Would James Cameron ever bid adieu to Pandora?
“Avatar: Fire and Ash,” the director’s third otherworldly adventure, is nearing the end of its box office run with $1.4 billion globally. It’s an enormous sum (ranking as Hollywood’s second-biggest release of 2025), but still considerably behind 2009’s “Avatar” and 2022’s “Avatar: The Way of Water,” both of which soared above $2 billion.
It’s a feat for any movie to clear $1 billion these days. For cinema operators, who get a cut of revenues, “Avatar” is a gift because these are the rare films that remain draws for weeks on end. Disney has more at stake: The studio spent roughly $500 million to produce and promote “Fire and Ash,” meaning the threequel can be insanely popular yet barely profitable. Any dwindling interest in Pandora is problematic because Disney has committed to two more installments, which are slated for 2029 and 2031.
Cameron, meanwhile, has expressed doubts about the series’ long-term health. He joked last December that he’d host a press conference to determine the franchise’s fate after assessing the financial results for “Fire and Ash.” In other words, he’s aware that diminishing box office returns would make the film’s exorbitant production costs harder to justify.
It’s admittedly bizarre to question the viability of a billion-dollar property. What studio wouldn’t want that kind of windfall? But back in 2022, Cameron told GQ that his “Avatar” blockbusters represent the “worst business case in movie history” given their break-even points of roughly $1.5 billion. Although “Fire and Ash” will fall just short of that theatrical benchmark, the tentpole will recoup costs through Disney+ and other avenues. The company also is banking on the film inspiring visits to the Pandora area in Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Florida.
“It’s one thing to say, ‘This was profitable, not massively so, but the property benefits us in other ways, especially theme parks,” says Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s film school. “It’s another to say, ‘We’re going to invest another $500 million twice,’ if you’re on this downward trajectory.”
Cutting costs would be the obvious fix.
“I imagine Disney is doing a lot to put the brakes on budgets — and that may eventually lead to a breaking point,” Galloway says. “James Cameron makes expensive films.”
That’s a fact. Cameron, a man of many talents, isn’t thrifty. Every one of his movies, from “Terminator” to “Titanic” to all things “Avatar,” was at the time the most expensive ever made.
Through those films, however, Cameron has become a brand unto himself. He’s the only director to boast four consecutive billion-dollar hits (three of which also generated above $2 billion). He’s notorious for going over budget and falling behind schedule, but Cameron possesses an innate understanding of what audiences want to see on the biggest of screens. There’s a reason that “Don’t bet against James Cameron” has become a mantra in the exhibition community.
In the case of “Avatar,” a common sentiment is audiences go for the visual spectacle rather than the story. Box office watchers believe that’s a factor in the drop off-for “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” The threequel relinquished its crown after its fifth weekend. Meanwhile the first two films each ranked No. 1 at the box office for seven consecutive weekends on their path to $2.9 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively.
A criticism was the three-hour-17-minute feature felt too narratively similar to the second film, without introducing the kind of technological advancements that turned “Avatar” and “The Way of Water” into phenomena. Moreover, analysts suggest that not enough time passed between installments. “Fire and Ash” debuted just three years after “The Way of Water,” a short gap compared with the previous decade-plus wait.
“There’s a massive built-in fanbase,” acknowledges Wedbush Securities analyst Alicia Reese. “However, there wasn’t anything spectacularly different from the technology or storyline. If you saw the second and were pleased, you may have gone to see the third. But you might have heard from others that it wasn’t as necessary.”
Meanwhile Disney in 2025 fielded two other billion-dollar smashes, “Lilo & Stitch” and “Zootopia 2,” that were much more profitable. Not only were those kid-friendly films far less expensive to make, costing $100 million and $150 million respectively, but they were consumer product juggernauts. “Lilo & Stitch,” for instance, ranks among Disney’s best-selling franchises with retail sales of over $2.4 billion in 2024, the year before the Hawaiian-set remake ventured to theaters.
“’Avatar’ is not a children’s property, so Disney isn’t going to have quite as much in the way of consumer products,” Reese says. “And it doesn’t need the franchise to continue to benefit from the experiences side.”
Given his track record, Cameron is unlikely to hear a no from Hollywood. He’s equally unlikely to economize; the process of incorporating visual effects is enormously expensive. So industry observers emphasize creative direction. They think Cameron needs to find a fresh take on the Na’vi to reverse the downward commercial track.
“If Cameron can build upon the story, the fourth is going to be spectacular,” Reese says. “And he is certainly capable of this. Look at ‘Titanic.’ Look at ‘Terminator.’”
English (US) ·