LogFAQs > #970419444

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Movie performance generally falls off hard after the first couple weeks. The studio is trying to bank on the idea that Cameron movies intrinsically have more "staying power" and will keep bigger crowds for longer. But they were hoping for more of a head start than they got, either way.

And this movie cost over 2 billion dollars to make. It straight up has to be the top grossing movie of all time just to break even. And they don't want to break even, they want a profit.

So, ridiculous as it sounds, yes, its underperformed because it cost so damn much. Its the exact same aituation that killed Waterworld some years ago, and the irony is actually hilarious.

It did not cost 2 billion. People are just going by with Cameron comments that it needed 2-3 billion to break even. 1 billion in variance is a fucking lot so its most likely a joke comment at how expensive it was. The most realistic budget I can find online seems to be 350-400 million with or without marketing which could be 200+mill. Still expensive and still needing close to 2 billion for profit. Also returns from the international market tends to be around 35% opposed to the 50-60% from domestic.

ALSO the filming of avatar 3 was done simultaneously with 2.

Spending 1 or 2 bill on a movie is just outrageously insane.