AVATAR 2 THE WAY OF WATER starring Sam Worthington (2022) 2 2

[drotto]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:57 AM, Gatsby77 said:

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.

You can not dismisd how expensive the specialized soundstages, sets, and especially technology are for these films.  You can not ignor those are reported in part 2's budget. No doubt all of these movies will be expensive, but they should relatively be cheaper. Because, those very expensive things are done, or partially done.

Edited December 28, 2022 by drotto

[Gatsby77]

On 12/28/2022 at 11:23 AM, drotto said:

You can not dismisd how expensive the specialized soundstages, sets, and especially technology are for these films.  You can not ignor those are reported in part 2's budget. No doubt all of these movies will be expensive, but they should relatively be cheaper. Because, those very expensive things are done, or partially done.

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.

[Bosco685]

On 12/28/2022 at 11:23 AM, drotto said:

You can not dismisd how expensive the specialized soundstages, sets, and especially technology are for these films.  You can not ignor those are reported in part 2's budget. No doubt all of these movies will be expensive, but they should relatively be cheaper. Because, those very expensive things are done, or partially done.

It is interesting how a few are on fire about Avatar: The Way of Water's budget the bigger the box office gets.

Quote

During the Christmas season, audiences flocked to the theaters amid winter weather and the COVID stigma of present-day cinema. The film brought in $300 million domestically, while internationally, the movie made up the other end at $700 million, surpassing 2022’s biggest hits, including Black Panther‘s worldwide take at $800 million, The Batman‘s $770 million, and Doctor Strange‘s $955.7 million. Many movie insiders predicted the movie would reach ten figures over the holidays after it was released on December 16.

 

The only other films to cross this barrier in the year is the blockbuster Tom Cruise hit Top Gun: Maverick, which brought in a total of $1.48 billion worldwide, and Jurassic World: Dominion, which raked in just over a billion worldwide. Oddly enough, Top Gun: Maverick was not permitted to be shown in China, and The Way of Water underperformed there with $100 million when it was estimated to make over $300 million. However, IMAX and 3D screenings would help make up for any shortcomings as IMAX CEO Rick Gelfond enthusiastically boasted, “In just over a week of release, Avatar: The Way of Water has sailed to more than $100 million in Imax box office with no signs of slowing down.”

What is more wild is supposedly this was the film "nobody cares about after 13 years" yet it shot quickly to $1B worldwide. It's like because of that, another detractor is necessary.

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/28/2022 at 8:44 AM, Gatsby77 said:

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.

And again, no accountant is going to allow for the co-mingling of budgets since the pay outs of multiple profit participaters would be impacted.  That would just be begging for a lawsuit. 

Which makes Boscos presumptions about the actual budget for THIS FILM (it's $460M, not $350M)  particularly specious.  

-J.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

On 12/28/2022 at 12:08 PM, Jaydogrules said:

And again, no accountant is going to allow for the co-mingling of budgets since the pay outs of multiple profit participaters would be impacted.  That would just be begging for a lawsuit. 

Which makes Boscos presumptions about the actual budget for THIS FILM (it's $460M, not $350M)  particularly specious.  

-J.

Seems like you are fixated on a few reporting sites as long as they are excessive, and claiming this is all sites. Yet reality:

TheNumbers which normally reports a film's budget once confirmed still has no budget noted.

Box Office Mojo which normally reports a film's budget once confirmed still has no budget noted.

The Hollywood Reporter, one of the most recognized industry reporting sites, still can't nail it down.

THR - Avatar: The Way of Water

Quote

From Disney and 20th Century, The Way of Water cost $350 million-$400 million to produce, making it one of the most expensive pics in modern Hollywood history.

But I think you said all reporting sites are noting $460M. Right?

Oh, add Variety to that list.

Quote

“Avatar 2” looks to stay strong into the new year, which is necessary to justify its massive price tag. Cameron estimated the $350 million-budgeted movie (not including at least $100 million in marketing fees) needs to generate roughly $2 billion to break even, though analysts believe the threshold to profitability is probably closer to $1.5 billion. There’s a lot riding on “The Way of Water,” not just because of its huge price tag, but also because it’s the first of three planned follow-ups in Cameron’s otherworldly series.

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Bosco685

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/28/2022 at 9:18 AM, Bosco685 said:

Seems like you are fixated on a few reporting sites as long as they are excessive, and claiming this is all sites. Yet reality:

TheNumbers which normally reports a film's budget once confirmed still has no budget noted.

Box Office Mojo which normally reports a film's budget once confirmed still has no budget noted.

The Hollywood Reporter, one of the most recognized industry reporting sites, still can't nail it down.

THR - Avatar: The Way of Water

But I think you said all reporting sites are noting $460M. Right?

Oh, add Variety to that list.

 

Even if it's 350M , and the "threshold to profitability" is 1.5B, that's a 4.3x multiple (not 2.5x).  The necessary multiple to break even remains basically  the same regardless.  

-J.

[WolverineX]

Nice... we are getting multiple sequels. 

https://deadline.com/2022/12/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-1-billlion-1235207219/

[Bosco685]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:19 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Even if it's 350M , and the "threshold to profitability" is 1.5B, that's a 4.3x multiple (not 2.5x).  The necessary multiple to break even remains basically  the same regardless.  

-J.

All these films that bombed because they didn't reach 4.3X revenue. If only Iron Man (2008), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men (2000) had tried harder. Amongst many others.

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/28/2022 at 10:48 AM, Bosco685 said:

All these films that bombed because they didn't reach 4.3X revenue. If only Iron Man (2008), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men (2000) had tried harder. Amongst many others.

I'm not taking about those movies.  I'm talking about THIS one, and what your own quoted sources are saying.  

-J.

[Gatsby77]

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.

[Bosco685]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:11 PM, Gatsby77 said:

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.

Alliances with modified theories.

On 12/28/2022 at 2:10 PM, Jaydogrules said:

I'm not taking about those movies.  I'm talking about THIS one, and what your own quoted sources are saying.  

-J.

You are trying to force P&A Budget into a final number to achieve determining the end profitability figures. We've had this chat before, and even Deadline has used informed guesstimations with its annual box office contest. As items that factor into that total we would need a few key data points:

1. Special theater revenue-sharing agreements (remember - this is Disney who applies such practices wisely)
2. Actual P&A Budget number (not a wild guesstimate to reinforce a negative narrative).
3. revenue-sharing deals with creators and cast.
4. Location tax breaks and expense discounts to encourage buying from regional suppliers.
5. Cast salary discounted rates to work with James Cameron.
6. Merchandising licenses tied to the movie.
7. Product placement revenue.

But as even Gatsby has noted before, the common model to determine break-even is 2.5X-2.8X to comfortably account for such expenses including the average theater distribution model. What you are mistakenly trying to account for is the final numbers like with Aquaman and assumed 4.0 (+)X was required.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

The higher this goes, the more frantic some get with 'those hidden expenses'.

And that is interesting. 

[Gatsby77]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:54 PM, Bosco685 said:

The higher this goes, the more frantic some get with 'those hidden expenses'.

And that is interesting. 

$1 bn. down!

1/2 way to what the director said it needed to do to achieve profitability.

Cool!   

[Bosco685]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:20 PM, Gatsby77 said:

$1 bn. down!

1/2 way to what the director said it needed to do to achieve profitability.

Cool!   

You try so hard. You truly do.

Happy Holidays! 

[Bosco685]

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

Quote

Low end, I’d guess if things fall off a cliff after the holidays then the film can still make its way to $1.6 billion. High end, right now I suspect something like $1.8+/- billion is the outer limit of its trajectory. As I said, though, things could change depending on the next several days, and I might revise these expectations up or down after final receipts are counted this weekend and next week.

Quote

While Avatar: The Way of Water doesn’t seem destined to repeat that $2+ billion performance, it doesn’t have to. At this point it’s easily going to cover its production and marketing costs and be the year’s biggest blockbuster hit. Remember, much of the expense was in fact shared between The Way of Water’s production and the simultaneous filming of Avatar 3, which arrives in theaters next Christmas to continue the saga.

The back-to-back filming financial benefits noted by Forbes. And the analysts predict another $400M to $500M in the next week.

 

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/29/2022 at 4:14 AM, Bosco685 said:

The back-to-back filming financial benefits noted by Forbes. And the analysts predict another $400M to $500M in the next week.

 

Somehow I suspect most people will still be taking Cameron at his word over the speculative musings of Forbes' resident fanboi.

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/29/2022 at 3:27 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

When is this fool going to stop it with the "pandemic era" BS?

-J.

[Bosco685]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:18 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Somehow I suspect most people will still be taking Cameron at his word over the speculative musings of Forbes' resident fanboi.

-J.

If you say so. Meanwhile...