Disney Irish
Premium Member
Academy Reveals List Of 201 Films Eligible For Best Picture Oscar Race
Oscars: Academy Reveals List Of 201 Films Eligible For Best Picture Race
Finally saw Avatar 3.
Like all of them, it’s “fine.”
I think the thing for me is I never connected to these characters. I barely remember who they are.
Maybe I’m just shallow and would be more into it if one of them looked like 90’s Harrison Ford.
Maybe, outside of some action scenes, they’re just on the “meh” side.
The female villain was more interesting, but also moved like a stripper or something lol.
There were things that stuck out as odd, which we discussed on the way home, but I don’t even remember anymore. I felt it was darker, more(?) cursing, etc.
They’re all pretty, but forgettable. I don’t get why they’re huge.
Bring on Mando.
Yeah, the story and characters aren't great, but it's more like a theme park attraction.
I agree. Even more than that, they appeal very well to non-domestic audiences in a consistent across the board way. So when people say they don’t get where this movie lands compared to other movies they have top of mind, I’d also counter with you probably aren’t living in France.
Avatar 3 up to $1.23B, for anyone thinking its not going to get to $1.5B or beyond is fooling themselves, it still continues to hold well.
So the prediction by some of $1.7B or so is probably right about where this will end up.
So the prediction by some of $1.7B or so is probably right about where this will end up.
Avatar is a strange case in that there is debate about whether or not it's a disappointment when compared to the $2.9 and $2.3 billion grosses of the first two.
Only in the realm of James Cameron and/or Avatar is that a discussion.
It does however show that audience interest has declined, and that is likely due to the shorter release time between 2 and 3 as well as a sense of repetitiveness in part 3.
The question isn't will they greenlight a part 4 so much as how will that look?
One final movie with a longer gap would likely perform better than part 3.
However, does it make still make sense to do two movies that might only gross a "mere" $1.5 billion each?
Parts 2 and 3 were filmed together in part because it made sense financially. These movies are expensive. Is part 4 cheaper to make because the tech has been developed, or does James Cameron have some crazy expensive new ideas in mind?
Paramount’s latest venture is filing suit against Warner Brothers for information regarding valuation of the Netflix deal:
![]()
Paramount Skydance sues Warner Bros. Discovery in hostile takeover attempt
The lawsuit comes shortly after the WBD board once again told shareholders to reject Paramount's offer.www.cnbc.com
"WBD has failed to include any disclosure about how it valued the Global Networks stub equity, how it valued the overall Netflix transaction, how the purchase price reduction for debt works in the Netflix transaction, or even what the basis is for its 'risk adjustment' of our $30 per share all-cash offer," Ellison said in the letter on Monday.
"We filed suit this morning in Delaware Chancery Court to ask the court to simply direct WBD to provide this information so that WBD shareholders have what they need to be able to make an informed decision as to whether to tender their shares into our offer," Ellison said.
Ellison also informed WBD shareholders on Monday that Paramount intends to nominate directors for election to WBD's board at the company's 2026 annual meeting, in a move that would add a proxy fight to the equation.
I think they are looking at making 4 & 5 together just like 2&3 did. 4&5 are suppose another two parter.Avatar is a strange case in that there is debate about whether or not it's a disappointment when compared to the $2.9 and $2.3 billion grosses of the first two.
Only in the realm of James Cameron and/or Avatar is that a discussion.
It does however show that audience interest has declined, and that is likely due to the shorter release time between 2 and 3 as well as a sense of repetitiveness in part 3.
The question isn't will they greenlight a part 4 so much as how will that look?
One final movie with a longer gap would likely perform better than part 3.
However, does it make still make sense to do two movies that might only gross a "mere" $1.5 billion each?
Parts 2 and 3 were filmed together in part because it made sense financially. These movies are expensive. Is part 4 cheaper to make because the tech has been developed, or does James Cameron have some crazy expensive new ideas in mind?
Avatar is a strange case in that there is debate about whether or not it's a disappointment when compared to the $2.9 and $2.3 billion grosses of the first two.
Imagine actually calling a billion dollar movie a flop…. For all the complaining about Disney films…. They will have 3 movies in the top 5… a rare feat for any studioUsing this quote to respond to the conversation generally:
If $2.9 billion to $2.3 billion wasn’t considered a “flop,” then neither is $2.3b to $1.7-ish billion.
Side note: domestically, Avatar is at about $344 million, Wicked at about $342 million.
My guess is he must think it will allow him to tell more stories, like how D+ allowed dozens of smaller Marvel stories to be told. It was very hit or miss for D+/Marvel so if that’s his expectation he better hit it out of the park.Guess he really enjoys and is really excited for watching his DCU movies from the comfort of his couch rather than the full theatrical experience.
Imagine actually calling a billion dollar movie a flop…. For all the complaining about Disney films…. They will have 3 movies in the top 5… a rare feat for any studio
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.