Avatar: The Way of Water will need to be one of the highest grossing movies of all time just to break even, according to director James Cameron - meaning it needs to make a cool $2 billion.
If that's the case, that would make the sequel to the 2009 blockbuster comfortably the most expensive movie of all time to make when taking into account production and marketing costs.
Oscar winner Cameron, 68, said in a recent interview with GQ Magazine that his movie was 'very f***ing expensive.' The director and producer did not elaborate further on the numbers involved.
He did say that budgets for the movie represented 'the worst business case in movie history.' Cameron added: 'You have to be the third of fourth highest-grossing film in history. That's your threshold. That's your break even.'
The reported initial budget for the Avatar follow-up was $250 million in 2017 but that was when the film was supposed to be released in December 2020. Now, two years behind schedule, it's likely that the production budget has ballooned.
Even with an increased production budget, if Cameron's estimate of $2 billion is correct, it would mean that the film has one of the biggest marketing budgets of all time.
The third highest grossing movie of all time is Cameron's own Titanic, which made $2.1 billion when it was released in 1997, around $3.8 billion in today's money. That's followed by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which made just over $2 billion in 2015, around $2.5 billion in 2022.
Avatar: The Way of Water's budget would be over three times the price of the current most expensive movie ever. Avengers: Age of Ultron cost Disney $599 million with close to $500 million going on production alone and the rest being spent on marketing when it was made in 2015.
Other films considered among the most expensive when it comes to production, budgeting and marketing include John Carter, which cost $547 million, around half of that going on marketing, the Pirates of the Caribbean series, which cost around $400 million per movie, and Cameron's Titanic, which cost $410 million.
... Avatar: The Way of Water Needs to Make $2 Billion to Break Even
... Avatar 2 needs to make a silly amount of money just to break even
... James Cameron Says ‘Avatar 3’ Could Be Last Film In Saga If ‘The Way Of Water’ Sequel Underperforms
Не можеш да нађеш филм или серију? Пријави се да додаш.
Желите ли да оцените или додате ову ставку у листу?
Нисте члан?
Одговор од wonder2wonder
дана 18. децембар 2022. у 5:10 AM
... Excerpts from ‘Avatar: The Way Of Water’ Seeing $45M Saturday, Putting James Cameron Sequel At $135M Opening – Late PM Update:
... Excerpt from ‘Avatar: The Way Of Water’ Rakes In $53 Million Opening Day—Which May Not Be Enough:
... Excerpts from Avatar 2’s First Box Office Results Are In And Unexpected:
... Excerpt from ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ Opens With $180 Million at the Global Box Office:
Одговор од rooprect
дана 18. децембар 2022. у 12:39 PM
Financial negatives aside, I recently read a critics review and it was scathing. I mean brutal. I dunno if that critic was just having a bad day or what, but based on that review I decided I probably won't bother--and I rarely take critics at their word, but this guy ripped Av2 a new watering hole 😬
Одговор од DRDMovieMusings
дана 22. децембар 2022. у 11:25 PM
I'm not sure what math Cameron is fudging, but a budget of $460M "only" needs $920M to break even - if they pumped up the promotion, then, maybe, $1bn. Not $2bn.
BUT, limping to a measly payday of $2 is nothing to be proud of.
In my movie ROI database of over 2800 titles from 1924 to present, the average ROI on first sequels in a franchise is 35% of the 1st installment. Avatar paid $11.74 so Avatar: Way of Water would ideally reach ROI of $4.11 with box office of $1.8Bn, which is closer to that "$2Bn" he was reaching for. Whatever. I don't see that happening. It's currently sitting at $600M, good luck getting to break-even.
James Cameron produced one of the greatest sequels - and one of the greatest movies altogether - in Terminator 2: Judgment Day - A:WoW ain't that.
Одговор од rooprect
дана 24. децембар 2022. у 8:51 AM
Definitely sounds like he's trying to repeat the T2 formula but I agree chances are lookin slim. I think the biggest problem is that he waited too long; T2 came 7 years after the original (whicht itself is kinda long in movie terms but still safely within the hype zone) while Av2 comes a whopping 13 years later, twice the Terminator hiatus.
Your database would probably shed scientific light on the sequel-wait phenomenon. Broadly, do you see a specific timeframe where sequels tend to be most successful (in terms of ROI as well as box office numbers)? My gut feeling says the ones that come out within 5 years of each other are the most effective at maintaining momentum. For example the first 6 Star Trek movies were all released within 2-3 years of each other (1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1991) and I think that was really effective at stringing fans along for the full ride.
Одговор од wonder2wonder
дана 24. децембар 2022. у 12:59 PM
About sequels, when you only look at the relationship between the longest time interval and its box office success, I would think that "Top Gun: Maverick (2022)", which was released almost 36 years after "Top Gun (1986)" is probably the most successful sequel.
The sequel "Bambi II (2006)" to "Bambi (1942)" with a time gap of almost 64 years still has the longest time interval.
Of course, that's an animated movie. I think that the sequel "Mary Poppins Returns (2018)", 54 years after "Mary Poppins (1964)", with a moderate box office profit, is also top on the list when considering the time interval and its chance of financial success. Although most will see that sequel as a flop. (What I missed was the original actress Julie Andrews, who could not return as the protagonist Mary Poppins.)
Excluding the time interval and only considering the Worldwide gross, "Avengers: Endgame (2019)" is still the most successful sequel with $2,797,800,564.
Одговор од rooprect
дана 24. децембар 2022. у 4:34 PM
I was thinking of Top Gun Maverick when I posted my question, but I think that movie as well as the others you mentioned are the exceptions rather than the rule. The nostalgia sequels (longer than 20 years) succeed when they’re backed by huge budgets, relevant stars and studios willing to hype them relentlessly. But the majority seem to go the way of Bill & Ted 3, Matrix 4, Zoolander 2, Dumb & Dumber 2, Independence Day 2, Psycho 2, Wall Street 2, that Peewee Herman movie on Netflix… I could go on but you get my point: nostalgia sequels have to fight extra hard. If the prize box office demographic is the 18-24 year old group, any sequel that waits a decade or more has really lost its core moneymaker.
Одговор од DRDMovieMusings
дана 25. децембар 2022. у 3:01 PM
It's hit $881M and counting...(breakeven is ~$920M to pay $2)...
Одговор од Nexus71
дана 29. децембар 2022. у 10:42 PM
It needs to make more than 920 million you forget the theaters take a hefty percentage of the take at the theaters which in the US is roughly 50% and since this movie relies heavily on doing well abroad it has to even work harder with in countries like China Disney only getting 25% of the take and in most other countries Disney gets somewhere between 30 and 40% in those countries. So for Avatar to break even it has to make more like 1.5 billion to break even and too be considered a financial succes that warrants a sequel would be somewhere between the 1.8 -2 billion range. A movie with a budget like this has to earn more than 300 million to be called a success.
Одговор од DRDMovieMusings
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 12:46 AM
No, I didn't forget. The Insider's Formula is gross / 2 minus production budget. The divided by 2 part is to factor cuts and takes and marketing which is fuzzy because there are so many variables they don't make public, we can only guess. The production budget was $460M, so I simplify in order to find a relatively consistent comparable number. $920M / 2 - $460M = 0.
If you work for Disney and know all the variables (which theatres, how long, how much marketing was spent, etc.), you can plug in more real numbers. I don't, and won't speculate for each movie when I have no way to tally anything beyond the most basic published numbers.
I've built a movie ROI database with over 2,800 titles from 1924 to present. There was no way I could derive any meaningful comparative profit rates of I attempted to speculate all the unpublished variables. I had to simplify to be able to speak meaningfully to movie profitability. That's the extent of my hobby work.
For more granular details, some else will have to bring their passion to that exercise.
Одговор од Nexus71
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 4:43 PM
Well if Disney spend 920 million on Avatar (Budget+promotion) and earns 920 million you can broadly calculate how much of that is going to Disney by taking the average of 25-50% which is 37.5% 37.5% x 920 which is 345 million that still leaves 920-345 = 575 million for Disney to break even. But I checked IMDB which states a budget estimated at 350 million add 350 million for promotion which makes for 700 million . IMDB states that so far Avatar made 1,101 million Worldwide of which 317 million is from the US 50% x 317 million is 159 million and the rest of the world 1,101-317 = 784 million of which Disney roughly gets 25+40%/2= 32.5% X 784 = 255 million together with the 159 million from the US is 414 million! So far Disney barely earned back the budget which is only half of what it still needs to make. So as a matter of fact Cameron is actually right saying Avatar needs to make more than 2 billion to earn money in fact it needs to make roughly 2.2 billion to break even.
Одговор од DRDMovieMusings
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 5:10 PM
Actually, theatres pay an average of 70% of their ticket revenues to the studio distributor. That's why concessions are so expensive - theatres don't make money on ticket sales, it's the distributor that scoops up most of the ticket money. For a more detailed breakdown, see https://thehustle.co/why-is-movie-theater-popcorn-so-outrageously-expensive/
Одговор од DRDMovieMusings
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 5:25 PM
I appreciate your effort here.
I read an article once (wish I could find it now) that stated it's odd that movie insiders talk a lot about how difficult it is to make money in the movie business even though, for decades, they've managed to figure it out sufficiently that they could build an industry that is far from bankrupt!
In other words, IF it is mysterious, it's only so as a convenience to avoid scrutiny.
So, for those so inclined, there is some known math, some rigour, that has supported the development of an industry of writers, producers, directors, actors, make-up artists and special effects creators, set design, food services, hotel and travel, distribution....
At any rate, James Cameron has forgotten more about making movies and how the industry works than I will ever know - I'm quite happy to concede that his estimate is far closer to reality than my hobby hack simplification :-)
Одговор од Nexus71
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 5:49 PM
That 70% might apply for the US but not for countries outside the US and for China it is common for foreign movies only to get 25% of the take .And in most European countries Disney gets somewhere between 30-40% of the take .And that 70% doesn't include that Disney has to pay for distribution to the cinemas and replacement in case of damaged film etc so after deducting those costs Disney gets somewhere between 55-65% tops and that is only with certain Cinema chains. And still the US alone only accounts for roughly a third of the earnings so far while two thirds of the earnings fall under a percentage that is less favorable for Disney. But even under the most favorable circumstances let's say 70% the average would be 25+70%/ 2 = 47.5 % , 47. 5%x1,101 million is 523 million so Disney is still not making money on Avatar for that it has to roughly make 1.5 billion to break even (is what I previously mentioned)and to be even considered profitable is has to make somewhere between 1.8-2 billion. Another interesting thing is that ticket prices have gone up considerably in the US (and I assume elsewhere) since pre- Covid times with prices going up as much as somewhere between 20-30% in the US alone which makes for far less people who actually went to the cinema to watch the movie.
Одговор од DRDMovieMusings
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 6:13 PM
I've never been a big fan of counting dollars in isolation, since inflation makes the question murky for all those who are not economists (and I rarely refer to "adjusted for inflation" tallies either, although, I'm going to in this paragraph!). To say that Top Gun: Maverick is Tom Cruise's first movie to top $1Bn isn't as big a deal to me once we consider that there wasn't enough money in the demand pool to generate that kind of money in, say, 1986 or 1992. The first movie in my database to crack $1bn is Titanic, 1997 (back to Cameron, right!) which is more a reflection of the availability of demand into which they could sell enough tickets to hit that number. I say that because the highest grossing movie, adjusted for inflation, is STILL Gone with the Wind, released in 1939. It has "only" generated $402M but, compared to the eight other movies in my dbase released in 1939 that together produced an average of $7M in revenue, GwtW is huge...had the economy in 1939 been what it was in 1997, blasting over $1Bn would have happened way back then, too.
Generally, though, ranking movies by revenue by release year has some value in giving an idea what movies people were talking about a lot (think about the watercooler talk generated by movies such as Fatal Attraction or Basic Instinct!)
One metric I devised for my own comparative purposes was to measure the box office revenue as a percentage of all the revenue for movies in that year that I have in my database. This would give me an idea of the "market share" of any movie vs. its competition that year. I hardly ever mention this stat in comments here on TMDb just because it's accessible from revenue alone to get a sense of which movies touched cultural zeitgeist level (although, by no means linear...Terrifier 2 is being talked about lots, and its profit is incredible, but its revenue itself is relatively paltry, right?
Одговор од wonder2wonder
дана 30. децембар 2022. у 9:59 PM
@Nexus71 Hi. I hope you're doing well.
Your posts with estimates are sound. You made a good argument about countries outside the US. In the past - before internet became so ubiquitous - I have been trying to get more reliable numbers from them to combine those with the US to make my own calculations more acurate, but that's been largely unsuccessful. Not surprising, as even in the US you have to rely on what the film industry is prepared to publicly reveal. Now with all the information on internet and more sources it's become even more muddled. So, I'll have to be content with the available estimates.
@DRDMovieMusings You've done excellent work on the numbers and I'm impressed with the enormous movie ROI database you built. Keep it up. Chapeau! 🎩