Avatar 2: The Way of Water

Tools    





If corrected by inflation, some argue the most expensive movie ever made is Cleopatra from 1963.

This Avatar movie cost about 250 million as they share a 1 billion dollar budget for the four movies. Which, corrected for inflation, is 2/3 more per movie what cost the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which costs 94 million per movie, which is 148 million corrected for inflation 2022 prices.

It is true the 4 Avatar movies combined are the most expensive film production project ever. Given they are earning at least 1 billion dollars per release (which will happen unless they are horrible), they together will make like 5-6 billion at least so will be profitable.
wait avatar is the most expensive movies?



If corrected by inflation, some argue the most expensive movie ever made is Cleopatra from 1963.

This Avatar movie cost about 250 million as they share a 1 billion dollar budget for the four movies. Which, corrected for inflation, is 2/3 more per movie what cost the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which costs 94 million per movie, which is 148 million corrected for inflation 2022 prices.

It is true the 4 Avatar movies combined are the most expensive film production project ever. Given they are earning at least 1 billion dollars per release (which will happen unless they are horrible), they together will make like 5-6 billion at least so will be profitable.
Oh, earlier estimates were 250 million, but Avatar 2 actually cost 350 to 400 million to produce:
https://www.cbr.com/avatar-the-way-o...gering-budget/

This also means the four avatar movies combined will likely cost around 1.5 billion or more to produce (the budget of future movies can be even increased if Avatar 2 continues to make so much money).

Avatar 2 already earned 1.5 billion at the box office over slightly more than two weeks. So it is already profitable as it earned four times the production budget. Typically, movies have to earn over three times their production budget to be profitable. It is likely to replicate the absurd success of the first Avatar.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that Avatar (2009) benefited from a weak dollar: as the Euro and the Yen were strong against the dollar back in 2009-2010, movie box office revenues in Europe and Japan, when converted to dollars were larger than today: one Euro was worth 1.4 dollars back them, now its worth only 1.06 dollars. This means the original Avatar could gross so much because it was measured in dollars, and the currencies of other major box office markets were strong against the dollar.



I tried digging into his more positive videos and one of them was for Spider-Man: No Way Home. He can't be trusted.
Spider-man: No Way Home was significantly better than Avatar 2.




Avatar 2 Way of the Water(2022)

Jimmy Cameron is back with his billion dollar environmental CGI message movie Avatar 2 Way of the Water. This is Cameron's eight film (I don't count Piranaha II) and it's easily his worst. But it's not a bad film it's just an okay film. The movie feels like an amusement park ride the water scenes are breathtaking, the action scenes are great. But even spending the amount of money they did on this it still feels like a CGI world.

The big issue with the film is dialogue, characters, and writing. All the writers on this film are in their 50's/60's and watching them fumble teenage dialogue was rough. It's pretty sad when the silent whale creature is the most compelling and interesting character in the film. But the movies not bad, the three hours move quickly and Stephen Lang returns as the one person in the film with a personality though he seems dumber so the plot can move forward.

Avatar's issues are that it feels like a 13 episode TV series that's been butchered into a 3 hour movie. Themes, ideas, characters, plot points are rapidly discharged to move onto the next 30 million dollar set piece. The worst victim in all of this is Neytiri, Zoe Saldana's character who was basically the star of the first film...in this one she's reduced to a one dimensional mom figure. Cameron's vision is a world with five children (yes this is a film about family) and once again having multiple new characters hurts the film because they aren't well developed. They each have their one thing and then we move on.

The frustrating thing about Avatar 2 is it should be Avatar 3 The first hour of the film could have been a two hour film of it's own thing and we could have gotten to know the children and the science and the world. We didn't get that and that makes me sad. Still after seeing what passes for a 200 million dollar movie today I'll give the film a passing three stars.




Welcome to the human race...
I'm not seeing those complaints myself. It's an epic five-film saga with a large cast of characters so it makes sense that one of the leads of the first film might be sidelined this time around in order to make room to develop new characters who need to be firmly established in order to carry on with the rest of the series. To do so by transporting them to a whole new environment that they have to learn about along with the audience rather than just recycling the first film's forest setting kills two birds with one stone. The idea of an Avatar 2 that's purely two hours of set-up (especially since I thought that was the point of the first film) does not sound more appealing what we actually got.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



It's not my fave from Cameron for sure (I'll reveal my directorial ranking someplace in due time) but imo a bit better than the first one. I'm def looking forward to his 3rd film.



I'm not seeing those complaints myself. It's an epic five-film saga with a large cast of characters so it makes sense that one of the leads of the first film might be sidelined this time around in order to make room to develop new characters who need to be firmly established in order to carry on with the rest of the series. To do so by transporting them to a whole new environment that they have to learn about along with the audience rather than just recycling the first film's forest setting kills two birds with one stone. The idea of an Avatar 2 that's purely two hours of set-up (especially since I thought that was the point of the first film) does not sound more appealing what we actually got.

I think if they made the film about the resurrected Marines as Navi and spent the film developing and establishing the characters that would have been a better film. We could have gotten a dying earth and what that would have looked like. We know Kiri is a "miracle" child but that could have/should have been a bigger part of the story. They could have done a much better job with Spider because what we got was kinda silly and it led to a final act that was a little silly.



Welcome to the human race...
I think they'll show Earth eventually - it makes more sense to show the extent to which humans are still willing to occupy Pandora first and, considering how this film was about the Na'vi essentially realising that they'd have to go on the offensive if they wanted to stop the humans completely, it tracks that the series will ultimately conclude on Earth and be a complete contrast to what will presumably be four films set on Pandora. I think they just have to establish characters like Kiri or Spider in supporting roles to set them up in ways that will matter even more in later films while this particular installment centres on Lo'ak and presumably sideline him in order to give other characters a turn.