What does this mean? How can a franchise that has not yet released its first sequel "prove" that it has no staying power? If the first sequel brings in $1.5B, wouldn't you have to retract that statement? If the attractions at WDW become the hardest FPs to get, doesn't that statement become false? It is very clear that Disney fan boys and fan girls who post here are not the same crowd who post on Avatar chat boards. But that in no way "proves" that the Avatar franchise has lost its staying power. Now, if the first sequel flops, then one can proclaim that the franchise is dead. Remember that almost 2 decades elapsed between the third and fourth Star Wars movie. And 14 years elapsed in between the third and fourth Jurassic Park movies. But the fans came back. The gap in time between 2009 and 2017 pales in comparison. We simply aren't at the point yet where we can drive a stake through the heart of this franchise.
No matter how it is sliced or spun, Avatar is #1 in actual worldwide revenue and #2 in adjusted worldwide revenue behind Gone With The Wind, but only after taking into account many theatrical re-releases which Avatar cannot replicate. (Though I would not be surprised to see a re-release prior to the sequel.)
As noted above, the number 14 is domestic only which in a global economy, is meaningless. There is no metric that can be used that places Avatar any lower than #2 in terms of worldwide success.
The conspiracy theorist in me has never believed that Avatarland is real and that it is a cover for something better. I guess that tells you what I think about the idea.
Odd how people don't get this. The original Star Wars movie, worldwide and adjusted for inflation, earned $3.04 billion, almost dollar for dollar what Avatar's number is, ($3.09 billion). The second Star Wars movie (Empire Strikes Back) made $1.5 billion worldwide, adjusted for inflation. That is half of the original. By the time Attack of the Clones came out, the number dropped to $857 million worldwide, adjusted for inflation, or, less than one-third of the original. Yet no one here seems to want to suggest that the Star Wars franchise is outdated, forgotten, obsolete or stale. All words that have been used to describe Avatar in this thread. Indeed, people are all giddy about the prospect of DHS becoming Disney's Alderaan Adventure. Or Disney's Tatooine Adventure. But if the second Avatar movie makes the same "adjusted for inflation" box office numbers as Empire Strikes Back, ($1.5 billion), shouldn't we concede that the franchise is every bit as alive as Star Wars? And isn't it possible that Disney, Joe Rohde and James Cameron will knock our socks off? HOw many times have Disney defenders said that "Disney knows what it's doing" when defending things like New Fantasyland, or FP+, or the Dining Plan, or any one of a number of decisions it makes. They point to profit statements and attendance figures to show us how Disney has this all figured out. So why all of a sudden when it comes to Avatar are some of these same people suggesting that Disney is making a huge mistake?
No need for a master's thesis, but a simple explanation of what you meant when you said that Avatar has lost its "staying power" would suffice. I'm certain that you must have had something in mind when you posted that. If the answer is: "I believe that Avatar has lost its staying power because I don't think people will be interested in the sequel and it won't break $300 million at the box office", that is fine. It might be a dubious prediction, but certainly one you are entitled to.
