I really think there is some exaggeration here. Needing $2 billion to just break even would imply that the film cost at least $800 million, and that’s without marketing. That’s crazy, and if that is true and Cameron spent $800 million on just ONE of his four planned sequels, then that’s just ridiculous. And plus, it’s just not likely considering he had a budget of $1 billion for all four sequels. $800 million for this movie alone would leave only $200 million for the other three sequels… Totally doesn’t sound legit to me
You know what makes me think that Avatar 2 will be a great success? Anybody can watch it. You dont have to be a comic boo fan or a Star Wars fan or be into any other IP. I remember when the first Avatar came out, even my dad who doesnt know anything about movies was excited to watch it. Everyone will watch Avatar 2. From movie enthusiasts to the average viewer.
@NicoNick this is an event movie. When word of mouth gets out from theater goers about how great the movie is more people will make a point to see it in the theater and it'll have long legs because of it
Two things! 1) The 2.1B required box office could be false, as Jim could be talking about 3rd & 4th highest grossing film AT THE TIME he made the deal. Not the current time 2) The 33% number the AMC Heads gave you was most likely domestic only
Those in the industry are estimating 350-400 million production budget for Avatar 2. At 400M, the break even would be about a billion roughly. 2 billion would be the break even for both 2 and 3 combined. I have no idea what the heck Cameron was saying, it was either for both films combined, or it was just marketing hype nonsense that doesn’t reflect the actual financials.
Thats exactly right. They spend about 900 million to make all the sequels. Plus 50 million in marketing and 50 million in other fees. They won't make any money off this movie. They'll get their money from the 3rd and 4th movie.
I have worked as an extra for this movie and I can tell you he is 100 percent talking about the project as a whole. We would literally shoot scene from second movie following with the scene from the third one on the next day etc. Of course we weren't told which movie we're currently making, but everybody knew it was merged together.
@@COLE_PRODUCTIONS haha I still can't believe it myself that JAMES CAMERON!! talked to me when he directed us what to do. He took care of everything by himself, and I mean everything. It was an experience out of this world to see him working, he is just too smart and curses a lot haha, but in a funny way :)
@@sebastianbarron5063 I mean all fairness he did say that it was expensive and $250 mil-$300 mil is no cheap budget and if the budget was that expensive, we would’ve gotten info earlier that it was the most expensive movie ever made or some shit like that
@@saatvikmaddineni7496 but also in all fairness james Cameron himself said it has to be the fourth highest grossing film in history to break even. If you're going to tell people incorrect numbers you can't be surprised when articles happily run with that lol. I mean your casual fan isn't doing extra homework to get to the real numbers. They just hear that and think wtf.
I think people forgot or didn't know but he made avatar 2 and 3 together that why in the article he doesn't mention 3 he say after 4 and 5 sequels so now if u put together the 2 movies u get the numbers of 2 billion
One factor of the costs I think you're forgetting about is the R&D costs for the tech that was being developed. While technically it would be considered Avatar's investment because of Cameron's involvement but on the books the production would only be paying for the final product and the studio would be investing in the actual tech to license out.
Haha Think everyone is forgetting we all raced to see the original Avatar because of the new 3D technology that it launched(wearing 3D glasses in a movie theater whoa), now it's just a "normal" movie. No one raced to see it, because of anything to do with the story or characters and that's not changed. Can't see why it would crack 1 billion, let alone 2.
I mean you could say that about most movies. How many people were racing to see _Top Gun: Maverick_ because they were dying to find out about Captain Mitchell's Navy career trajectory over the past 36 years?
If I remember correctly when these sequels were announced it was stated that the combined budget would be 1 billion dollars. If I had to guess Cameron may have been referring to the sequels as a whole.
He is referring to break even for Avatar 2 and 3 combined because both avatar 2 and 3 have been shot simultaneously and Avatar 3 is in final post production.
John, with the said 33% you have to subtract from the box office, you don't consider that the studios in the foreign market don't get nearly as much as they do in the US. In Europe, theaters receive around 50% of all ticket revenues. In China, the studios get as little as 25%. So when you see that big blockbusters internationally usually generate well over half of their revenue overseas (often as much as around two-thirds), you can't just subtract 33% to calculate the profit for the studio. You would have to deduct more and the people who claim it is about 50% are right.
Exactly - the reason ppl suggest using the 50% number is to accommodate the higher %age take theatres in China & Europe take from the box office revenue!
Hopefully it doesn't but I personally didn't watch the first avatar film. And I don't have any interest in watching this one. I hope it doesn't flop though. Especially a film on this scale.
Ahh yes, 13 years after the original with the main character who did flop after flop and is all but forgotten to lead the film once again. I'm sure it will make what it needs too 🤣
Unlike in the first movie, you might not see the main character as a human being again. Most if not all characters are probably motion captures of real actors. So your criticism of the 'main actor', might actually be an advantage, in terms of helping viewers suspend disbelief.
@@loganlablanc1343 it has a good chance of passing the 2 billion mark but it won't come close to the original. It looks very visually aesthetic and from what we've seen in trailers, it looks like one of those films that should be experienced in theatres for maximum effect (The Dark Knight, Tenet, Interstellar, Dune, Top Gun Maverick). And given that people are gradually getting fed up with superhero films, given the poor reception of MCU phase 4, it's likely people will be inclined to see Avatar 2 as a breath of fresh air.
There's no mathematics in those numbers. It's a figurative statement to exalt the movie and the sequels. Talking about numbers it'll have to make at least 1B to break even considering its budget to be 400M plus PR.
Do you guys remember the first Avatar movie doing ANYTHING to change pop culture after its release? ... Nope, me either. As soon as I walked out of the Blue Cat People version of Dances With Wolves, I no longer cared for the setting or any future movies in the series. Add in a decade of apathy, and this movie isn't going to make $2 billion...
I think the most it'll make is 1 billion. Technology and special effects have changed so much since 2009 when the movie released that seeing something with spectacular effects has to also come with a great story and Avatar did not have a great story. I highly doubt this one will have an engaging story and the effects don't really blow me away from the trailer.
I have been in the belief, ever since _Titanic_ , to take *absolutely EVERYTHING* James Cameron says during interviews with a bucket of salts. Not saying the man is a straight liar... but could you call him a BS artist or a troll? Oh yeah, for sure - he did this even before the internet was around.
I think your missing something. The way theyre saying this is that they need to make 2.1 billion for the sequels success and to break even. The word sequels is very likely plural. As in ALL of the sequels. Most of which are already being worked on as well. All the cutting edge camera tech invented for the film and possible scenes already shot for parts 3 and 4, as well as future costs.
This is going to be a long take for me, and address some thoughts and opinions I've seen circling around social media. My thoughts about it is just a personal perspective (and using my country as an example) not objective data btw. As someone who is a Gen Z in Asia. I'll give a perspective of what I think towards the market from a smaller country where 3D wasn't and isn't as widely popular before and even now (in my country at least). When I first saw Avatar, it was 3-4 years after it's release. I watched it from a movies channel from my television. So I didn't saw it in it's best quality, in 3D, nor in HQ. I didn't know about it being in 3D that made it popular. In addition, I've heard a lot of comparison about Avatar just being a "Ferngully" and "Dancing with the Wolves" film, and truthfully, I have never heard of that film. I only knew of it recently when I've seen people in social media comparing the movie. If I were to ask someone in my country if they've watched that film, I can only say maybe 1 out of 50 of those people may "possibly" say yes. Outside the U.S market, I don't think those two films being compared was popular for the general audience. As for Pocahontas, I do know that's a popular film, especially people in my generation are aware of it. But it didn't really cross my mind it was that related or having such similarity was bad. For you, the story may be bad or mid, but similar to Jake (the main character), I fell in love with the nature, then the culture, and finally them. Which is what (I think) Cameron was going for, to love nature, since he's an environmentalist. Maybe those inside the West may not relate to Avatar and feel it's relevance, but for a country like mine who was also invaded by America in 1800s, it does serve some sort of relevance and connectivity in some ways. I'm not saying every country who was invaded by America (or in general) would like Avatar nor am I implying America is bad. But that these events does happen in real life and in History, that countries or indigenous tribes does get invaded and have since changed their lifestyle. If we were to replace indigenous tribes as 3rd world countries being invaded instead, doesn't this also talk about relevance/impact? I'm not going to mention whether the impact of invasion is good or bad because that depends on the individual and how it affects their life. Also, some of you are already tired of the Americans/Humans destroying nature is bad and people/indigenous tribes taking care of nature good plot. But stories discussing about nature and it's impact may help others being conscious and mindful about our nature, which was why Cameron decided to continue a sequel. Some of you said it made no global impact, and maybe for you and people around you. But as long as it gives the message to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people, even if they listen or not, it serves the purpose of reaching a wider audience. The film is structured around world wide issues and events. It may not give such impact to you, but to someone else, it really does. Now this film focuses both on Family and Nature. Featuring more about individuals who may face physical/racial discriminations, or kids who are biological/adopted. Something that most common family issues face. I just feel that in some ways, some of you undermine its impact in the global market just because those living in your country doesn't think it is relevant enough and has no hype. I can't determine the BO and how much it'll make because a lot of factors have changed since then, trends, interests, ongoing war in some countries, pandemic, streaming services, lockdown, a generations' shift of interest, super heroes movies, etc.
The reason for this huge budget could be the 12 to 18% interest added to the budget for over a decade. They will recover the budget from toys, video games, merchandising & so on.
No. He filmed all three sequels together and spent almost a billion dollars. He needs to pay 2 billion dollars to pay back in loans and interest and everything else they had to spend money on so he can make a profit for the next 2 films, which are already made. He actually saved money filming all 3 together but dug a big hole he got himself in that is completely dependent on the film, making 2 billion in the next 4 weeks
Cameron never said 2 billion. A lot of assumptions and mistakes are being made about the original article. The conversation about the money needing to be made happened a long time ago, when the 4th highest movie was half of what it is now. Good on John for seeing through the BS these various articles are jumping to.
If they had released Avatar 2 sooner, I think they would have been successful in achieving around that. Unfortunately, they left it way too long that people who enjoyed the first one, have become a bit apathetic to the franchise now. The first one was successful because it was unique and people could enjoy it in 3D, but now 3D is common enough that it's no longer unique.
It’s old ‘Hollywood accounting’ where they inflate what it cost to make a film so that it appears there’s no box office profit to be had; they do this so that they don’t have to pay backend points to the actors, director, and producers.
@@Mr2200 He didn't say they weren't paid upfront. He said "back end points" which is profit percentage based. There are quite a few articles on this crooked Hollywood accounting practice online.
This is correct. The 33% is roughly an average. In almost every country in Europe, cinemas do keep somewhere between 45-50% of each movie's box office. The rest 50% goes to the distributors who, I presume, keep their cut and the remainder goes to the studio.
@@SecondTake123 Yes. For instace, here in Greece there is the Greek division/branch of Disney but the movies are distributed by Feelgood Ent., which is another company that has the rights of Disney's and Sony's movies here.
he might be referring to the cost of filming 3 and 4 that were already filmed and need to make enough money that the others wouldn't be canceled. in this context it make sense
James Cameron was given around $1 billion for all four Avatar sequels so that’s only $250 million per sequel. Avatar 2 doesn’t need $2 billion dollars to break even, it most likely needs that much in total for ALL the Avatar sequels. Besides, Avatar 2 has already made almost $1.5 billion, so even if it did need $2 billion I have no doubt it would reach that.
The percentage the box office the movie studio takes depends on the size of the box office. 50% is generally a better estimate unless the film has a huge box office. Smaller films under $50M box office might only take home 40% of their revenue. When calculating whether a film breaks even you need to take into account all the revenue outside of the box office like merchandising, DVD, streaming and TV as well.
Someone tell me if im wrong, but didnt JC have to actually invent/develop the tech to film motion capture under water? Also, Avatar 2 and 3 were shot at the same time. So i can imagine the budget for 3 also bleeds into the reported budget for 2. Something tells me that tech development is a huge contributor to the needed revenue to "break even"
Cameron is conveniently leaving out the fact that all three sequels are included in this 2 billion dollar equation. All three Avatar sequels will have a reported TOTAL production budget of 1 billion dollars. This new film alone was 250 million, not including promotion, advertising, and prints. People... do research please.
im leaning towards 700 mil. 500 production and 200 marketing. James did say that he need to develop 3D camera's further in order to get all the underwater shots just right. Not to mention the massive pre-production that happened in the time between 1 and the first day of shooting. Marketing budget doesn't feel like a 300mil maerketing campaign, I didn't see the way of water being shoved down everywhere, so just like the first the marketing has been pretty scare. That's just how I felt. But that 500 production budget must have some connections to the other 3 sequels that have yet to be released/made. The story already feels like it is being set for later movies.
But you also have to account for the fact that studios only take 55-60 percent of the movies box office. also, the marketing budget is around $150 million and the production is $450 million.
The way I've understood it is that a movie has to make at least two and a half times it's production budget in order to break even and be profitable. If the marketing budget is half again the production budget so cost equals 1.5 times production. Income to the studio is 2/3 of box office. So by math the break-even point for income is 2.25* the production budget or essentially 2 and 1/2 times. For a required $800,000 box office that means the production budget is around $320 million.
I think Cameron is having a bit of fun here. He was given 1bil for 3 sequels, and unless he blew all that 1bil on A2 alnoe (and we know he hasnt as he's already filmed A3 and parts of A4) then this doesnt make sense as if the film needed 2bil to break even that would mean he blew the whole Bill on A2 and why would Disney allow that?, and why would A2 need 700mil more than the current most expensive film ever to be made?. Now if Cameron was talking about the sequels combined, that would make more sense. I think Cameron is being hyperbolic here, or there was something lost in translation with this interview.
@@truflyness Well a film needs to make roughly double its production budget to break even. Thats not counting marketing costs though, and for a film like this we are probably talking around $200mil marketing budget per sequel. It all depends if he's stuck to the 1bill he was given for the sequels. If he has stuck to that 1bil then all the sequels combined need to make around 2bil to break even. Add in marketing for each sequel and the sequels probably have to make a combined 3bil to breal even. I honestly think something was lost in translation with the interview because no way would he need to spend the whole 1bil on one film, nor would Disney ever allow him to spend the full 1bill on 1 film. And we know he hasnt spent it all on 1 film anyway as A3 is already shot, parts of A4, and according to Stephen Lang he's even shot the finale to A5. I'm going to guess A2 probably cost around 300mil out of the 1bill he was given. Add on 200mil for marketing, and A2 will need to make around 1bil worldwide to break even. Anything over 1bill is gravy.
@@SteveMcCoy. interesting. I thought they would ban it just because it’s from Disney! So as long as there are no gay aliens in this movie it should be a go! 😂
Probably his personal ego break-even-threshold. Think about this: if he gets the 3rd or 4th highest grossing film ever then he has 3 of the 4 highest, but if he gets 5th then that means Marvel/Star Wars would have 2 of the 4. He's ina competition at Disney (previously against) right now after they re-released Endgame with that wack ass new footage, tricking viewers back to the theatre just to pass Avatar and luring fans with nostalgia for Force Awakens. YOU KNOW DAMN WELL JAMES CAMERON TOOK THAT PERSONALLY. That's basically a plea to his fans to bring the superfandom to the theatres to accomplish that without putting down Marvel or Star Wars
I don't think he needs 2 billion to break even. I think he needs 2 billion to prove he still got what it takes to make a blockbuster in the face of the other blockbusters like the marvel movies and star wars.
To Cliff's point: I think Cameron is well aware of the numbers as two of the top three worldwide are his... To Rob's point: Is it possible that all the budget of R&D and preproduction that film three was also part of is counted to film 2?
The thing people are forgetting is the money they will make afterward from the new tech for the films. Ever since T2 and Titanic the tech from those movies is the new tech the industry uses from there. If Cameron gave the studio a % of the tech patents or stock of the companies that make the tech they will make their $ back at some point. That has been the thing I think that I have admired Cameron for awhile now, his stories have been a bit generic but when it comes to the tech and cameras he has made $ from dude is a genius. He has been at the fore front for some time now. Also if I recall I think they shot a least part 2 & 3 at the same time ala two towers/return of the king. So yeah the budget will appear large at first glance but when u factor in that it's for 2 or more movies it isn't as bad as it seems.
He must be factoring in the cost of all 4 sequels at 250 million each with marketing, because then it would add up to needing 2 billion to break even. It's a clever way to build buzz for the sequels and drive water cooler discussions.
@@danbh84 that was then, people went for the VR experience and not for the actual movie or its plot, back then it was novel and apart from maybe the first Matrix cinematically no one had seen anything like it, these days even an average Marvel movie could give the same experience, so unless they can top what is common today cinematically that logic doesn't apply here
John you forgot they shoot Avatar 2&3 at same time between 2017-2021 and preproduction work, scripts/world-building on these movies started around 2013-2014. Could be that Cameron need Avatar2 to make 2B WW to cover cost of Part2&3 and their marketing combined, that would make more sense.
It won't. Avatar's thing was the 3D. The story, characters and setting were forgettable at best. Just Pocahontas in Space. 3D is just a common thing today and the truth is nobody cares about Avatar now. They had to re-release the film 3 or 4 times to pass Avengers Endgame. I do believe is Cameron's worst work, wich makes it a good movie in the end.
I really think there is some exaggeration here. Needing $2 billion to just break even would imply that the film cost at least $800 million, and that’s without marketing. That’s crazy, and if that is true and Cameron spent $800 million on just ONE of his four planned sequels, then that’s just ridiculous. And plus, it’s just not likely considering he had a budget of $1 billion for all four sequels. $800 million for this movie alone would leave only $200 million for the other three sequels… Totally doesn’t sound legit to me
Is it possible he was meaning for 2 and 3 both since he made them back to back? I’m wondering if that’s possibly the case
I’m pretty sure Campeas explanation checks out, if the movies budget is ~250 million then yeah it’d need to make $800m DOMESTIC to break even
@@MrTytyjohn64 nah Variety released a forecast of something like $650m domestic it’ll do fine
It been well established that he's been filming the sequels concurrently.
This isn't actually all that surprising.
You didn't watch the video before commenting, did you?
This is why I love this show. Feels like talking with friends about art and I always learn something
And officially Avatar: The Way Of Water Crosses $2 Billion
One thing I know is not to bet against James Cameron this man owns two of the top five all-time grossing movies in
history
Fixing to be 3
I don't think Cameron is referring to the takings in relation to the budget of the second film, but the one allocated for the whole saga.
That makes no sense, stop kissing ass to Cameron.
2 months later this video was made...it made 2 billion dollars
James Cameron is crazy. I bet he's going to do it.
You know what makes me think that Avatar 2 will be a great success? Anybody can watch it. You dont have to be a comic boo fan or a Star Wars fan or be into any other IP. I remember when the first Avatar came out, even my dad who doesnt know anything about movies was excited to watch it. Everyone will watch Avatar 2. From movie enthusiasts to the average viewer.
@NicoNick it’s James Cameron. Everyone will be flocking to go watch it. Lol But yeah….let’s wait and watch
@NicoNick this is an event movie. When word of mouth gets out from theater goers about how great the movie is more people will make a point to see it in the theater and it'll have long legs because of it
@@ahappyklingon3631 Yea I kinda agree just saw it and meh but looks awesome though
And, maybe Avatar 2 & 3 are already shot and completed and the total Production cost includes two movies.
I think he was saying Avatar 2 needed to make 1.5-2b to cover production costs for Avatar 2&3 which he filmed together.
they know it, but they omit it. Cameron intended 2 billion for the whole saga
Two things!
1) The 2.1B required box office could be false, as Jim could be talking about 3rd & 4th highest grossing film AT THE TIME he made the deal. Not the current time
2) The 33% number the AMC Heads gave you was most likely domestic only
The fact America can spend this amount of money on a dam movie and we are in a recession. Great country 👍🏾
@@johnshepard8556 at leas we have avatar 2! That's more important for the world
@@johnshepard8556 and your family does?
Those in the industry are estimating 350-400 million production budget for Avatar 2. At 400M, the break even would be about a billion roughly. 2 billion would be the break even for both 2 and 3 combined. I have no idea what the heck Cameron was saying, it was either for both films combined, or it was just marketing hype nonsense that doesn’t reflect the actual financials.
after seeing that handwriting he should be called Dr. John Campea
I think he included the budget of all the sequels that have already been filmed..
i hope so. I think they deserve to be made, and whatever bleeds disney of its money is good to me.
@@seafoam6119 so that's why it needs $2 billion? because they were also working on other sequels while making avatar 2?
Thats exactly right. They spend about 900 million to make all the sequels. Plus 50 million in marketing and 50 million in other fees. They won't make any money off this movie. They'll get their money from the 3rd and 4th movie.
I have worked as an extra for this movie and I can tell you he is 100 percent talking about the project as a whole. We would literally shoot scene from second movie following with the scene from the third one on the next day etc. Of course we weren't told which movie we're currently making, but everybody knew it was merged together.
@@COLE_PRODUCTIONS haha I still can't believe it myself that JAMES CAMERON!! talked to me when he directed us what to do. He took care of everything by himself, and I mean everything. It was an experience out of this world to see him working, he is just too smart and curses a lot haha, but in a funny way :)
Another typical sentence taken out of context for the sake of an article headline 🙄
To be fair, Cameron is partially to blame for saying it like that
James just wants to be the best filmmaker of all history like no one is perfect james. 🙄
@@sebastianbarron5063 I mean all fairness he did say that it was expensive and $250 mil-$300 mil is no cheap budget and if the budget was that expensive, we would’ve gotten info earlier that it was the most expensive movie ever made or some shit like that
@@saatvikmaddineni7496 but also in all fairness james Cameron himself said it has to be the fourth highest grossing film in history to break even. If you're going to tell people incorrect numbers you can't be surprised when articles happily run with that lol. I mean your casual fan isn't doing extra homework to get to the real numbers. They just hear that and think wtf.
@@shanetaylor761 I saw half the video when I was writing the comment 😂😂. My bad bro
Don't bet against James Cameron, he has two movies in the 2 billion club.
1 BN is the prod of the whole series
I think this is an ad campaign basically saying "I need this one to be in the 2 billion dollar club"
I think it also probably has something to do with front loading the second movie with cost to build infrastructure for the sequels too.
This is why I always watch John Campea to determine the bullshit from the facts. So many people misinformed cause they don't watch his show
I think people forgot or didn't know but he made avatar 2 and 3 together that why in the article he doesn't mention 3 he say after 4 and 5 sequels so now if u put together the 2 movies u get the numbers of 2 billion
This is what I’m thinking as well.
Have a bad feeling it’s gunna bomb tbh
Foreign countries will probably be the one that tips the scale
It's not
One factor of the costs I think you're forgetting about is the R&D costs for the tech that was being developed. While technically it would be considered Avatar's investment because of Cameron's involvement but on the books the production would only be paying for the final product and the studio would be investing in the actual tech to license out.
People have been working on this movie for about a decade. You are on the right path.
Maybe its just me but I really don't see enough excitement for this movie to indicate it would even break a billion.
Haha Think everyone is forgetting we all raced to see the original Avatar because of the new 3D technology that it launched(wearing 3D glasses in a movie theater whoa), now it's just a "normal" movie. No one raced to see it, because of anything to do with the story or characters and that's not changed. Can't see why it would crack 1 billion, let alone 2.
I mean you could say that about most movies. How many people were racing to see _Top Gun: Maverick_ because they were dying to find out about Captain Mitchell's Navy career trajectory over the past 36 years?
This film will probably make 1.5 billion to 1.6 billion but 2 billion is pushing it and it probably only needs 800 million to break even.
If I remember correctly when these sequels were announced it was stated that the combined budget would be 1 billion dollars. If I had to guess Cameron may have been referring to the sequels as a whole.
He is referring to break even for Avatar 2 and 3 combined because both avatar 2 and 3 have been shot simultaneously and Avatar 3 is in final post production.
John, with the said 33% you have to subtract from the box office, you don't consider that the studios in the foreign market don't get nearly as much as they do in the US. In Europe, theaters receive around 50% of all ticket revenues. In China, the studios get as little as 25%. So when you see that big blockbusters internationally usually generate well over half of their revenue overseas (often as much as around two-thirds), you can't just subtract 33% to calculate the profit for the studio. You would have to deduct more and the people who claim it is about 50% are right.
Exactly - the reason ppl suggest using the 50% number is to accommodate the higher %age take theatres in China & Europe take from the box office revenue!
He's trying to get butts in the seats. Plain and simple. He's saying: If you want more sequels, you better show up.
I'm going out on a limb and say this is going to be the biggest flop in history
Hopefully it doesn't but I personally didn't watch the first avatar film. And I don't have any interest in watching this one. I hope it doesn't flop though. Especially a film on this scale.
2 billion for all 4 films. Or however many avatar sequels he is planning. 250 million budget and 250 million marketing. 500 million x 4.
Ahh yes, 13 years after the original with the main character who did flop after flop and is all but forgotten to lead the film once again. I'm sure it will make what it needs too 🤣
My gut says it'll be a flop
Unlike in the first movie, you might not see the main character as a human being again. Most if not all characters are probably motion captures of real actors. So your criticism of the 'main actor', might actually be an advantage, in terms of helping viewers suspend disbelief.
He is just full of BS and is trying to call attention to the movie 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why would he say this? He's got to know he just created some trolls who'd boycott this just f with him.
Avatar is still better and looks better than most movies out now.
True but at the same time I don't see Avatar 2 making 2 billion dollars
@@loganlablanc1343 it has a good chance of passing the 2 billion mark but it won't come close to the original. It looks very visually aesthetic and from what we've seen in trailers, it looks like one of those films that should be experienced in theatres for maximum effect (The Dark Knight, Tenet, Interstellar, Dune, Top Gun Maverick). And given that people are gradually getting fed up with superhero films, given the poor reception of MCU phase 4, it's likely people will be inclined to see Avatar 2 as a breath of fresh air.
There's no mathematics in those numbers. It's a figurative statement to exalt the movie and the sequels. Talking about numbers it'll have to make at least 1B to break even considering its budget to be 400M plus PR.
No production studio is going to greenlight a movie that would take over 2 billion dollars to break even. That isn't even logical.
Do you guys remember the first Avatar movie doing ANYTHING to change pop culture after its release?
...
Nope, me either. As soon as I walked out of the Blue Cat People version of Dances With Wolves, I no longer cared for the setting or any future movies in the series.
Add in a decade of apathy, and this movie isn't going to make $2 billion...
why do you think it wont make 2 billion while top gun made 1.4 billion
The line at Disney for Pandora says different.
Even if he was talking about domestic collection,
Doesnt 800M domestic mean more than 1.5B worldwide???
I think the most it'll make is 1 billion. Technology and special effects have changed so much since 2009 when the movie released that seeing something with spectacular effects has to also come with a great story and Avatar did not have a great story. I highly doubt this one will have an engaging story and the effects don't really blow me away from the trailer.
I have been in the belief, ever since _Titanic_ , to take *absolutely EVERYTHING* James Cameron says during interviews with a bucket of salts. Not saying the man is a straight liar... but could you call him a BS artist or a troll? Oh yeah, for sure - he did this even before the internet was around.
He might also be adding the amount of money he’s spent on researching the ocean in his spare time or something like that
I think your missing something. The way theyre saying this is that they need to make 2.1 billion for the sequels success and to break even. The word sequels is very likely plural. As in ALL of the sequels. Most of which are already being worked on as well. All the cutting edge camera tech invented for the film and possible scenes already shot for parts 3 and 4, as well as future costs.
This is going to be a long take for me, and address some thoughts and opinions I've seen circling around social media. My thoughts about it is just a personal perspective (and using my country as an example) not objective data btw.
As someone who is a Gen Z in Asia. I'll give a perspective of what I think towards the market from a smaller country where 3D wasn't and isn't as widely popular before and even now (in my country at least).
When I first saw Avatar, it was 3-4 years after it's release. I watched it from a movies channel from my television. So I didn't saw it in it's best quality, in 3D, nor in HQ. I didn't know about it being in 3D that made it popular. In addition, I've heard a lot of comparison about Avatar just being a "Ferngully" and "Dancing with the Wolves" film, and truthfully, I have never heard of that film. I only knew of it recently when I've seen people in social media comparing the movie. If I were to ask someone in my country if they've watched that film, I can only say maybe 1 out of 50 of those people may "possibly" say yes. Outside the U.S market, I don't think those two films being compared was popular for the general audience. As for Pocahontas, I do know that's a popular film, especially people in my generation are aware of it. But it didn't really cross my mind it was that related or having such similarity was bad. For you, the story may be bad or mid, but similar to Jake (the main character), I fell in love with the nature, then the culture, and finally them. Which is what (I think) Cameron was going for, to love nature, since he's an environmentalist.
Maybe those inside the West may not relate to Avatar and feel it's relevance, but for a country like mine who was also invaded by America in 1800s, it does serve some sort of relevance and connectivity in some ways. I'm not saying every country who was invaded by America (or in general) would like Avatar nor am I implying America is bad. But that these events does happen in real life and in History, that countries or indigenous tribes does get invaded and have since changed their lifestyle. If we were to replace indigenous tribes as 3rd world countries being invaded instead, doesn't this also talk about relevance/impact? I'm not going to mention whether the impact of invasion is good or bad because that depends on the individual and how it affects their life.
Also, some of you are already tired of the Americans/Humans destroying nature is bad and people/indigenous tribes taking care of nature good plot. But stories discussing about nature and it's impact may help others being conscious and mindful about our nature, which was why Cameron decided to continue a sequel. Some of you said it made no global impact, and maybe for you and people around you. But as long as it gives the message to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people, even if they listen or not, it serves the purpose of reaching a wider audience.
The film is structured around world wide issues and events. It may not give such impact to you, but to someone else, it really does. Now this film focuses both on Family and Nature. Featuring more about individuals who may face physical/racial discriminations, or kids who are biological/adopted. Something that most common family issues face.
I just feel that in some ways, some of you undermine its impact in the global market just because those living in your country doesn't think it is relevant enough and has no hype. I can't determine the BO and how much it'll make because a lot of factors have changed since then, trends, interests, ongoing war in some countries, pandemic, streaming services, lockdown, a generations' shift of interest, super heroes movies, etc.
The reason for this huge budget could be the 12 to 18% interest added to the budget for over a decade. They will recover the budget from toys, video games, merchandising & so on.
No. He filmed all three sequels together and spent almost a billion dollars. He needs to pay 2 billion dollars to pay back in loans and interest and everything else they had to spend money on so he can make a profit for the next 2 films, which are already made. He actually saved money filming all 3 together but dug a big hole he got himself in that is completely dependent on the film, making 2 billion in the next 4 weeks
I have a strange feeling it's not gonna be as big as they are preparing for 🤷
I thought the number was so high because he made multiple films at once.
He probably meant all the sequels
Cameron never said 2 billion. A lot of assumptions and mistakes are being made about the original article. The conversation about the money needing to be made happened a long time ago, when the 4th highest movie was half of what it is now. Good on John for seeing through the BS these various articles are jumping to.
He's lying, Sam Worthington will work for 30 dollars
😂
If they had released Avatar 2 sooner, I think they would have been successful in achieving around that. Unfortunately, they left it way too long that people who enjoyed the first one, have become a bit apathetic to the franchise now. The first one was successful because it was unique and people could enjoy it in 3D, but now 3D is common enough that it's no longer unique.
Well, no reasonable person believes Disney paid $410 million for Pirates 4 either.
It’s old ‘Hollywood accounting’ where they inflate what it cost to make a film so that it appears there’s no box office profit to be had; they do this so that they don’t have to pay backend points to the actors, director, and producers.
@@mcuthor7831 Yes! I forgot about that! You're absolutely right!
There's no way that miniature golf course looking ass movie cost $400 million.
Yes they did everyone had to be paid while Depp was in rehab
@@Mr2200 He didn't say they weren't paid upfront. He said "back end points" which is profit percentage based.
There are quite a few articles on this crooked Hollywood accounting practice online.
I really don't see avatar 2 making $2 billion at the box office
I can
This is correct. The 33% is roughly an average. In almost every country in Europe, cinemas do keep somewhere between 45-50% of each movie's box office. The rest 50% goes to the distributors who, I presume, keep their cut and the remainder goes to the studio.
Are the studios and distributors different companies?
@@SecondTake123 Yes. For instace, here in Greece there is the Greek division/branch of Disney but the movies are distributed by Feelgood Ent., which is another company that has the rights of Disney's and Sony's movies here.
Then how its 33% ...this makes like 70% cut
Pre- Pandemic I'd say it had a good shot. Now...not so much, although the best way to view these sequels would be in a proper IMAX/ Theatrical screen.
Right which are pricier tickets! I think it will do 1.5 billion
Dances with Smurfs 2: Rise of the Snorks. Pass.
It’s been too long since the first. Economy is garbage. Theater attendance is crap due to streaming…. It’s not going to even sniff the first film.
there is now way Avatar: Way of water cost $2B to make. must be total cost for all movies. Avatar 1 only cost $238m to make
Avatar 2 box office right now is 1.7 billion !!!
he might be referring to the cost of filming 3 and 4 that were already filmed and need to make enough money that the others wouldn't be canceled. in this context it make sense
BTW the most expensive movie ever made was Cleopatra (1963) at $450 million in 2022 dollar
James Cameron was given around $1 billion for all four Avatar sequels so that’s only $250 million per sequel. Avatar 2 doesn’t need $2 billion dollars to break even, it most likely needs that much in total for ALL the Avatar sequels. Besides, Avatar 2 has already made almost $1.5 billion, so even if it did need $2 billion I have no doubt it would reach that.
The percentage the box office the movie studio takes depends on the size of the box office. 50% is generally a better estimate unless the film has a huge box office. Smaller films under $50M box office might only take home 40% of their revenue. When calculating whether a film breaks even you need to take into account all the revenue outside of the box office like merchandising, DVD, streaming and TV as well.
1,1 billion, maybe that includes R&D for Cameron? Wasn't he trying to create 3D without glasses?
Doubt it. I think he's doing this for shock value and publicity.
Someone tell me if im wrong, but didnt JC have to actually invent/develop the tech to film motion capture under water? Also, Avatar 2 and 3 were shot at the same time. So i can imagine the budget for 3 also bleeds into the reported budget for 2. Something tells me that tech development is a huge contributor to the needed revenue to "break even"
Avatar will be the only movie playing for months I wouldn't be surprised if it does. Anybody knows what's the first big movie opens in 2023.
Ant-Man 3 is really the first direct competition, and its not even going to be that big.
This dude won’t Amit he’s was wrong
Avatar (2009)
Avatar 2 The Way of Water (2022)
Avatar 3 (2024)
Avatar 4 The Tulkun Rider (2026)
Avatar 5 (2028)
Exactly 🫵🏾
Cameron is conveniently leaving out the fact that all three sequels are included in this 2 billion dollar equation. All three Avatar sequels will have a reported TOTAL production budget of 1 billion dollars. This new film alone was 250 million, not including promotion, advertising, and prints. People... do research please.
This is going to be one of the most spectacular box offices bombs the world has ever seen
BTW, Avatar 2 just secured it's China release date!
I'm imagining Dr. Evil throwing around numbers for the budget.
I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t hit a billion but and equally shocked if it made 2 haha. Hope it’s good!
im leaning towards 700 mil. 500 production and 200 marketing. James did say that he need to develop 3D camera's further in order to get all the underwater shots just right. Not to mention the massive pre-production that happened in the time between 1 and the first day of shooting.
Marketing budget doesn't feel like a 300mil maerketing campaign, I didn't see the way of water being shoved down everywhere, so just like the first the marketing has been pretty scare. That's just how I felt.
But that 500 production budget must have some connections to the other 3 sequels that have yet to be released/made. The story already feels like it is being set for later movies.
But you also have to account for the fact that studios only take 55-60 percent of the movies box office. also, the marketing budget is around $150 million and the production is $450 million.
The way I've understood it is that a movie has to make at least two and a half times it's production budget in order to break even and be profitable. If the marketing budget is half again the production budget so cost equals 1.5 times production. Income to the studio is 2/3 of box office. So by math the break-even point for income is 2.25* the production budget or essentially 2 and 1/2 times. For a required $800,000 box office that means the production budget is around $320 million.
I think Cameron is having a bit of fun here. He was given 1bil for 3 sequels, and unless he blew all that 1bil on A2 alnoe (and we know he hasnt as he's already filmed A3 and parts of A4) then this doesnt make sense as if the film needed 2bil to break even that would mean he blew the whole Bill on A2 and why would Disney allow that?, and why would A2 need 700mil more than the current most expensive film ever to be made?.
Now if Cameron was talking about the sequels combined, that would make more sense.
I think Cameron is being hyperbolic here, or there was something lost in translation with this interview.
@@truflyness Well a film needs to make roughly double its production budget to break even. Thats not counting marketing costs though, and for a film like this we are probably talking around $200mil marketing budget per sequel.
It all depends if he's stuck to the 1bill he was given for the sequels. If he has stuck to that 1bil then all the sequels combined need to make around 2bil to break even. Add in marketing for each sequel and the sequels probably have to make a combined 3bil to breal even.
I honestly think something was lost in translation with the interview because no way would he need to spend the whole 1bil on one film, nor would Disney ever allow him to spend the full 1bill on 1 film.
And we know he hasnt spent it all on 1 film anyway as A3 is already shot, parts of A4, and according to Stephen Lang he's even shot the finale to A5.
I'm going to guess A2 probably cost around 300mil out of the 1bill he was given. Add on 200mil for marketing, and A2 will need to make around 1bil worldwide to break even. Anything over 1bill is gravy.
Cameron in a position every filmmaker dreams of.
Yeeeeah....gonna go out on a limb here and say there's absolutely no way Avatar 2 makes 2 Billion.
Maybe he was talking about the 3 movies combine? 🤔
China box office will be huge for this movie. I see no way it doesn't make 2 billion
Will it be released in China?
Yes. First big blockbuster to do so in a while too. First movie made 200 million there on 600 screens. They have 6,000 screens now
@@SteveMcCoy. interesting. I thought they would ban it just because it’s from Disney! So as long as there are no gay aliens in this movie it should be a go! 😂
@@taylormadecomix6624 I reckon so
Probably his personal ego break-even-threshold. Think about this: if he gets the 3rd or 4th highest grossing film ever then he has 3 of the 4 highest, but if he gets 5th then that means Marvel/Star Wars would have 2 of the 4. He's ina competition at Disney (previously against) right now after they re-released Endgame with that wack ass new footage, tricking viewers back to the theatre just to pass Avatar and luring fans with nostalgia for Force Awakens. YOU KNOW DAMN WELL JAMES CAMERON TOOK THAT PERSONALLY. That's basically a plea to his fans to bring the superfandom to the theatres to accomplish that without putting down Marvel or Star Wars
I don't think he needs 2 billion to break even. I think he needs 2 billion to prove he still got what it takes to make a blockbuster in the face of the other blockbusters like the marvel movies and star wars.
Avenger: Secret wars will break the record, All actors in that movie will be insane, budget out of this world
I really wish they would take inflation into account. Titanic’s real numbers obliterate!
To Cliff's point: I think Cameron is well aware of the numbers as two of the top three worldwide are his...
To Rob's point: Is it possible that all the budget of R&D and preproduction that film three was also part of is counted to film 2?
I would rather see this type of money go toward Avatar the last air bender done right
I wish too!
The thing people are forgetting is the money they will make afterward from the new tech for the films. Ever since T2 and Titanic the tech from those movies is the new tech the industry uses from there. If Cameron gave the studio a % of the tech patents or stock of the companies that make the tech they will make their $ back at some point. That has been the thing I think that I have admired Cameron for awhile now, his stories have been a bit generic but when it comes to the tech and cameras he has made $ from dude is a genius. He has been at the fore front for some time now.
Also if I recall I think they shot a least part 2 & 3 at the same time ala two towers/return of the king. So yeah the budget will appear large at first glance but when u factor in that it's for 2 or more movies it isn't as bad as it seems.
I think it’s 2b for all 4 of them
I'm so weirded out how John writes.
He must be factoring in the cost of all 4 sequels at 250 million each with marketing, because then it would add up to needing 2 billion to break even. It's a clever way to build buzz for the sequels and drive water cooler discussions.
Don't forget didn't they shoot a bunch of sequels all at the same time? Maybe he's talking about all of them together?
Flights to Pandora is really expensive
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣.
Don't forget the actors they have hire over there too.
Hahahahahahahaha there's not enough people that's paying to get Avatar to 2 Billion
Fax lol ppl don’t understand how much that is for a movie to make it’ll maybe hit 1.2 tbh
@@danbh84 that was then, people went for the VR experience and not for the actual movie or its plot, back then it was novel and apart from maybe the first Matrix cinematically no one had seen anything like it, these days even an average Marvel movie could give the same experience, so unless they can top what is common today cinematically that logic doesn't apply here
So its only twice as expensive as Fast X? I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.
John you forgot they shoot Avatar 2&3 at same time between 2017-2021 and preproduction work, scripts/world-building on these movies started around 2013-2014.
Could be that Cameron need Avatar2 to make 2B WW to cover cost of Part2&3 and their marketing combined, that would make more sense.
people might forget when James Cameron annouced that he shot avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5 at the same time.
This probably the cost of the while thing at once.
@@rishdawg9618 The movie is all VFX that takes probably 2 years for each movie to complete.
Avatar 5 has not yet begun filming
It won't. Avatar's thing was the 3D. The story, characters and setting were forgettable at best. Just Pocahontas in Space. 3D is just a common thing today and the truth is nobody cares about Avatar now. They had to re-release the film 3 or 4 times to pass Avengers Endgame.
I do believe is Cameron's worst work, wich makes it a good movie in the end.