Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[Dementeleus]

Odds are just as good for it to increase. Given Cameron sequel increases and known for his movies to breakout when considered to flop or do miserably at the box office. Its more likely for Avatar (2) to increase over the original. Until we know more the odds of increasing are in its favor.

 

See what I did there?

 

But that's not true at all. You can't just take a movie that's a significant outlier in terms of how movies perform and then just automatically slot in an increase. No one (well, very few people) are saying they're going to flop or do miserably, just that they're doing to decrease somewhat.... and they're decreasing from an astonishing height, so they're still gonna perform really well.

[Dementeleus]

3.2X its production budget, if it was anyone else than Cameron would have gotten a sequel especially nowadays. Were people in 1994 expecting 500-600M+ WW?

 

Yes. It was an Arnold/Cameron production coming off T2, people expected it to perform similarly. It didn't do badly, but it did come in slightly under expectations (at least domestically... WW was not generally tracked outside of industry-specific sources back then).

[The Futurist]

TRUE LIES was also considered a bit of an underperformer.

Not really, 145m was a lot of money 20 years ago. And it looked a bit disapointing only because the same year two bo monsters were released, forrest gump and lion king.

It was maybe a little dispointment because it also had the most expansive movie ever made tag.

[Dementeleus]

Not really, 145m was a lot of money 20 years ago. And it looked a bit disapointing only because the same year two bo monsters were released, forrest gump and lion king.

It was maybe a little dispointment because it also had the most expansive movie ever made tag.

 

You're arguing against yourself in the same post. I didn't say it was a flop or anything, it just came in a bit under expectation.

[Neo]

But that's not true at all. You can't just take a movie that's a significant outlier in terms of how movies perform and then just automatically slot in an increase. No one (well, very few people) are saying they're going to flop or do miserably, just that they're doing to decrease somewhat.... and they're decreasing from an astonishing height, so they're still gonna perform really well.

Do you know what I mean by flop or do miserably at the box office? Why not you and everyone else are predicting it to decrease most for not liking Avatar which is not a valid reason to say it will decrease.

[Deep Wang]

TRUE LIES was also considered a bit of an underperformer.

 

Which is kinda crazy when you think about it.

[Neo]

Yes. It was an Arnold/Cameron production coming off T2, people expected it to perform similarly. It didn't do badly, but it did come in slightly under expectations (at least domestically... WW was not generally tracked outside of industry-specific sources back then).

What were expectation in 1994? Tracked or not it made 3.2X its budget which today studios would give it a sequel in a heart beat.

[Dementeleus]

What were expectation in 1994? Tracked or not it made 3.2X its budget which today studios would give it a sequel in a heart beat.

 

Why are you applying 2015 methodology to a 1994 film?

 

It made a little more than its budget domestically (where the studios got a higher percentage of returns)... yes, it did well overseas, but not astonishingly so.  It was really, really expensive and didn't have the enormous grosses to really justify it, although it did well enough for Fox to push ahead on a sequel, Cameron just got sidetracked, they couldn't work out the details/schedules for the various talent, and it all eventually fell by the wayside.

 

I'm trying to come up with a comparable contemporary example.... if MAN OF STEEL 2, for example, does $220m domestically and around 600m WW, would you consider that a mild disappointment compared to its predecessor?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Telemachos

[Neo]

Why are you applying 2015 methodology to a 1994 film?

 

It made a little more than its budget domestically (where the studios got a higher percentage of returns)... yes, it did well overseas, but not astonishingly so.  It was really, really expensive and didn't have the enormous grosses to really justify it, although it did well enough for Fox to push ahead on a sequel, Cameron just got sidetracked, they couldn't work out the details/schedules for the various talent, and it all eventually fell by the wayside.

 

I'm trying to come up with a comparable contemporary example.... if MAN OF STEEL 2, for example, does $220m domestically and around 600m WW, would you consider that a mild disappointment compared to its predecessor?

Because looking at it by today standards. BTW what greenlighted a sequel in 1994? 2X, 3X, 3.5X or 5X+  I know that bit on Cameron. Well considering it would be 68M less and after the JL is introduced yes it would be a mild disappointment.

[The Futurist]

What would Fox do if the first one pulled a John Carter ???

[lilmac]

Because looking at it by today standards. BTW what greenlighted a sequel in 1994? 2X, 3X, 3.5X or 5X+  I know that bit on Cameron. Well considering it would be 68M less and after the JL is introduced yes it would be a mild disappointment.

 

How much do you think Avatar 2 will make?

[Ethan Hunt]

Did I say it would? No.

Bet?

Don't see why, don't make me laugh. This is Cameron, not Nolan, Spielberg or any other director its Cameron he knows how to make great box office successes and sequels that break records. So saying this is impossible to increase is the most misinformed statement ever made in the history of these forums.

LMFAO, I said it was near impossible not impossible. And that's not bad for this movie. 550-650M is a great number no matter how you splice it.

[Elessar]

Do you know what I mean by flop or do miserably at the box office? Why not you and everyone else are predicting it to decrease most for not liking Avatar which is not a valid reason to say it will decrease.

 

I dunno about others but i'm a huge Cameron fan and like Avatar very much. Yet expecting the sequel to increase is batshit crazy imho and it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie and its sequels. Cameron's sequel track record means shit. T1 was a small movie, Alien wasn't exactly huge either.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Elessar

[lilmac]

Avatar is going to blow Exorcist II out of the water. I see a $300m drop off which is still very good.

 

The 20 Biggest Box-Office Drop-Offs Between an Original Movie and Its Sequel (The number in parenthesis is how much less the sequel made than the original).

1. Exorcist II: The Heretic -- ($202 million)

2. The Empire Strikes Back -- ($170 million)

3. The Sting II -- ($150 million)

4. Evan Almighty -- ($142 million)

5. Happy Feet Too -- ($134 million)

6. Grease 2 -- ($128 million)

7. The Lost World: Jurassic Park -- ($128 million)

8. U.S. Marshals -- ($126 million)

9. xXx: State of the Union -- ($116 million)

10. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 -- ($114 million)

11. Basic Instinct 2 -- ($111 million)

12. Son of the Mask -- ($102 million)

13. Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd -- ($101 million)

14. More American Graffiti -- ($100 million)

15. The Godfather: Part II ($84 million)

16. Analyze That -- ($74 million)

17. Speed 2: Cruise Control -- ($73 million)

18. Honey I Blew Up the Kids -- ($72 million)

19. Graffiti Bridge -- ($64 million)

20. The Ring 2 -- ($56 million)

 

 

http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-ups/the-20-biggest-boxoffice-dropoffs-between-an-original-movie-and-its-sequel.php

 

[Elessar]

Star Wars numbers are skewed due to re-releases. The drop-off wasn't that huge.

[The Futurist]

It s difficult to have the Star Wars original, 1977's gross.

 

But the drop was still big with Empire because Star Wars was Titanic big in the us.

[Mattrek]

Cameron is not infallible at the box office. The Abyss was a BO disappointment (even though it was a great movie). He may well top himself for the third time in a row, but he's due for another disappointment at the box office eventually and with three back to back sequels it's likely that at least one of them underperforms. Titanic and Avatar were both perfect storms. A2 will be much more reliant on outside factors than those films, including whether it has more competition (likely) and if audiences can shake off their 3D indifference to give it an 80% 3D share like the first film (unlikely).

How could Avatar 2 have more competition then the first had? Studios wouldn't be stupid enough to put anything near Avatar for at least 3 weeks. They will avoid this movie like they do for all huge huge hits.

[Darth Homer]

How could Avatar 2 have more competition then the first had? Studios wouldn't be stupid enough to put anything near Avatar for at least 3 weeks. They will avoid this movie like they do for all huge huge hits.

More competition for 3D and IMAX screens. The first film had a lock on all 3D and IMAX screens for 11 weeks until AiW opened (which was also when it had its first big drop). That won't happen next time, so legs will be affected, even with more 3D screens available than in 2009.

[Neo]

More competition for 3D and IMAX screens. The first film had a lock on all 3D and IMAX screens for 11 weeks until AiW opened (which was also when it had its first big drop). That won't happen next time, so legs will be affected, even with more 3D screens available than in 2009.

Not if it is more frontloaded which it will be.

[Neo]

I dunno about others but i'm a huge Cameron fan and like Avatar very much. Yet expecting the sequel to increase is batshit crazy imho and it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie and its sequels. Cameron's sequel track record means shit. T1 was a small movie, Alien wasn't exactly huge either.

Don't understand yes if it make 77M it will decrease but 120M+ OW and it will increase. With a 120M a 6.2X is needed and with a 130M OW a 5.7X is needed. Everyone thinking this will decrease by 200M must have this topping out at 85M OW.