The Death of Air Bender 2?

[CaptainCanada]

I wouldn't be surprised if they eaked out a mild profit on the first film, when all the sides were added. The decision to proceed with a sequel would be based on whether they thought a sequel would hold/build on the first's audience; based on the awful reception, I think that's a doubtful prospect.

[Harvey]

bigdaddy wrote:

---

150 million plus 180 million equals less than the movie made.

But why use math when people aren't bright enough to figure it out?

Where's your $180 million figure coming from? Both The Numbers and Box Office Mojo report a production budget of $150 million (and, The Numbers also points out that the DVD sales for the movie were an additional $30 million).

And, a quick search informs me that my estimate of $150 million for P&A was high--Paramount spent closer to $130 million according to this story.

Thus, the film cost the studio about $280 million. Excluding television sales, their revenue totaled close to $350 million--that's a $70 million profit. It's not huge, by blockbuster standards (consider that The Dark Knight made back its $185 million production budget as well as a good portion of P&A in DVD sales alone), but it's still a profit.

[OmahaStar]

Dennis wrote:

---

They're not inclined to invest in sequels to a film that cost an enormous amount to produce and promote and which returned a small profit - what if the next one winds up costing a little more and making a little less.

Welcome to Hollywood math 101.

And yet, this exact same studio has done just what you're describing, with the Star Trek films. It wasn't until The Voyage Home, the fourth in its series, that they truly had a blockbuster. Both 2 and 3 made less money than the movie before it, which is what you describe above, yet they kept going.

It's Paramount. They love to throw money at failing franchises, and sometimes they strike gold.

And sometimes they bring out 20 sequels to a movie about a freak serial killer who wears a hockey mask and they end up losing money each time, so ...

[Merky]

I think the difference in this case is that there were fandoms that supported the movies.

Airbender has a fandom that turned their back on it and were very vocal about it. Paramount knows that they can't risk another movie knowing that the fandom will not support it as long at MNS has creative control and casting remains the same.

[Sindatur]

I thought the casting was alright, except for Uncle Iro being so skinny and acting completely different than the Anime character. That, and the butchering of the pronounciations were my biggest complaints.

[exodus]

Harvey wrote:

---

Where's your $180 million figure coming from? Both The Numbers and Box Office Mojo report a production budget of $150 million (and, The Numbers also points out that the DVD sales for the movie were an additional $30 million).

It's in your links.
$187 million is the films overseas gross.

Sindatur wrote:

---

I thought the casting was alright, except for Uncle Iro being so skinny and acting completely different than the Anime character. That, and the butchering of the pronounciations were my biggest complaints.

This and the race bending issue became the least of the films problems upon release IMO.

The acting, the directing, the editing, the pacing, the character development & motivation, the choreography was ALL bad. All of it!!

[Dream]

Dump MNS and get a new director. Any other person would be an upgrading. Also lower the budget, these type of movies should have a smaller budget like the Percy Jackson movies (95 million). I think most fans would give the sequel a chance.

[SG-17]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

I read this today: Does Will Smith not want Wild Wild West to be considered his worst film anymore?

Wild Wild West was a good film.

I Am Legend, with its changed ending was his worst film (well Hancock might overtake it).

[clint g]

The powers that be would probably be better off going in the other direction and making an animated film sequel to the Avatar cartoon rather then redoing the series as a live action film.

[Sindatur]

clint g wrote:

---

The powers that be would probably be better off going in the other direction and making an animated film sequel to the Avatar cartoon rather then redoing the series as a live action film.

They are making a Sequel Series for Nickelodeon, pictures of the main female Character were released within the last month

[Dream]

Sindatur wrote:

---

They are making a Sequel Series for Nickelodeon, pictures of the main female Character were released within the last month

Yeah, the show already has a full season.

The main character is really Wonder Womanish.

[clint g]

Ah, I see they're one step ahead of me

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Harvey wrote:

---

Excluding television sales, their revenue totaled close to $350 million--that's a $70 million profit.

It would be, if the studio got every penny of the box office gross - it's not like exhibitors actually make all their money on the popcorn, you know. And the overseas split is considerably less favorable, and there are foreign distributors in the mix as well.

[Cutter John]

I suspect a lot of the first films grosses were from fans of the series who went out of curiosity. I doubt many of them would be willing to go back for a second helping after that experience.

Honestly people, just go rent the tv series. It's so much better than watching a cut down condensed version of the story.

[Harvey]

Dennis wrote:

---

It would be, if the studio got every penny of the box office gross - it's not like exhibitors actually make all their money on the popcorn, you know. And the overseas split is considerably less favorable, and there are foreign distributors in the mix as well.

Excellent point. When you factor in the exhibitor's cut (as much as 50%) it's barely profitable, if at all. Can't believe I missed that. D'oh!

exodus wrote:

---

It's in your links.
$187 million is the films overseas gross.

That doesn't make sense, either. If $180 million is supposed to be the foreign gross, not only is it off by $7 million, but the bigdaddy's $150 million number doesn't make any sense, because the film grossed $130 million domestically. His numbers are still off, although the argument is a bit moot, since Dennis wisely corrected my conclusion.