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

[adaros]

13 minutes ago, ImNotExcited said:

Guess we're getting that 3 minute plot summary trailer after all

I'm good after second one that didn't spoil too much, waiting for Dec

[XXR & Friends]

24 minutes ago, ImNotExcited said:

Guess we're getting that 3 minute plot summary trailer after all

.

 

Final Trailer drops at halftime during Monday Night Football on ESPN apparently.

 

20 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

huh???? sourceeeee

 

16 minutes ago, Reddroast said:

They most likely announced it td during during the college football games td. 

 

Yep, final trailer Monday. They had a little announcement for it during the Ohio State / Maryland CFB game on ABC about 15 minutes ago. 

[ImNotExcited]

Avatar 1 coming back to Disney+ on Monday is floating around as well.

[Porthos]

2 minutes ago, Toruk Makto XXR said:

Yep, final trailer Monday. They had a little announcement for it during the Ohio State / Maryland CFB game on ABC about 15 minutes ago. 

 

44 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Do have to admit I'm... worried is far too strong a word so instead I'll say perplexed by Disney's marketing of A2 so far and makes me wonder if the previews/OW will be depressed as a result. I certainly expected much stronger marketing/hype building for A2 from the Mouse than has been done so far, but that just leaves room for stronger legs if indeed the OW isn't as hype driven (hence my "How it gets there, I have no idea").

 

You're welcome, everyone.

 

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, Porthos said:

 

 

You're welcome, everyone.

 

thank you Porthos

[Stewart]

3 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

You're welcome, everyone.

 

 

I think Disney must be reading this thread and suddenly thought... "Oh crap, even Porthos is worried! Better get a move on Jimmy"

 

And now it'll be 4 weeks non-stop of Avatar Avatar Avatar absolutely freaking everywhere. 

[M37]

36 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

For me, there are two major wildcards here presuming a high quality movie. 

 

1] How much resistance is there really to 3D in the Domestic Market?

and

2] How anticipated/looking forward to/appetite is there for more/insert term for wanting more Avatar [HERE] is there really?

 

Despite the over 1,200 plus pages worth of electrons splatted on screens from this forum, I don't think the answers are definitive when it comes to stratospheric numbers. Especially when it comes to 3D.   The "how much do people want more Avatar I'm more ambivalent on, but the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes.  I certainly expect it to have a lot of interest, but I don't actually know if it has a OMGWTFBBQ level of interest.  

 

Note that even if it doesn't have OMGWTFBBQ level of initial interest, WOM could certainly propel it once again.  Then again, capturing lighting in a bottle twice (or three times if one wants to also count Titanic) is very very hard, even for the Gods of Cinema. It's absolutely ***NOT*** doubting James Cameron to note the degree of difficulty here. 

 

As it is, I certainly expect it to be incredibly well received.  That doesn't necessarily mean 1b DOM though as a lot of stars have to align.

 

Swinging back to 3D... man, I just don't know.  On the one hand I have my own observations of how 3D plays locally after watching it at the seat level for over four years (or three if one takes out the pandemic stretch of about 13 months of no movies).  On the other hand, this is the Platinum Standard when it comes to 3D, so how much of a difference will that make when it comes to resistance?  And if people are "forced" to see it in 3D (at least when it comes to the various preferred PLFs out there) will that actually matter?  If so, how much?  And if so, can it actually be measured beyond a gut level? And, if so again, would stellar WOM counter that which in turn would lead to longer legs?

 

Despite all of the evangelizing on this thread when it comes to 3D that is easily the biggest wildcard for me.  If people can either be persuaded to overcome their aversion to 3D and/or make an exception, then the sky is the limit... Presuming folks actually want more Avatar, of course.  But if 3D is a drag? 

 

Well it's a consideration iz all I iz saying.

 

FWIW, I think I'm still around +/- 750m DOM total.  How it gets there, I have no idea.  Wouldn't surprise me at all to do much better than that (stars aligning) and also wouldn't surprise me to see it do less (how much less, I have no idea whatsoever thanks to the wildcards at play).

Agree with all of this, but will rephrase as a question: How much of Avatar's success was due primarily to the visual experience? 30, 50, 70, 90%?

 

I ask not because I question the quality for the upcoming sequel, but because I think that factor alone is much more difficult sell now than in 2009. Back then, both digital IMAX and 3D were just hitting their stride, while on the home front HDTV was only just getting started (in <15% of homes), meaning the gap between the home viewing quality these new formats - particularly for Cameron's Avatar - was extremely wide. 

 

Now 13 years later, nearly all homes have at least HDTVs, if not something ever higher resolution (and probably bigger too). And while 3D and PLF screens have proliferated, they and tech haven't gotten all that much better, and we're still coming down from a once in a century pandemic that conditioned people to consuming more and more content on those TVs (or even phones).

The gap between home and even PLF has shrunk, visuals/experience are no longer the primary selling point, but its all about content. Unless a movie is some major story with fans and spoilers, people are increasingly content to wait for a time and price point that suits theme (see basically every drama movie in last 18 months). And yes, PLFs share has increased post pandemic, but we're talking mostly about more moviegoers dropping an extra ~$5 to see those formats, rather than an influx of people opting to pay ~$20 vs just waiting to watch at home.

 

To circle back to the original question, if Avatar's demand was say 60% visuals/40% story, and now it flips to 40/60 or even 30/70, then it become much more difficult to project a high total (at least domestically).

[Grebacio]

58 minutes ago, ImNotExcited said:

 

 

Final Trailer drops at halftime during Monday Night Football on ESPN apparently.

Imagine the bump on tickets sales due to final trailer being attached to Strange World

[Porthos]

15 minutes ago, M37 said:

Agree with all of this, but will rephrase as a question: How much of Avatar's success was due primarily to the visual experience? 30, 50, 70, 90%?

 

I ask not because I question the quality for the upcoming sequel, but because I think that factor alone is much more difficult sell now than in 2009. Back then, both digital IMAX and 3D were just hitting their stride, while on the home front HDTV was only just getting started (in <15% of homes), meaning the gap between the home viewing quality these new formats - particularly for Cameron's Avatar - was extremely wide. 

 

Now 13 years later, nearly all homes have at least HDTVs, if not something ever higher resolution (and probably bigger too). And while 3D and PLF screens have proliferated, they and tech haven't gotten all that much better, and we're still coming down from a once in a century pandemic that conditioned people to consuming more and more content on those TVs (or even phones).

The gap between home and even PLF has shrunk, visuals/experience are no longer the primary selling point, but its all about content. Unless a movie is some major story with fans and spoilers, people are increasingly content to wait for a time and price point that suits theme (see basically every drama movie in last 18 months). And yes, PLFs share has increased post pandemic, but we're talking mostly about more moviegoers dropping an extra ~$5 to see those formats, rather than an influx of people opting to pay ~$20 vs just waiting to watch at home.

 

To circle back to the original question, if Avatar's demand was say 60% visuals/40% story, and now it flips to 40/60 or even 30/70, then it become much more difficult to project a high total (at least domestically).

 

I'm not quite as sold on this argument as you are, mostly coz I'm worn out on the arguments on "CGI/vfx has really regressed in movies the last decade/CBMs have poopoo special effects" so I don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.  But I agree that it's absolutely a consideration.

 

I also think a slightly under-thought aspect of the argument that is related to this is the utter explosion of high quality special effects in video games.  In the last five to eight years, the quality level of fx in video games has grown in leaps and bounds.  Enough so that I wonder if it is also an aspect of declining movie sales. 

 

And even if it's not, the gap between A2 and what people are consuming every day in gaming circles while wide might not be as wide as the gap between A1 and the various entertainment options out in 2009.

 

Or it could be!  There are plenty of folks here who think it will be as large or even larger.  But...  I guess the transition from 2k to 4k in television has tempered my expectations a bit on this.  Even the transition from 2k to 4k in gaming circles hasn't been as robust/quick as the transition from 480p to 720p to 2k (and all the stops in-between) was.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Porthos

[CaptNathanBrittles]

 

Even a 80" TV is still a postage stamp compared to the big screen.

[Porthos]

12 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

 

Even a 80" TV is still a postage stamp compared to the big screen.

 

*sighs*

*gets out eleven foot pole*

*pokes*

 

I mean, home theater systems are absolutely A factor in declining movie sales.  I think it's nearly indisputable. 

 

Now there are some films that are so far and away better, that the "movie experience" trumps the home theater.  But the argument @M37 is making, and one I am extremely sympathetic (and indeed have made versions of) toward is... is the gap as large as it was back in 2009?  How much of a fraction of the audience that cared about that gap in 2009 won't care in 2022?

 

Relatedly, if someone is equivocating, how much will 3D push them toward  'waiting to see it on their 80" home theater'.

 

Don't know!  Find out soon enough. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Porthos

[porginchina]

5 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

If I had to predict what happens in China, my gut says it get's a release does really well then get's stopped in it's tracks as they don't want hollywood movies doing too well. $500m there

My guess for China… gets a mid-December release, is hindered by lockdowns, opens surprisingly quiet but then holds decently until it gets yanked from screens in mid-January for the Spring Festival releases. My very, very, very, very rough guess is something in the ¥2-2.5 billion range (so, like… in the vicinity of $300 million).

 

Honestly I don't care what this thing makes in China so long as it opens in China… I've been waiting almost 13 years and I fully intend to experience The Way of Water on the big screen the first second I am capable of doing so.

[lilmac]

I think I'll check this out in a local 4DX theater (moving chairs and wind/water effects), then IMAX 3D for my 2nd weekend viewing. 

[WittyUsername]

I didn’t think there was a need for another trailer, but maybe now people can stop claiming that Disney’s half-assing the marketing. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by WittyUsername

[Alexdube]

2 hours ago, M37 said:

The gap between home and even PLF has shrunk, visuals/experience are no longer the primary selling point, but its all about content. Unless a movie is some major story with fans and spoilers, people are increasingly content to wait for a time and price point that suits theme (see basically every drama movie in last 18 months).

counterpoint: Top Gun: Maverick

 

Why do you think that movie made so much money? It's not because it had an amazing story I tell you that. It gets competently from point A to point Z but that's about it. No, the major selling point here was the fighter jet scenes. The buzz was all about how it looked cool.

[M37]

8 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

counterpoint: Top Gun: Maverick

 

Why do you think that movie made so much money? It's not because it had an amazing story I tell you that. It gets competently from point A to point Z but that's about it. No, the major selling point here was the fighter jet scenes. The buzz was all about how it looked cool.

Yes, I’m sure everyone was describing it as “best movie or the year” only because it “looked cool”

[XXR & Friends]

22 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

counterpoint: Top Gun: Maverick

 

Why do you think that movie made so much money? It's not because it had an amazing story I tell you that. It gets competently from point A to point Z but that's about it. No, the major selling point here was the fighter jet scenes. The buzz was all about how it looked cool.

 

[AniNate]

I think we just had to wait until after Disney's other releases this year to really assess the campaign. Black Panther and Strange World needed it more than Avatar this month. Once Strange World is out, Avatar will be the big event for awhile.

[interiorgatordecorator]

did we get any 24 hour metrics for the 2nd trailer?

[Alexdube]

1 hour ago, M37 said:

Yes, I’m sure everyone was describing it as “best movie or the year” only because it “looked cool”

That doesn't mean anything. For a lot of people that's probably the only movie they saw in a theater this year

 

1 hour ago, Toruk Makto XXR said:

 

Well what then? the half-boiled love story between Connelly and Cruise's Character? The rehashed story from the original?

 

Anyway this isn't the Top Gun thread. But I stand by firmly that the majority of the gross of that movie is due to the visuals. Even if I thought it was a very good movie outside of that, it doesn't make close to 1.5 billion without that selling point. Not half of that.

 

Visuals are still a strong selling point, you need to give a reason to people to see a movie on a big screen. You can go back all the way to Star Wars and all the highest grossing movies that followed. They all offered something spectacular in terms of visuals, something people had not seen before, and Top Gun did that as well, it showed fighter Jet action scenes in a new way. Marvel bucked that trend a little bit by instead cultivating brand loyalty, but that doesn't mean people don't care about visual spectacle anymore.

 

The thing is it's not easy to make visual spectacle that's innovative, that's why it took 13 years for Avatar 2 to happen.