'Avatar 2' Is So Expensive It Must Become the 'Fourth or Fifth Highest-Grossing Film in History' Just To Break Even (gizmodo.com) 139
How expensive is "Avatar: The Way of Water"? Early reports have claimed the production budget alone was in the $250 million range, but director James Cameron isn't willing to give a hard number just yet. The only answer Cameron would give about the sequel's budget when asked by GQ magazine was the following: "Very fucking [expensive]." From a report: Cameron apparently told Disney and 20th Century Studios executives that his sequel budget was so high it represented "the worst business case in movie history." According to the director's estimates, "you have to be the third or fourth highest-grossing film in history. That's your threshold. That's your break even."
On the current chart of highest-grossing movies worldwide (unadjusted for inflation), Cameron's original 2009 "Avatar" ranks at the top with $2.9 billion. Disney's "Avengers: Endgame" is in second position with $2.7 billion, while Cameron's "Titanic" remains in the third slot with $2.1 billion. That means, according to Cameron, that if "Avatar: The Way of Water" wants to break even, it'll need to overtake either âoeStar Wars: The Force Awakens" ($2.07 billion) or "Avengers: Infinity War" ($2.05 billion) in the fourth or fifth slots, respectively.
On the current chart of highest-grossing movies worldwide (unadjusted for inflation), Cameron's original 2009 "Avatar" ranks at the top with $2.9 billion. Disney's "Avengers: Endgame" is in second position with $2.7 billion, while Cameron's "Titanic" remains in the third slot with $2.1 billion. That means, according to Cameron, that if "Avatar: The Way of Water" wants to break even, it'll need to overtake either âoeStar Wars: The Force Awakens" ($2.07 billion) or "Avengers: Infinity War" ($2.05 billion) in the fourth or fifth slots, respectively.
Quite a gamble. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Take out the special effects, and it was a very forgettable, very predictable story. Competent enough in execution but not the type of thing you would ever talk about afterward.
I tend to agree I don't see a sequel being as successful as this allegedly needs to be, but I've been wrong about all sorts of ideas that became wildly popular. Presumably they've done their market research. Good luck to them.
Re:Quite a gamble. (Score:4, Insightful)
Take out the graphics and nifty 3D you have "Dances with Wolves" in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom-line, there aren't that many different plots that people find interest in.
Re: (Score:3)
I regret that Cameron made Avatar, mainly because if somebody now makes Deathworld by Harry Harrison into a movie, it will seem derivative.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad somebody else noticed that, I always referred to it as "Dances with Smurfs". I didn't hate the movie but yeah, the story was nothing special.
Re: (Score:2)
It was nearly the indentical plot of Fern Gully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoyment tip: don't do that. You definitely want the special effects.
Re: Quite a gamble. (Score:3)
I too think it will be an amazing flop (as I'm not a top ten grossing film, but likely top 50, but that's a flop at that budget).
But if there's anyone that can do it, it's the guy with the 2 of the top 3 grossing movies (titanic and avatar), and 2 movies that were the top grossing R rated movies when they came out until a new movie displaced the record (true lies and Terminator 2. He displaced his own top grossing R rated movie).
This guy makes movies that break records. I don't think they're the best movies
Re:Quite a gamble. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the story, it's ok. It's an enjoyable SF movie, entertaining but nothing special.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't mind watching alone, buy a VR headset with a high resolution. Watching 3D movies on such a device actually works extremely well when combined with a decent video player: https://skybox.xyz/ [skybox.xyz] (no affiliation with them, I just like their product)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, the 3D sucks (Score:2)
To be very honest, the 3D sucks. Why you ask?
Because the director / animator constantly pulling focus make my brain go bzzzzzrk!
In the real world we move our gaze around, adjusting focus as we look at the foreground or background. Since Avatar did this for us it felt very exhausting to watch.
Re:To be honest, the 3D sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
To be very honest, the 3D sucks. Why you ask?
Because the director / animator constantly pulling focus make my brain go bzzzzzrk!
In the real world we move our gaze around, adjusting focus as we look at the foreground or background. Since Avatar did this for us it felt very exhausting to watch.
Actually, Avatar was the ONE 3D movie that got this right. They almost constantly had a very large depth of field, allowing the viewers to choose what to look at since everything was crisp. This made the 3D experience great. The only thing I ever saw in 3D that was as good was a U2 concert compilation from a bunch of shows in South America in 3D. That was in iMax, and the sound quality was amazing too.
I later watched Avatar at home in good resolution, but 2D, and it was really bad. Pulling focus to direct the viewer’s attention is so important in 2D film making to create a great sense of depth, and without it, everything just looked flat. And all the computer animated stuff just looked fake because of it.
With The Force Awakens, the situation was reversed. The narrow depth of field really bothered me for exactly the reasons you described. It’s hard for the brain to accept when something you look at and try to focus on remains out of focus.
But watching The Force Awakens at home on my 4K TV without 3D was awesome. JJ Abrams is really great at using depth of field to make a great 2D experience with depth, and he's also a master of using it to direct the user's attention.
To truly make a film work in both formats, everything would have to be recorded twice, with different focus settings, or with light field cameras so that focus can be decided in post. Not sure light field video cameras exist though...
Re: To be honest, the 3D sucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly it started a trend for 3D movies. These fell into two camps - a) Animated CGI like Frozen / Toystory where animators rendered left + right eye views of the scene so it true 3D. b) bastardized 2D movies, mostly live action that were converted to 3D by using software to essentially drape the image over
Re: (Score:2)
For me, I can't see 3D. I saw the first Avatar in Arclight (RIP)'s Cinemarama Dome back then. Captain America 3D as well. The last time I could see 3D was back in the rad 80s for Disneyland's Captain EO. Also, I couldn't see the 3D effects in CA Adventure like a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the graphics, it's the quality of the 3D which - literally - has to be seen to be believed.
The 3D was poor. Because there is still a focus plane, the viewer isn't able to simply look around at the world in the way they could in real life - if the background is out of focus then it's out of focus. Cameron even used this problem to force you to look at specific things at time. So it wasn't even really 3D, more 2½D.
And the story was complete shit. I don't know why anyone would want to watch another one; I'd like my money back for the first.
Re:Quite a gamble. (Score:4, Funny)
The first Avatar movie was only a hit because of the graphics. I still haven't even seen it, because I heard the story sucks.
You're probably already familiar with the story. [mattbateman.net]
Re:Quite a gamble. (Score:4, Insightful)
The first Avatar movie was only a hit because of the graphics. I still haven't even seen it, because I heard the story sucks.
You're probably already familiar with the story. [mattbateman.net]
Sure, but that's also because every story is kinda familiar [savannahgilbo.com].
Notice how about half-way through a movie things are going great but you suddenly get a bad feeling? That's because things have to start going really wrong to push the protagonist to their lowest point before they really in act 3.
That's not really a bad thing, good writers tend to be good readers because story telling is about refreshing and adapting old stories.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had a point when I wrote the above I g
Re: (Score:2)
The 3D stuff was a novelty and it was one of the first blockbusters that used that format. However, it had a lot of fanfare, but after a while, it just died out... Storyline is predictable, the characters were cool and one got their RDA value of a nice fantasy elven trope versus the evil human corp soldiers. However, what was new then isn't really something that will pack the theaters now.
In general, any underwater movies are going to be expensive, and perhaps underperform. Waterworld comes to mind, alth
Re: (Score:3)
Waterworld was a flop in America, and American ticket sales did not recover costs, but it did pretty darned well overseas, so in the end I don't think it can be considered a flop so much as an underperformer. What it did do is shred Kevin Costner's reputation, who was the main producer.
If you want to see a box office bomb on the level that Avatar 2 might end up being, look at Cleopatra from 1963. Because of the massive production costs, even though it did well, the bar needed to be so high just to recoup lo
Re: (Score:2)
Let me throw a curve ball at you just for fun. Suppose Avatar 3 and 4 were always just a misdirection to cover up that 2 was a planned catastrophe from the start? Just really spend whatever the hell he wanted to play as he wanted, no concern for profit.
Go out, not on a high note with the financiers, but with the movie makers - who get new tools, paid for with the expenditure of Cameron's political capital.
Clive Cussler said it was his dream to have the last words he hears in a hospital be "Sir, it's t
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon man, Top Gun Maverick!
Nevertheless I would agree with your point in general, except it's James Cameron. I still remember how many articles came out before Titanic on how expensive and over-budget it was, all the puns about it being a 'titanic' film and going to 'sink' Cameron.
Re: Quite a gamble. (Score:2)
Yeah, the fact that he's released 2 movies that were top grossing when released and did the same for specifically R rated movies too makes it hard to write it totally off.
Re: Quite a gamble. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if this is as good as Waterworld, I'm good to go. I enjoyed that movie. Somethings are just fun watches. You can't analysis it so much.
You can't take these movies seriously. They are just for fun and enjoy the visual effects.
I also enjoyed Avatar, despite Dances with Wolves being a significantly better way to tell that kind of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the 3D will be done right because James Frickin' Cameron (James Cameron has a personal passion for stereoscopy
The same guy who signed off on a 3D re-release of Titanic. The only movie I've seen with good cinematic use of 3D is Hugo - a kids' movie. It was as instrumental to the visual storytelling as a focus pull.
Re: (Score:3)
It's Dances with Wolves but with spaceships, marines, and aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Quite a gamble. (Score:2)
Re:Quite a gamble. (Score:5, Informative)
The first Avatar movie was only a hit because of the graphics. I still haven't even seen it, because I heard the story sucks. Now every movie has good graphics, so why see Avatar2 if the story is worse than other current movies? Seems like this should be "direct to streaming" fodder, like the "direct to DVD" a decade ago.
Possibly, but HOLY S**T look the films he's directed [wikipedia.org].
The Terminator (I & II), Aliens, Titanic, and of course Avatar. Those are massive hits that are still remembered. The only "misses" are The Abyss (which did fine, and seems to have had great reviews) and True Lies (which was a hit, just not on par with the others).
He has two of the top three grossing films of all time, and virtually every other top grossing film, including the rest of the top 6 was part of a franchise at the time of release [wikipedia.org].
Cameron seems ridiculously underrated as a director, counting on a $2B+ boxoffice for a franchise release is a good bet.
Oh, and as for the graphics look at the trailer for the original [youtube.com]. It's from 13 years ago and if that trailer was released today people would be raving about it. Now look at the new trailer [youtube.com], that's another very beautifully shot film.
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone can make it work, it's James Cameron. And I don't think anyone is doubting it will be a spectacle. The problem is will pack the theaters when other big ticket films have struggled.
Re:Quite a gamble. (Score:5, Interesting)
quantaman observed:
The only "misses" are The Abyss (which did fine, and seems to have had great reviews) and True Lies (which was a hit, just not on par with the others).
The Abyss was a theatrical disappointment only because the studio forced Cameron to cut 40 minutes out of its run-time.
My wife and I were both disappointed in the theatrical release. I recall saying, "Well, it was a good movie - but I was expecting something more from James Cameron.
When the Special Edition (i.e. - director's cut) came out, we bought the DVD. It was SUPERB! All the missed timing and "lumpiness" of the theatrical release were gone, the acting seemed to noticably improve, and, subjectively speaking, despite 40 minutes of additional and extended scenes, it seemed to go by in the blink of an eye. Where the theatrical version dragged, the SE raced like a greyhound, ratcheting up the suspense and tension with every passing moment.
When the credits rolled, I remember turning to my wife and sayiing, "Holy SHIT! Now, that was the movie I was expecting Cameron to make!
I recommend the SE without reservation - especially to folks who have only seen the theatrical version. As for True Lies? I dunno what to tell you about that ...
(Posting anonymously only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)
--
Check out my novel [amazon.com] ...
Re: (Score:2)
I heartily agree with your assessment of The Abyss.
Without those 40 minutes, one of the major points of the movie is completely missed making it un-rewatchable to me.
I've seen the SE version maybe 2 dozen times over the years.
Re: Quite a gamble. (Score:2)
Didn't true lies replace T2 as a top grossing R rated movie?
Re: (Score:2)
The movie looks beautiful. If reports come back that the plot is reasonably decent, then I'll watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "miss" is Piranha 2: The Spawning
It might be so bad it's good, but the original movie was actually brilliant, so it was a massive letdown.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember George Harrison once quipping "The Spice Girls are just as good with the sound off", and that's how I feel about Avatar. The story is basically "Pocahontas in Space", so if you're looking for some sort of intellectual stimulation on that level, then forget it. But visually, I can't think of a film that blew me away more. I can't do 3D, it just gives me double vision and a headache, so I watched it on a 2D screen, but it was spectacular to watch, and I think it would have worked just as well as a
Re: (Score:2)
Seen it a couple of times. Couldn't tell you anything about it beyond there is blue furries in it.
Re: (Score:2)
I still haven't even seen it, because I heard the story sucks.
[*spoilers*] :-)
It's about greedy corporations/governments that want to displace indigenous people to stripe-mine their lands for a rare element that magically defies gravity -- on a moon of another planet. Even though the element is apparently abundant and fairly easy to mine on this moon, they call it "Unobtainium" because of (a) lazy writing, (b) an homage to the movie "The Core", (c) the word "Speeder" was already taken by the Star Wars franchise. Eventually, the indigenous people unite around "the
Re: (Score:2)
Avatar was the same thing for the movies as Unreal was for computer games back in 1998 - an unremarkable story, but a breathtakingly beautiful alien landscape. I still remember the first time looking out of the Vortex Rikers when blaring of the siren changed to the first chords of "dusk horizon". Same thing with Avatar except its graphics aged better.
Re: Quite a gamble. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
interesting mathematics (Score:2)
$2.9 billion>$2.7 million>$2.1 billion
Ahh, perhaps the type of $ is different!
Re: (Score:3)
Hollywood Accounting.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah they will "break even behind the scenes" LONG before they break even publicly. Movie studios don't "make money", their special effects and casting and editing etc "independent companies" make a killing though.
Realistically speaking, the biggest "winners" from a movie that "makes money" are the actors and others that have a cut of the "profit" in their contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be that it's a typo, obviously.
Seems like a bad investment strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Money in should be less than money out. I feel like these things tend to have diminishing returns the bigger they get. If I were to tie up $3B in capital, I think I would rather make ten $300M movies. If their genres and release schedules are carefully considered they wouldn't necessarily compete with each other. And honestly if there were 5 or so films that I really wanted to see, I'd go to the movies more often. When there is often less than one thing a year that seems compelling I kind of lose the habit of going to the theater.
But who am I to judge. I don't have billions of dollars and I'm not in the film industry. I have millions (barely plural), tied up in boring investments like real estate. Guess I'm more risk adverse since I need to feed myself on that money.
Re:Seems like a bad investment strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine if this is 100% investment. But to Cameron this is also a passion project, which will likely also happen to make him more money than any of us will see in our lifetime, even if it's considered barely successful by blockbuster standards.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine if this is 100% investment. But to Cameron this is also a passion project, which will likely also happen to make him more money than any of us will see in our lifetime, even if it's considered barely successful by blockbuster standards.
A director walking away with a fucking obscene paycheck, along with entitled actors who think they're worth 100x what the silver screen was paying, is one of the main reasons movies struggle to make a profit today.
To put this into perspective, Terminator 2 was one of the most expensive efforts by Cameron, and one the most successful. Even that, which was quite cutting edge at the time, "only" cost $100 million. Today that's a couple of A-list paychecks.
An actual passion project for someone who is already
Re: (Score:2)
Even with 30 years inflation (The total inflation rate from 1991 to 2022 is 107.57%) that kind of film would have been $200m. And theoretically CGI costs less now per second than it did back in the 90's, although it seems like the major films pour more money into CGI than they used to so probably a wash there.
I'm one of those rare weirdos that go to see recent films that use stop motion and special effects. Nobody is making $3B off my kind but hopefully a passion project, a bit of art, doesn't cost billions
Re:Seems like a bad investment strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
One is yours, and certain groups have taken this strategy. the SciFi channel years ago found it very expensive to license science fiction movies to air for a basic cable channel. To increase their content and stay within their budget, the financed literally hundreds of movies as Sci Fi Original Films [wikipedia.org], with engrossing titles like Frankenfish and Mansquito. These movies were made for around $500k to $1M budget with terrible scripts and C-level actors, but from a business standpoint made Sci Fi some where around $2M-$5M each in advertising revenue and kept them in their niche. So in the end a good business decision.
The other school of thought is the big blockbuster deal, and there are two ways to think about this. One is kind of related to the Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] concept, in that while spending $2B on a movie is egregious (that's what the budget was) much of that work gets funneled to subsidiaries and other partners who support building the film, so the gains and losses can be spread around but it ultimately keeps people employed and provides tremendous experience to the staff of the company particularly when it comes to new technology. In Avatar 2's case, let's say it gets $1.5B in revenue, a $500M loss. Would Disney and the many production companies involved feel like that's a loss given that the size of the budget of a movie like this builds exprienced teams and infrastructure that can then support other movies? It's kind of like the cost ot develop an asset, rather than a "loss". That's one way to think strategicially about this.
The other is the same financial logic as the Apollo mission or the recent Orion mission. From Disney's perspective, James Cameron is a sure thing. he will make a spectacle, and people will go see it. And the thing is many movies the biggest line item is an A-list star, but in a $2B project with no major A-listers asking for back-end, what are the spending money on? New technologies to create a new film spectacle, that's what. Those developed technologies can then create new options for many other films. So while the Apollo project directly was a financial loss as we made no money going to the moon, hundreds of technologies that were invented as a result elevated so much of other industries that the economic benefit is estimated at $7 for every $1 spent on Apollo. From that perspective, there would be no Planet of the Apes trilogy or Thanos without the motion capture technology developed by Avatar; you could argue the MCU's special effects wouldn't even be possible without what Avatar did. The rebirth of Tarkin in Rogue One after the actor died, the younger versions of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia long after the actors are older; all of that is possible because of what Avatar did. So one could argue that the investment in a mega project like this and a visionary like James Cameron leads to technologies that make new types of movies possible, generating a return again and again even if there's a direct loss.
So it kind of depends on your strategy; in this case Disney is playing the long game I think with Avatar and that's why they made the big bet here. They don't really care if breaks even, because they'll leverage the technology developed again and again.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, there's going to be a whole lot more views and purchases of the original movie when the second movie comes out, and while they will definitely not be counting that as revenue for the second movie :) they will also be planning for that revenue.
It's actually works out fairly well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind this is Hollywood accounting. Chances are it could make a lot less and the studio would see a profit. It will be all the contractors, from the actors to the post-production people, who don't get paid if it bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind the $5 tickets. But at the time it was $7 more to add a soda and popcorn.
certainly there is a disagreeable aspect of attending a theater with the rabble. Modern movie goers are no worse than the groundlings of Shakespeare's era. Somehow people managed to attend and enjoy plays. (the problem is probably with you, and not society as a whole)
They shot two other movies at the same time (Score:5, Informative)
I think it will just break even... (Score:2)
The US audience won't be the main reason it breaks even though. This is exactly the type of movie that does well overseas though. Big flashy CGI action movies. I would bet not a great profit though..
It needed to come out ten years ago (Score:2)
Avatar was still pretty pervasive in public consciousness in 2012, and it easily would have been the blockbuster it needed to be if it had come out then, after just 3 years since the first film.
Now? I'm not so sure... movie audiences and their attitudes have changed considerably since then, and most of the hype generated by the first Avatar film is all but gone. I have no small amount of skepticism that it's going to be as successful as it apparently needs to be.
Cameron's cut (Score:2)
It's pretty clear Cameron said this to executives in terms of how much he will pocket from this movie. Even if the budget *doubled* the estimated $250 million, it would still make a tidy profit at just $1 billion in ticket sales. Thus Cameron must reap in the majority of the first billion dollars worth of profit on this movie before Disney / 20th Century Studios see their cut. In other words he flat-out told them his share is so massive it is worst business case in filmmaking history, and they still agreed
and it is only 10 years too late (Score:5, Interesting)
does anyone care now? not trying to be negative but it was quite interesting concept at the time but today, this universe seems to have been dead.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the thing isn't it? When the original film came out, plot aside (we'd seen that before) the film was like nothing we'd ever seen. Mindblowing SFX, but since then it's definitely been done again and again to the point the trailers for the new film look very much like "been there, done that"
Time will tell I suppose if the plot can overcome.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the thing isn't it? When the original film came out, plot aside (we'd seen that before) the film was like nothing we'd ever seen.
Really? Aside from the (bad) 3D it was just a largely incoherent CGI overload; nothing special at all unless you have a leaf fetish. And the plot was rancid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone care now?
Is there some kind of magic time limit on sequels?
Is anyone champing at the bit for this? (Score:2)
Audiences are no longer impressed by CGI eye candy. If the story isn't compelling the reaction will be "meh" and Avatar 2's maiden voyage will be as notable as the Titantic's.
Re: (Score:2)
Audiences are no longer impressed by CGI eye candy. If the story isn't compelling the reaction will be "meh" and Avatar 2's maiden voyage will be as notable as the Titantic's.
Titantic 3D had the best 3D I've seen in a movie, and it wasn't even shot in 3D.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You think people are gobbling down superhero/comic book movies for their deep story telling? .
Yes. The ignorant masses that consume popular culture will sit and wax poetic about the story lines of those horrible movies. They don't know any better and so they aren't bothered.
Don't get a job in accounting (Score:2)
Watch Elon figure out a way ... (Score:4, Funny)
Quit using "highest grossing" (Score:2)
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Cha-clank... (Score:4, Funny)
Avatar generated a funny Comedians in Cars ... (Score:3)
Jerry Seinfeld had an episode where he invited Joel Hodgson for coffee, and eventually Avatar came up. For me that exchange was a comedy classic. Seinfeld was cracking up too.
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee S01 E05 Joel Hodgson A Taste of Hell from on High
https://www.dailymotion.com/vi... [dailymotion.com]
"They changed the artwork. They fixed it!" (Score:3)
It looks ... similar [youtube.com]
<font face="Comic Sans">papyrus</font>
What are the other costs? (Score:2)
So, a movie costing $250 million for production needs a total of $2 billion to break even, i.e., another $1.75 billion to break even. Where is that additional $1.75 billion going? Even if marketing costs are equal to the production cost, what is the extra $1 billion for?
Maybe that's the minimum profit expected by the studios? Seems like the $250 million for production is literally noise in the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
what is the extra $1 billion for?
Maybe his terms were 50% gross revenue. They had dollar signs in their eyes and probably would have signed anything. But also, the studio charges the "movie" for distribution - but the movie itself doesn't break even until after that cut is paid off. Every movie starts out as a corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the studio. Hollywood accounting is complicated.
Should do fine. (Score:2)
People love to be preached at - enough so that they' throw money at the preachers. People also like bubble gum.
How could you go wrong with the most preachy-est bubble gum ever?
Avatar is #4 worldwide gross (Score:2)
Avatar is #4 in worldwide gross, and it was released in 2009 (non-adjusted) according to boxofficemojo.
I'm not sure they have to worry about it.
It might just pay off, but ... (Score:2)
It annoys me that Cameron seems to make/market his films like exquisite pieces of art, vs being very concerned that they tell original and captivating stories.
If it's true that this takes the 3D visual experience to a new level in theaters? People will surely pay to go because they want to see what the hype is about, and because that's something they can't just experience at home on their TV. I just feel like when you throw that kind of money at the production, it should have an amazing story line too. And
I predict: It will lose money (Score:2)
In fact, it will lose so much money the studio will leap at the chance to make more.
You can't explain it.
Space-Smurfs don't come cheap (Score:2)
Just sayin'.
destined for failure? (Score:2)
It's been years... (Score:2)
since I have gone to a theater to watch a movie. I saw the preview and the movie seems like it will be about as good as the other one and will be fun to watch. I'm probably going to go see it and probably in 3D since I probably won't be back to a theater in a long time anyway.
The 3d gimmick is fun for these specific kinds of movies.
Not sure how many more people are like me but certain movies are just best seen in theater.
"The Abyss" Sucked "only" for the terrible end (Score:2)
Gotta tack on that crappy happy ending and political message and wreck it (either would wreck it, not calling anyone out). If they ended it when the protagonist died it would have been an amazing tragedy and great movie.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't like the post is about another Minions movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I absolutely hated - no, make that despised - the original Avatar,
LOL that bad?
Re: (Score:2)