The Death of Air Bender 2?

[Mr Light]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49137

Will Smith has found another project to be involved in with his son, and it sounds suitably epic - a large scale science-fiction film to be directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The plot centers around a young boy, along with his estranged father, who have to navigate an abandoned, devastated Earth 1000 years in the future after crashing their spaceship.

The script will be written by Shyamalan and co-writer Gary Whitta (THE BOOK OF ELI). Looks like Shyamalan may be getting back into his own material again. To quote M. Night, "The chance to make a scary, science-fiction film starring Jaden and Will is my dream project."

Those kids aren't getting any younger. If MNS is working on this for the next year or so, does this effectively kill the chances of Air Bender 2?

Of course, they did say in that movie that the Day of Black Sun was ?three? years away, giving them some leeway in the aging if they take awhile to get it made.

Or even better, could this mean a different director could make 2 and 3?

I still want to see the live action movies, no matter how bad the first one was.

 

[bigdaddy]

I think the fact the first one made no money is what killed the movie, but maybe that just me.

Yes, the movie made no money, "But it made 300 million dollars!", while nice doesn't mean anything if the movie cost $180 million and the ads cost $150 million then you made no money.

All this says is that MNS is going to be the death of movies.

 

[Dream]

I freaking hate MNS. If we had gotten any other director, we probably could have gotten a good trilogy over the next few years.

 

[Merky]

Airbender deserves to be dead as long as MNS is heading the project. I will never forgive him for the fuckery I saw in theaters.

 

[Starbreaker]

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

 

[CaptainCanada]

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

I suspect he's looking to test the limits of his ability to attract filmgoers.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's no reason that a sequel to a movie needs to have the same director.

That said, fuck the Airbender movies.

 

[Harvey]

Yes, the movie made no money, "But it made 300 million dollars!", while nice doesn't mean anything if the movie cost $180 million and the ads cost $150 million then you made no money.

The movie made $319 million worldwide off a reported $150 million budget. Assuming prints and advertising were equal to the film's production budget, it still reached profitability. Add to that ancillary revenues (home video, television) and it no doubt made the studio a healthy (if not overwhelming) sum.

That said, by all accounts the movie was a disaster. I certainly have no interest in seeing it, or any live-action follow-up that is a direct sequel to Shyamalan's movie. I agree with Dennis.

 

[Mr Light]

Don't forget about all the toys it sold! It's all about the toys, these days. $6.99 for a 50 cent hunk of plastic?

 

[OmahaStar]

I think the fact the first one made no money is what killed the movie, but maybe that just me.

Yes, the movie made no money, "But it made 300 million dollars!", while nice doesn't mean anything if the movie cost $180 million and the ads cost $150 million then you made no money.

All this says is that MNS is going to be the death of movies.

tsk tsk ... We talked about this. Why are you still trying to do "math" when you know you suck at it?

 

[bigdaddy]

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?

 

[Merky]

I wouldn't count breaking even as a full profit.. Paramount probably expected 500 mil at the box offices and were disappointed it only broke even.

Paramount learned their lesson. Thank god the ST reboot didn't end up like Avatar... god I would have slit my wrists.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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?

Go ahead and pursue the math a little further - what was their percentage of net profit against outlay, here?

Making films is a risky business - as the old saw has it, getting into movie financing is a likely way to make a small fortune...out of a large one. People invest in movies because there's a shot at making a lot of money, a big return on their investment. 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.

 

[exodus]

I wouldn't count breaking even as a full profit.. Paramount probably expected 500 mil at the box offices and were disappointed it only broke even.

Agreed.
I think the regular viewing audience of "Avatar's" Nickelodeon cartoon was enough to bring in money to break even. It was that plus the combined profit to be made off the mass public they were expecting.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Judging by the reception of the first film I'm surprised the fate of the sequel is even in question.

That said, the video shelf at my Blockbuster was empty for weeks so maybe it did really well on video?

 

[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]

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]

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.