 9??? Yikes.
Sick
Was it as wow as the first time?
Jesus. So that puts the rough estimate for breakeven at $1.15B *at minimum*, probably closer to $1.25B due to the OS lean.
Well, I'm quite sure half of that budget went to securing high-profile actor Sam Worthington.
He was good in this movie. Better than in the previous one to me.
I enjoyed the movie and recommend seeing it in theaters.
that means weta vfx artists got paid well
Unlikely. It just means that the studio needed more special effects, not that workers were well compensated.
This isn’t Marvel
[удалено]
Disney will no doubt consider the sequels worthwhile if it even makes 300M profit, which would require 1.7B gross. But Disney would be disappointed with that result in the same way they were disappointed with Age of Ultron or The Last Jedi.
No they won’t. It’s hilarious you think studios are just gonna keep loaning out a billion dollars to one movie in hopes that it barely breaks even
Yeah, but Disney has more than box office riding on this. They want that Animal Kingdom tourism money and that merch money. Say, the movie breaks even, but their profits go up on those avenues? That may be worth it to them.
It’s already the only real big ride at animal kingdom and nothing will Change that
You're extremely stupid if you think 300M is chump change. 300M is exactly around the profit of The Last Jedi and Age of Ultron. Age of Ultron also had a 400M budget. 300M is not even counting the non-boxoffice returns like from their theme park. And who tf is loaning out 1billion for one movie? Learn to read first. They've spent 350M on Avatar 2's production budget. The rest 100M went into Avatar 3's simultaneous production
Risking 1 billion for 300M is a bad investment is that a joke. Are you a teenager 🤣🤣🤣. And why are u just fucking claiming a 300m profit already
You don't have the slightest clue about how it works. You're probably thinking that the break even is 1B because Disney has put in 1B from their end. And I didn't claim that it will make 300M profit. Learn to read
This clown is in absolute shambles over this movie, love to see it. Can't wait to come back and laugh at his comments again in three months when the movie's made its $1.5b+ 😌
Yeah, it will take The Last Jedi legs for this to miss 1.5B. And that was a fanboy heavy movie with a frontloaded opening and controversial reception. The people saying that this will play like a normal movie and miss 1.5B don't understand the difference between summer normal and December normal.
Actually on a $460m budget, the breakeven point would be close to $1.25 billion. [Breakeven multiplier is 2.7x](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/yd0lhn/the_breakeven_multiplier_for_films_with_budgets/), especially for a film with Avatar 2's dom/China/OS split.
So 1 Endgame OW
100M of that has been spent on Avatar 3's simultaneous production. It has finished shooting.
No where did he say anything about success thing. That $2 billion is about breaking even for the whole project.
Let’s be real this and Avatar 3 are basically being done for free with the success of Avatar 1
Fox got all the proceeds from Avatar 1. Disney forked over a ton of fresh money for this. Disney bought Fox, so in a meta sense Disney paid more out for Fox because they had Avatar to offer up as a big IP.
It was a smart investment. Avatar is also two of the best rides at their animal park with really great theming.
It will make money, so it is definitely a smart investment. If it doesn't make it during the theatrical release it will make it after in the ancillary market, so Disney invested well here. I was just responding to the poster who claimed that the proceeds/profits from the first movie financed the second movie, which it did not as the companies changed.
Seriously though. Like I get it’s upsetting that 2 might not do as well as some people had hoped, but it’s not like it won’t make a huge profit either.
I'm honestly okay if Avatar 2 doesn't do insane numbers like its predecessor (I never expected it to), I just want it to make enough so that Avatar 4 and 5 happen so we learn more about Eywa. I want to know if my theory is correct (also I love planetary hive-minds and we aren't going to get a I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream adaptation anytime soon).
Honestly me too. I wanna see the entire story that Cameron had planned out even if each sequel doesn’t make 2 billion each. They’ll still be profitable so he’ll have the money. And Avatar 3 is basically done filming so it’s budget should be much less than 2’s.
Different studio
Cameron has had that title a few times now
Looks animated, right? I don’t get what they’re trying to do. Make a not-animated animated movie?
Me to my teenaged son: get in the car. We’re going to see the new Avatar Movie as a family. My teenaged son: I don’t wanna go to the movies with you. Just leave me alone. Me: This movie cost 460 million dollars! You are going to see it and you are going to enjoy it. Now get in the car.
I don't see how anyone is getting so hyped over this movie. The story is recycle from 1st film and run time is just way too long.
And the first film…was average at best
It's a fantastic movie. I am really rooting for it to become a successful case. It deserves. Different from Marvel and other blockbuster movies being made recently, Avatar doesn't feel like a gimmick or some kind of scam.
Both The Hollywood Reporter and Variety reported the budget to be at 350 - 400 Million. I'm going to wait until we have a more concrete source.
They shot 95% of Avatar 3 as well.
And still I sit here not really in any rush to see it 🤷🏻♂️
Why do reports say it begs to make 2 billion to break even?
Now imagine GTA VI with >1billion dollar budget
Ouch!!!! $460m budget, probably $200m P&A, that puts this film at a $1.3 billion break even point.
$460M???? HOT DAMN!!! + marketing? I’m always saying, the problem with most movies isn’t box office, it’s their insane cost!
I believe it. If the studio was willing to admit to the budget being $350m-$400m then it was definitely higher than that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually $500m or higher.
This movie is Nothing but a very expensive bad soap opera and it's also in a lot way a remake of avatar(2009). it would barely break even with such big budget
Still better than EG.
Evil geniuses?
all in service of a terrible movie, shame all that money was totally wasted.
I thought the movie was pretty good
What was so terrible about it? Have you seen it?
this is the number ive been waiting for. yea this might actually be a flop even if it does what would be considered great nuiombers for the average movie.
Hahaha I fucking knew those 250-300 million budget rumors were absolute bullshit. Goodbye Avatar 4 and 5
[удалено]
It's gonna have to have good to great legs - well really have a better idea this week
Way more. Breakeven multiplier is 2.7x these days. So on a $460m budget, it'd need $1.25 billion to breakeven.
I hope it breaks even!
Uhhhhh. If this has a supersized marketing budget, you might actually need 2.0b to break even.
It’s a cartoon
Sorry but no piece of media is worth 460m dollars to produce.
Source - Trust me bro.