avatar

‘Avatar’ is one of the most profitable films in history. And yet Disney is considering killing the saga

by

James Cameron’s trilogy has generated 6.7 billion dollars at the box office. Despite this, the future of the two remaining sequels is up in the air, Disney is considering making the following films cheaper, and the theme park attraction that was announced with all honors a few months ago may never be built. The numbers. The figures for ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’, the third installment of the franchise, are objectively colossal: 404 million grosses in the domestic market, 1,085 million in the rest of the world, third highest-grossing title of 2025. A success for any current Hollywood franchise, but at this point we are all clear that James Cameron’s saga is not a typical product. The low. The first way of reduce enthusiasm is by comparing the collection with its precedents. The first installment, from 2009, is still the highest grossing film in history, with 2,920 million dollars. The second, ‘The Sense of Water’, is the third with 2,340 million. Compared to those figures, ‘Fire and Ashes’ is no less than a billion short. It remains a good business (350 million, plus 150 in marketing), but It’s not even the highest-grossing movie of 2025since it was beaten by ‘Zootopia 2’, also from Disney, and by ‘Ne Zha 2‘. The Wrap has made an in-depth analysis of the topic and highlights the opinion of Paul Dergarabedian, head of market trends at Comscore. The analyst states that “‘Fire and Ashes’ grossed half that of the first film. And the ticket prices in 2009 were not those of 2025.” In March, during the Saturn Awards, Cameron collected trophies for Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Science Fiction Film for the third ‘Avatar’ and recognized that “To be perfectly clear, we have not even made a decision to move forward at this time.” Short and cheap. The Wrap is also the medium that I spoke with insiders from Disney who confirm that internal conversations are being held to make the next deliveries “shorter and cheaper.” The release dates of the fourth and fifth films (December 2029 and December 2031), and the answer to how to reduce costs without extirpating the identity of ‘Avatar’ is not easy to elucidate. Why are they so expensive? Some details of the process that illustrate why “cheaper” can be a complication: for example, the production involves at least two complete shoots: one motion capture with actors and another, mostly digital, to define the staging, the camera movements and all the elements of the computer-generated universe. According to Cameron acknowledged.making the fourth and fifth deliveries together (as he did with the second and third) would mean an investment of around 800 million without changes in the method. More expenses: Costume designer Deborah Scott, Oscar-nominated for her work on the third installment, illustrates the scale of the problem. Each suit is designed, manufactured in the physical world, and then digitally “translated” with the help of animators and technicians. This process is multiplied in each film by hundreds of characters, creatures and environments. Cameron has publicly committed to do not use AI and always support the human work behind the film, which also prevents lowering prices in this way. What has gone wrong? Why hasn’t the third ‘Avatar’ reached the 2 billion of the previous installments? Cameron’s team affirms, according to the same medium, that Disney launched the film in a very similar way to ‘The Sense of Water’, three years earlier, but with more margin: there was more time between the trailers and the premiere, which allowed some expectation to be generated. Added to this are commercial obstacles such as the fact that it is the longest film in the saga (197 minutes) and that there has been a certain lack of merchandising and other parallel actions. It all adds up to making it a film that could have performed better. California über alles. The uncertainty extends beyond the movies: Disney had announced the construction of an ‘Avatar’ themed area at Disney California Adventure, designed to complement the popular Pandora land that has existed since 2017 in Animal Kingdom (Florida). Construction was scheduled to begin in 2026 but the scheduled closure of the ‘Monsters Inc. Mike & Sulley to the Rescue’ attraction, necessary to begin work, has been postponed until 2027. One year late, for now. Disney parks expert Jim Shull told The Wrap that the franchise “as a cultural force is exhausted. No one is demanding to see more. If ‘Avatar 3’ had been a massive hit and people were clamoring for the fourth and fifth installments, that would change the equation. But there’s not much demand.” And he proposes a much more obvious alternative: expanding the ‘Zootopia’ areas, in line with the success of the ‘Zootopia: Hot Pursuit’ attraction at Shanghai Disneyland. In addition, there are logistical issues: the ‘Avatar’ water attraction required a complicated and expensive water treatment plant of its own. In Xataka | China saves ‘Avatar 3’: a good part of its billion in revenue comes from the only market that still goes to the movies

The 48fps format makes ‘Avatar 3’ hyperrealistic. It’s just what turns back part of the public

by

The new installment of ‘Avatar‘ is distanced, in technical terms, from practically all the other films with which it shares the billboard: Cameron’s thoroughness when it comes to capturing his vision in images has led him to generate, for example, 45 different versions of the film adapted to the conditions of each possible type of theater. This has also led him to declare that the best format to see this third installment it is at 48fps. But not all cinemas are prepared nor does it necessarily have to be a dish to the taste of all viewers. What are 48 frames per second. James Cameron wants us to see 40% of ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ at 48 frames per second, double the film standardconvinced that this system offers the most natural visual experience to capture the world of Pandora. However, all previous attempts to impose HFR (High Frame Rate) have failed, since ‘The Hobbit‘ until ‘Gemini‘ by Ang Lee. The reason: to the untrained eye, the image is too sharptoo similar to home video. The question that remains is: why does Cameron opt for a technology that systematically causes visual rejection in viewers? Why Cameron likes it. James Cameron maintains a personal position on HFR: he refuses to classify it as a cinematographic format, but rather defines it as a creative tool at the service of narrative, comparable to any other technical resource. Approximately 40% of ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ has been shot at 48 frames per second, concentrating mainly on the underwater sequences and flight scenes where, according to the filmmaker, the increase in visual clarity enhances the feeling of spatial presence. How it works. Cameron’s technical strategy is articulated through the Variable Frame Rate (VFR), which dynamically switches between 24fps and 48fps according to the expressive needs of each scene. As Cameron explainshe framerate high is counterproductive in moments of dialogue or everyday interaction, where it generates an unwanted hyperrealism that emotionally distances the viewer from the fiction. Therefore, scenes with characters talking or walking remain in the traditional standard. The technical process is completed with TrueCutMotiona technology that allows you to adjust the level of motion blur and image smoothness scene by scene. This granular control is intended to avoid the dreaded “soap opera effect” that worked so poorly in ‘The Hobbit’. Cameron conceives of the HFR fundamentally as a technical improvement for 3Dnot as an autonomous aesthetic revolution. In Spain what is closest to Cameron’s proposal is lto Cinity technologyof Chinese origin, which only screens the Odeon network in five theaters and which combines 4K, 3D and HFR. Why does it look like that? The reason we see 48fps with that extreme smoothing effect is because cinema has operated at 24 frames per second since sound demanded standardization of projection speed a hundred years ago. Each frame captures the image for approximately 1/48 of a second, generating a motion blur that the human brain interprets as natural or rather, as “cinematic.” He HFR duplicates that information: 48 images per second with half speed motion blurwhich equals more sharpness in fast movements. The technical advantages apply above all to 3D projections, as Cameron assures: framerate High resolution prevents the image from blurring when panning, and reduces eye-straining flicker in 3D projections. It also helps maintain clarity in low-light scenes, where traditional 24fps results in blurry images. It’s your fault. What we must keep in mind is that the problem that we associate with 48fps It’s psychological, not technical.. Viewers have been trained for a century to associate 24fps with cinematic narrative and framerates superiors with television broadcasts. When the image is too sharp, the brain immediately detects the artifices of the staging. Digital effects, makeup, sets, everything is camouflaged with 24fps images, because we enter more easily into the lie of cinema. The HFR, however, is too clear, too revealing. Previous failures. The first major commercial commitment to HFR came in December 2012 with ‘The Hobbit’. Peter Jackson filmed his entire Tolkien trilogy at 48fps using RED Epic cameras, but the critical and public reaction was devastating because the image was too sharp, almost like that of a reality show. Technically there were no objections to the result, but at the same time it proposed an aesthetic opposite to what was expected from a fantasy story. The HFR versions were never released in domestic format, which makes them curious pieces of lost media in the digital age. Ang Lee went further with the semi-unknown ‘Billy Lynn’ and with ‘Geminis’, which raised the fps to 120. The first could only be projected in those conditions in six theaters around the world and the second, a few more but not many: fourteen in the United States. Both failed commercially, since the HDR versions were released covertly fearing a failure like ‘The Hobbit’. Once again the hyperstylized and fantastical aesthetic came face to face with the dizzying hyperrealism of 120fps. The exhibitors, in addition, they had to acquire HFR licenses for $500 for equipment that they would almost never use. In Xataka | It is possible that ‘Avatar 3’ will sweep and raise millions of dollars. And it is perfectly possible that you lose money despite it

‘Avatar 3’ is going to be a movie so disproportionately expensive that it runs the risk of destroying and losing money

by

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ is already, as has happened with all previous installments of the franchise, one of the most anticipated films of the year. Each new installment breaks box office records, and yet James Cameron’s statements are more pessimistic each year about the continuity of the series. Are you sure that ‘Avatar’ is as good a deal as it seems? We snooped into his finances. The paradox. ‘Avatar: Fire and Ashes’ arrives wrapped in an economic paradox: its production budget exceeds 400 million dollarsa figure that places it among the most expensive films ever filmed. And yet, its own director is not clear if the business is worth it. Cameron has been unusually frank about his franchise’s finances and he put the question bluntly: “Will we make money on Avatar 3? Surely some. But the real question is what kind of profit margin there will be, if any, and whether that will be enough of an incentive to continue in this universe.” The wild mathematics of break-even. The arithmetic of ‘Fire and Ashes’ defies standard Hollywood logic. With 400 million in production expenses and a marketing budget that analysts place between 100 and 175 million, it would need to exceed $1 billion at the box office simply to break even or break evenaccording to the more or less assumed industry rule that a film must gross 2.5 times its production budget to be profitable. The case of ‘The sense of water’. The previous installment of ‘Avatar’ gives us some previous lessons on the subject. The sequel cost more than $1 billion in total costs: $400 million in production, another $400 in global marketing, $300 million in shares for Cameron and producer Jon Landau, plus cast salaries, residuals and general expenses. Cameron was not exaggerating when declared that ‘Avatar 2’ was “the worst business case in the history of cinema” and that it needed to become “the third or fourth highest-grossing film of all time” simply to not lose money. The film fulfilled that apocalyptic objective: raised 2,320 million and finally generated 531.7 million net profit. But that deceptively solid figure hides a crucial detail: The studios do not receive all the money from the box office. Movie theaters take approximately 50% of US domestic revenue, 40% from international markets, and up to 75% in China. That is, of those 2.32 billion, Disney actually received just over 1 billion. The rest stayed at the box office. The crisis of inflated budgets. ‘Avatar’ is one of the most visible symptoms of a disease that affects all of Hollywood. The industry has a systemic problem of out-of-control budgets, which affects such well-known films as ‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker‘ ($490 million), ‘Jurassic World: Dominion’ (584 million) or ‘Mission: Impossible – Deadly Sentence: Part One’ (400 million). A analysis of the causes It leads us to multiple factors that explain this phenomenon: inflation has increased the value of the dollar by 15% since 2020, making all aspects of production more expensive. But in addition, streaming platforms altered the economy of stars, accustoming them to higher initial charges, demands that they later transfer to traditional productions. And there is also a visual effects arms race: franchises like superheroes try to surpass each other in spectacularity, and infect the rest of the blockbusters. For this reason they are films that “might not make money even with objectively decent box offices.” The unique case of ‘Avatar’. James Cameron invests in developing pioneering technology that then benefits the entire industry: the underwater motion capture that Cameron and Weta FX took a year and a half to perfect for ‘The Sense of Water’, now reduce costs for the sequels being already invented. But the budget escalation is relentless: ‘Avatar’ cost between 237-280 million, ‘Avatar 2’ between 350-460 million and ‘Avatar 3’ exceeds 400 million. The franchise is a guarantee of box office success, but the profit margins are worryingly narrow. In Xataka | Cameron’s ‘Titanic’ was going to be a flop. Until a trailer that broke several Hollywood rules changed the narrative

The Klarna CEO dismissed 700 employees to replace them with AI. Now he has replaced himself … with an avatar

by

In 2022, the European technological giant Klarna (one of the main actors in the world of digital payments), He fired 700 workers To replace them with a chatbot. According to the company, in just one month implementing it, they concluded that the chatbot was able to cover two thirds of the company’s customer service chats. “He is doing the job equivalent to 700 full -time agents,” they said. Now, the company flirts again with AI to replace … to its CEO. I’m not me, it’s an avatar. Klarna has presented Your results report of the first 2025 quarter regardless of its CEO. Or, rather, using a virtual CEO. The video begins with full transparency: “It is me, or rather, my artificial intelligence avatar.” Siemiatkowski is still CEO of Klarna, but the company wanted to show its commitment to the AI ​​replacing it for the presentation of results. Avatar ia. We recommend watching the video since the avatar, Far from being one -style Facebookhe is realistic to not being able. Only the imperfect audio synchronization and the absence of natural flickering can make us suspect that we are not facing a real person. For the rest, it is an avatar that could strain perfectly. A strong bet on AI … The company was clear that customer service services could be provided through the integration of a chatbot. Klarna said at the time of dismissals that “he is on par of human agents in terms of customer satisfaction score”, and that “it is more precise in tasks.” Some service users such as Gergely Oroszcreator of the Newsletter The Pragmatic EngineerThey thought the opposite, pointing out that the chatbot did not do much beyond reciting documents. The most curious? When the chatbot was not able to find an answer, the solution it gave was to speak with a human assistant in case of problems. Klarna is marking the guideline in the practical deployment of AI, and the benefits quickly accumulate. Since 2022, Klarna has rationalized its workforce by approximately 40 %, while increasing the percentage of technological employees of 36 % in 2022 to 52 % in the first quarter of 2025. 96 % of employees use AI daily, which has contributed to a 152 % increase in revenues per employee from the first quarter of 2013 and has put Klarna on the way employee income. AI is reducing costs throughout the company, especially in customer service, where transaction costs have been reduced by 40% since the first quarter of 2013, while maintaining customer satisfaction levels. … in which humans are necessary. In February 2025 Sebastian Siemiatkowski, CEO of the company, He admitted that AI will never be as valuable as human talent. He acknowledged that the bot was faster responding, but that it was limited to “offering fragments of documentation”, without a real understanding of the text. He announced thus through X that they would start working so that the company was the best offering real “people” to talk to. In other words: what They would begin to recover and reactivate the hiring of personnel which was once replaced by a chatbot. They are not alone. Just a few weeks ago, IBM explained that they were in the process of contracting workers, after having fired 8,000 to replace them with the. It is a somewhat more particular case, since IBM automated 94% of human resources related to human resources, With positions that will not cover again. With the savings in costs that this meant, they are reinforcing the hiring in positions related to programming and sales. There are companies guaranteeing that replacements for AI are a correct decisionothers that end up reculating and evidencing on LinkedIn that it was not a good ideaand managers fearing that be replaced in the short term. Image | Klarna In Xataka | At the moment, AI is not removing work for people. Its development is leaving a reguero of dismissals

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.