Posted on 12/20/2022 12:44:43 PM PST by Red Badger
Shares in Disney have dropped by nearly 5% in response to a disappointing debut for its highly anticipated "Avatar" sequel "The Way of Water."
Why it matters: Investors are looking to see whether Disney can increase profitability in its traditional businesses, like theaters and parks, as its streaming losses continue to mount. "Avatar: The Way of Water" needs to bring in at least $2 billion globally over its lifetime to reach profitability.
* Its performance will determine whether the famous James Cameron movie franchise lives on past its second installation.
Details: The sci-fi sequel brought in $134 million in its domestic debut, per Comscore, less than the roughly $150 million Disney initially expected.
* Disney lowered its full-weekend projections on Saturday after the film brought in $53 million in its first two days domestically.
* Despite little competition at the box office over the weekend, the film wasn't able to lure as many moviegoers as previous hits this year.
* "The Way of Water" was the sixth-highest domestic opener of the year, following Disney's "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" ($187 million), Disney's "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" ($181 million), Universal's "Jurassic World: Dominion" ($145 million), Disney's "Thor: Love and Thunder" ($144 million) and Warner Bros.' "The Batman" ($134 million).
Yes, but: Despite lower-than-expected results, the film still opened as the top film in every market it was shown in globally, helping it bring in $301 million internationally for a total of $435 million in its worldwide debut.
* That total made the "Avatar" sequel the third-highest global weekend debut in the pandemic era, per Comscore.
* "Cameron's films have always been marathon runners, not sprinters, so it's the final gross that will be key," Comscore's senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian told Axios last week.
By the numbers: The first "Avatar," which came out around the same time in December 2009, grossed $77 million during its opening weekend.
* Even the most successful of films have an average drop-off of around 40% in their second weekends."Avatar" dropped less than 2% to earn $75 million over that year's Christmas weekend.
* "Top Gun: Maverick," the highest-grossing domestic release of 2022, dropped 26% during its second weekend in early June.
“a total of $435 million in its worldwide debut”.
I said it in another thread yesterday, but I’m not gonna bet against Cameron when it comes to pulling in the dollars. Avatar 2 had come in not too far of a half a billion in one weekend. I don’t intend to see the film, but Cameron knows how to make money.
“People are tired of spending their hard earned money on liberal woke subliminal messages.”
People spent $435 million to see it.
My thoughts exactly. Like you I saw the first for the same reason but the woke crap in it was excruciating. I’ll pass on round 2.
Well at least you're still supporting the most woke streaming service there is, so there's that.
We never see anything until later. But I kind of liked the first ‘Avatar’. It was very creative and different - and it’s a Fantasy. I didn’t see much that was more ‘woke’ in it than in many other fantasies, even much older ones.
Well, there were folks on here calling ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ woke crap before anyone ever saw it.
I’m not going to bother with Avatar 2 (didn’t see Avatar 1 either), but it’s on track to gross close to $1.5 billion if it follows the traditional trajectory of movie earnings. If it tracks like Avatar 1 and Titanic, it’ll make more.
Perhaps more transgender and homosexual love stories will help?
“Dances with Wolves” in the 23rd century
Is this a continuation of the Last Airbender?
How can such a piece of crap movie about ugly smurfs cost so many hundreds of millions. Ridiculous!!
Saw it over the weekend (part of birthday get-together for friend’s son).
Plot was extraordinarily stupid even by Hollywood standards. The earth forces are caricatures of evil. Whose military aircraft STILL cannot get windows installed which will stop an arrow.
The CGI was extremely good, very pretty. That was the only saving grace.
Go woke; go broke.
I never saw the first avatar but people told me that was the plot.
“needs to bring in at least $2 billion globally over its lifetime to reach profitability”
HOLY CRAP! How much did it cost to MAKE?
Disney clearly was going to make more Avatar, whether folks wanted it or not.... After investing heavily in creating an entire land in there animal kingdom theme park to the IP... that no one, that I know of was clamoring for, it was clear from the start that Disney wanted to milk and expand this IP further...
However, no one else really cared.... Avatar was released 13 years ago, it was a weak, long winded, slow moving and unoriginal, boiler plate story.. it offered nothing of note, other than the stunning CGI, which at the time was cutting edge. Think I’m wrong? Without going to a search engine can you even name any of the characters from the first movie? anyone?
However, its 13 years later, CGI is commonplace, its not a wow factor any more... I am sure the new one has stunning visuals... but so did Aquaman.. and that thing was a stinker from head to toe. Point being, stunning CGI is commonplace, it’s not a breakthrough technology any longer.
I have no doubt that with Disney banking it it will find an audience, but enough to justify spending BILLIONS on making it?? Only if it is weighty enough to truly launch this franchise into offshoots that will actually make money, because its highly doubtful the movie itself will make enough money directly to justify its cost, if it ends up making money at all directly.
However it it puts the world of Avatar into the minds of folks and Disney can milk streaming shows and other things and toys and more rides and merchandise then it will have served its purpose.
It seems pretty clear as its own stand alone movie, its not likely to justify its existence, whether it will branch out the IP to other sources of loyalty and revenue remains to be seen.
See post 36... As a stand alone movie, it will likely not see a profit, or certainly not enough of one to justify its expense... However if it is able to launch the franchise into other ares, it will serve its purpose... and that, IMHO is really what Disney is looking for... not a one shot huge payday for a single movie, but a franchise it can milk for money for years and years to come.
See post 36... this isn’t a go woke go broke, its more of a spend too much to make, and it won’t make a direct profit... with Disney backing it it will find a decent enough audience, but they did overspend on making it, if you look at it from simply a standalone movie...
Once you realize this is Disney trying to branch out a IP/Franchise that they can exploit for every dollar it could generate, the calculus is different.
This movie will do well enough at the box office, even though like the first one it will likely be a boring, slow moving, unoriginal, derived plot... It may not make a direct profit, or it may wind up making breaking even to a slight profit. I f I had to gamble as a direct movie standalone it will lose money..
However it it does successfully bring this franchise into the limelight and allow disney to branch out from the core Disney could make tons off of it... Whether or not that will happen has yet to be seen, but make no mistake, Disney never, ever viewed this as simply a movie to go to the theaters and make money... this is the launching pad to expand a franchise... Will it work? We shall see.
I went to see it.
Objectively it a visual overload but not worth the $10 I paid.
Poor story and characters.
Huge plot holes.
Anti American.
“Dances with Wolves” meet “Free Willy” is a very accurate assessment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.