Gatsby77

Ditto - Beverly Hills Cop's $300+ million, nearly 40 years ago now, smokes almost all of the "top R-rated" films of the last 20 years when you adjust for inflation. To put it in perspective, it was the # 1 film in the country for 14 weeks.

So...per The Hollywood Reporter, the reshoots cost $70 million for just an additional 20 days of shooting. Bringing the total production cost for Black Adam to ~$260 million before P&A. This was reported well after that early December Deadline breakdown that claimed Black Adam will ultimately prove profitable over the long term (based on a production cost of $195 million). https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/black-adam-2-not-moving-forward-dwayne-johnson-1235282822/

? Not really. 1) You didn't believe Cameron's direct quote two weeks ago, yet you clearly believe him now. 2) If we do believe Cameron now, then the break-even budget is clearly above $400 million.

And...if we do believe Cameron (this time) and $1.3 billion *wasn't* yet break-even, then that gives us a hint to the production budget, right? Assuming it only needs 3.0x production (i.e., before P+A) to break even, that clearly puts the production budget well above $400 million.

But...now we're supposed to believe him, right? As opposed to a few weeks ago, when he clearly stated the break-even was closer to $1.9 bn. -- and later folks made all sorts of excuses for him -- from "he misspoke" to "he exaggerated" to "no, he clearly meant the combined break-even for Avatar 2 and 3" (when he meant nothing of the sort). Just aiming for clarity here.

Wait, so there's James Cameron noting that, at $1.5 billion+ global box office, that it *still* hasn't broken even? Or was he exaggerating again, and so can't be trusted?

Yikes! I stand corrected.

Production budget of $195 million plus $45 million in reshoots? So Black Adam cost $240 million before P&A?

1. He's not wrong. The primary point, in case you've lost it among your many many posts, is that $450 million production cost + $250 million P&A for this single film is *far* more likely than a $350 million production cost & $100 million P&A. It's not the break-even point - it's your intentionally low-balling the cost on your chart (as @Jaydogruleswould say "putting your thumb on the scale") despite multiple credible reports to the contrary. The "but Avatar 3 is done too -- so the costs should be split" is hogwash - as we will ultimately see two years from now when both films are long finished their runs and total costs (and revenue) have been publicly reported. Given that time will bear this out, it's just a stupid hill to die on - and posting 1/3 of the posts in this whole thread doesn't change that -- shouting louder and repeating oneself doesn't make someone, you know...correct. 2. Just an FYI, but Scott Mendelson hasn't worked for Forbes for months.

Or...maybe simply presume James Cameron wasn't exaggerating or lying to GQ when he said the film would need close to make close to $2 bn. theatrically to break even.

What's going on with Fat Jack's? That was one of my LCSs growing up (presume it's re. the Sansom Street location, but I well remember the City Line Ave. location back in the early '90s as well).

$1 bn. down! 1/2 way to what the director said it needed to do to achieve profitability. Cool!

But then...you can't have it both ways. James Cameron said break-even on Avatar 2 (just that movie) is ~$2 bn. At a 2.5x multiple, that puts the production cost at $800 million. At a 3.5x multiple, that puts the production cost at $571 million. As Jaydog notes, at a 4.3x multiple, that puts the production cost at the (reported) $460 million. Meanwhile, if the production is *truly* just $350 million (cough cough), breakeven would be either $875 million (at a 2.5x multiple) or $1.2 billion (a 3.5x multiple). The most logical explanation is James Cameron did not misspeak, the breakeven is indeed closer to $2 bn., so the cost was well over $400 million, if not significantly more.

That was my only gripe with the 2004 (Thomas Jane) Punisher flick. It was solid - but then Man on Fire comes out literally a week later and is better across almost every dimension - writing, action, direction, overall style. And with very few tweaks, Man on Fire could have itself been a Punisher film. It put the actual Thomas Jane Punisher film to shame.

That makes logical sense, but it hasn't historically held true for the reported budgets of blockbuster sequels - even those shot back-to-back. The Two Towers was not cheaper than Fellowship of the Ring. Matrix Reloaded was not cheaper than The Matrix - it actually cost more than 2x as much. But in terms of back-to-back shoots, Matrix Revolutions was not cheaper than Matrix Reloaded. Attack of the Clones was not cheaper than The Phantom Menace. Rise of Skywalker was not cheaper than The Force Awakens. Insurgent was not cheaper than Divergent. Every Twilight film cost progressively more. With the exception of the second film (Chamber of Secrets), the eight Harry Potter films got progressively more expensive, not less. Even among the MCU, each sequel for a given character cost more than the original. Again, what you say makes logical sense - it just doesn't jive with reality -- particularly not with James Cameron, who tends to break "most expensive film ever" records regularly.

Exactly - and these two quotes have nothing to do with each other: 1) For Avatar 2 to be profitable, it has to hit ~$2 bn. in worldwide box office. 2) He's finished shooting Avatar 3, much of Avatar 4 & some of Avatar 5. They're separate statements. It'd be different if Cameron said something like "Avatar 2-4 have to gross a combined total of $5 bn." - He specifically didn't, but rather referenced the break-even cost for only this singular film.

No. You're guessing - also known as making things up - inferring something that has never been stated - nor jives with the reality of independent budgets for past film series that were also shot back-to-back. The most-reported budget for this singular film, Avatar 2, so far is ~$460 million (reported by Deadline, and presumptively validated by Cameron's noting - as reported by Variety, GQ and others, that the break-even for *this* film was ~$2.0 billion - based on his quote In order to be profitable, he’d said, “you have to be the third or fourth highest-grossing film in history. That’s your threshold. That’s your break even.”). That quote refers to *this* film - not 2+3 or 2+3+4. Yes - he's shooting back-to-back, but that doesn't mean the budgets are inseparable - nor that the Avatar 3 will cost less, despite that's being a logical inference because much of the sets and and costume work is done. See the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Matrix 2-3 -- shot back-to-back with separate budgets that did not get cheaper as they went along.

I doubt many people viewed that trailer and thought, "yeah - that flick'll nab half a dozen Oscar nominations."

So I finally watched this the other day. As expected, mediocre - with a few glaringly obvious ways it could have been been better. That said, it was fun seeing such high production values given to such a D-list character as Black Adam. We truly are living in a golden age of comic book movies when a studio opts to spend $195 million on *Black Adam* before more obvious choices like Green Lantern Corps, The Flash or even Supergirl. And honestly, I think it was better than either Suicide Squad or BvS. I'd rate it as equivalent to the first Blade or Ghost Rider films -- or, more recently, Bloodshot -- a minor character given A-list studio treatment -- for a pleasant but ultimately forgettable experience. The good? Hawkman was really well done, as was Dr. Fate. There were a few nods to the real-life political struggles in the Middle East -- with foreigners constantly intervening to precious little affect without true knowledge of or respect for the people involved, their culture or history. "It's okay -- I die by electricity." The bad? One-note acting by The Rock -- mostly the fault of the -script, but we've seen the "Superman -- but bad" schtick several times before, and it was nearly always better done (examples include: Watchmen, The Boys, Eternals, Hancock, Brightburn & Looper). All of these featured more interesting choices by the actors -- and/or character development by the writers -- than what we got in Black Adam. Hell - Denzel Washington aping the Punisher in the Man on Fire remake was more fun - because several times he took obvious glee in his sadistic revenge. Just because you're serious of purpose doesn't mean you can't also occasionally enjoy your work too. And for as solid an actor as Dwayne Johnson's become in the last 20 years, his talents were wasted her e. Too much exposition -- *Lots* of talking to give us background throughout. Several explanations would have been better shown than discussed. A few times I wished I was watching The Mummy (Brendan Fraser version) instead. Weak vehicles for exposition -- could have done without the skateboard kid or Atom Smasher. As others have stated, T2-style slang and catchphrase training by the kid didn't help. Weak villain Shazam erasure -- would have been far better to promote a future Black Adam / Shazam conflict in the stinger than leapfrog over him to go right to Superman. And the Amanda Waller intro was weird - if she had access to Superman there was little need to recruit the Suicide Squad in the first place. Like, it was fine -- just a weird film (and set of characters) for Warner Bros. to choose to greenlight when the bog standard superhero / anti-hero plotting felt so 2007-2010. When comic book movies (and TV shows) have evolved so significantly since then. I keep coming back to the barebones "Superman, but antihero" premise - and how much better it's been done elsewhere. Sigh...so there it is. More words than this film deserved, as it slowly (and rightly) recedes into just a weird minor footnote in the DCEU. Now onto (checks notes) Blue Beetle.

Nah - it's more than that. Aside from the fact that they don't go fishing, the trailer misrepresents the entire tone and genre of the film - a buddy road comedy it is not.

Yes - and as I noted, the only other publicly reported data point that validates it (so far) is the purported admission by Cameron that break-even is ~$2 bn. Which makes a production budget of $460 million more likely than something in the mere $250 - $350 million range.

Fair. It's early yet - not enough coffee. Here's the citation from Deadline on the $460 million cost (before P&A) - multiple other outlets have run with it but so far the only other validation is the Variety article citing James Cameron as saying to break even, it'd have to be the 4th or 5th highest grossing film ever (which puts it at $2 bn. worldwide box office). https://deadline.com/2022/12/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-1235200714/

Well, Deadline's reported the budget (before P&A) is actually $460 million. Assume a $200 million marketing budget on top of that and $2 bn. or so is just ~3x for a breakeven.

And Bridge to Terabithia:

Well - I understand a large part of the lawsuit was about featuring an actor who didn't appear at all in the final film. But I submit my picks for most misleading trailers ever include: Thelma & Louise