rw2516

It won't come anywhere near Top Gun: Maverick numbers.

Maxflier

I enjoyed the spectacle of the first one but couldn't give any less of a fuck about the sequel and the trailer certainly did nothing to change that. I'm sure it will still make major bank, but I imagine there are plenty of people in the same boat as me.

L. Ron zyzzle

All things considered, the 3D for the first was good. At one point I tried to swipe a bit of 3D fluff away from my face when watching it in the theaters originally.
The movie itself had similar weight; it was fading from my mind even before it was finished screening. No interest whatsoever in the sequel, other than as maybe a $4.99 Vudu purchase a year down the road. (Though I've happily balked at buying the original for the same price.)

kd5

I doubt it becomes the new #1 all-time box office champion, but I'll bet it makes a shit-ton of money. I voted #2, but we'll see. I doubt I'll see it at the theater, that experience has become a bit too pricey for us, but if it comes out on physical media (which I'll bet it does) I'll be buying the deluxe extended version on blu-ray, to have and to hold, till death do us part.

Crocker Jarmen

That's my memory as well, but I went and saw Avatar again during it's re-release last month, and man was the 3D disappointing, not at all how I remembered it 13 years ago, with the clarity and depth, how it looked like those white jellyfish things were floating all over the theatre. The 3D did not immerse me in the movie this time. I don't know if I just remember it being better than it was due to the novelty of the experience, or if there's a different process now (or even a difference from seeing it projected on film versus the digital video they play now), but when I go see Avatar 2 I'm probably going to see the "flat" version.

Alan Smithee

There were no 3D film prints, all 3D showing were digital then and now.

I can take or leave Avatar, I only hope the sequel does well so there’s more interest in 3D again. I hope it inspires more movies shot in TRUE 2-camera 3D and not post-converted garbage. I will have to see this one in a theater because it’s shot in high frame rate, and I know it won’t be available at home that way. 3D Blu-ray can only do high frame rate at 720 resolution, and so far the movies shot that way have been released in 1080 24fps.

Draven

3D is such a gimmick. Until it can be done without glasses, it’ll never stick around.

I thought the 3D for the original Avatar was fine. Never blew me away. I’ve never seen any 3D movie that benefitted from 3D. Things like HD and digital prints have actual advantages. 3D is like “wear these glasses and sometimes your eyes will lose focus and the whole thing will blur out but don’t worry, we’ll also charge you more.”

Runaway

DREDD, Drive Angry and Resident Evil: Afterlife used the gimmick in a fun way, but I really thought we've left 3D behind us. In the TV market 3D is dead for a long time.

L. Ron zyzzle

3D has been around for 70 years. It's a niche, but it's a niche that still pencils out for enough people. It's probably not 'going away' but it probably also won't be widely popular unless, as Draven says, it can be done without glasses. 3D TV does appear to be MIA for the duration, though.

Not every opinion needs to be a definitive hot take.

Runaway

3D has been around for 70 years but, only after Avatar there was a boom, which faded out after a couple of years. Most of the success of Alice in Wonderland comes from being the first big 3D movie after Avatar, which lead Disney to believe there was interest for a sequel. I was a big fan of 3D in the beginning, but Hollywood had no real interestet in using the technology, only in making more money, without effort.

Why So Blu?

Hugo also used it well and that was Master Scorsese at the helm.

DJariya

I doubt Avatar will have enough legs to even reach Top Gun Maverick’s numbers. Also, Maverick was kept in theaters for 5 plus months and it kept earning money, which surprised everyone. Unless it gets absolutely stellar reviews, interest will be heavily front loaded week 1 and 2. I doubt Disney will keep this in theaters that long.

Josh-da-man

3D seems to be a gimmick that rears its head once every thirty or so years. It came out in the 1950s and went away for a while. Then it popped up again in the 1980s with films like Friday the 13th Part 3, Jaws 3-D, and Amityville Horror 3-D -- they really seemed to like using it for "Part 3" sequels then. Then it disappeared again until Avatar in 2010.

Seems like its sticking around this time because they're using it as an upcharge at IMAX and regular theaters.

I'm sort of baffled that they didn't include 3D capability as part of the 4K spec. Seems like it would have been an easy thing to do.

Though, to be honest, I find the 3D gimmick to be distracting than enhancing, so I can take it or leave it.

Draven

It’ll have nothing on Maverick, for sure.

RichC2

For the curious the top grossers this last year:

Maverick b.o.: $716m domestic, $1.49b worldwide
Spider-Man No Way Home: $814m domestic, $1.9b worldwide

Avatar made $785m domestic, $2.9b worldwide

It made an additional $75m worldwide with its 2022 re-release ($24m domestic).

Why So Blu?

It's definitely getting a few theatrical viewings from me. Two on opening weekend and a couple more once a few friends come back from their trips overseas right after Christmas.

Mike86

I’m sure it’ll do well. Not sure if it’s going to blow up the box office or break any records but who knows.

Personally I really don’t have interest. I’ve still only seen the original one time and haven’t had any desire to revisit it. I’d go if my fiancée really wants to (which I don’t think she will) or if family and friends want to see it during the holidays.

GoldenJCJ

Top Gun: Maverick was a pleasant surprise at the B.O. and Paramount was able to milk it for “bonus” profits. It sounds like Avatar 2 NEEDS to be a huge hit to make ANY profit. I can imagine 20th Century doing everything in their power to make sure it’s a hit. Add more theaters, play longer, re-releases, etc. to ensure it’s a top earner. The added cost for 3D will help too.

Why So Blu?

You mean Disney. If they can release and re-release the MCU flicks they can certainly do that with Avatar 2.

dex14

Disney has nothing in theatres until Ant-Man in February. They will keep it chugging along in theatres.

rexinnih

Won't do WW as much as the original but will put up good numbers.

Alan Smithee

Except in the past few years, many theaters have been running fewer 3D showings even on 3D-equipped screens. The Disney movie that came out this week for example isn't even playing in 3D at every theater here, and the few that are have just ONE showing in 3D per day with the rest in lousy 2D. Clearly people aren't willing to pay the upcharges, and rather than dropping the upcharges the theaters are just dropping 3D showings, which is ridiculous. I was surprised to see the showtimes for Avatar are going to be mostly 3D, with only about 3 2D showings at most theaters, which is about how it should be. Either see the movie the way it was meant to be seen, or don't see it at all.

I consider that one of the biggest mistakes of all-time in the history of consumer electronics. It would be like putting out a new sound format now with only 2-channel capability- most of the first 4K disc titles were 3D movies on top of that. 4K at least made it possible to do passive 3D without the obvious loss in resolution, but that wasn't marketed at all.

The 3D in this movie had better blow people away and make them want to see it the same way at home. Then there need to be plenty MORE movies after that which do the same thing. Some of the 3D conversions were called "2 1/2 D" by some as they didn't really do anything spectacular.

Nick Danger

Generally I like movies where the director imagines and films a completely original world. But Avatar had such a weak story that I just got annoyed. A sequel doesn't even have the advantage of showing us something we've never seen before.

As for 3D, I can't watch it. It interacts badly with my eyeglasses and gives me a headache.

TheBang

I wouldn’t bet against Cameron. There was similar naysaying about both Titanic and Avatar before their releases.

L. Ron zyzzle

Since Cameron has set the over at 2bn, I'll bet against him! I'll stick to my 1.4bn estimate. 600 dom, 800 overseas.

If I'm wrong, I won't care! Ahahaha