→ You can now listen to all Ankler stories in the Substack app. Just hit the “play” arrow at the top right of the screen. The Strange Case of ‘Avatar’ and its Missing Cultural FootprintHow could such a massive franchise be so small online? The data tells a fascinating story about fandom and filmgoing
Daniel Parris is a data journalist, pop culture lover, data and analytics consultant and former senior leader at DoorDash who writes Stat Significant.
The internet loves a punching bag. Through disorganized consensus, a well-known figure (like Hayden Christensen or Forrest Gump) can become digital shorthand for spirited grievance. Some of the internet’s most notable punching bags include:
And, in recent years, James Cameron’s Avatar has become internet shorthand for hollow commercialism — an ephemeral pop artifact that made a lot of money and (allegedly) disappeared. The internet discourse surrounding Avatar is coded with disbelief and deception, as if the moviegoing public was the victim of a long con (where we all wore 3D glasses and watched a film starring “Sam Worthington”). Years after the first Avatar’s release, Forbes declared, “Five Years Ago, Avatar Grossed $2.7 Billion but Left No Pop Culture Footprint,” and The New York Times wrote an in-depth essay on “Avatar and the Mystery of the Vanishing Blockbuster.” In 2016, Buzzfeed created a quiz entitled “Do You Remember Anything at All About Avatar?” that challenged readers to recall basic details like the lead character’s name (Jake Sully) or the actor who played Jake Sully (“Sam Worthington”). Somehow, Avatar’s commercial success has not translated into cultural longevity, according to internet punditry.  How can a movie make over $2B and, subsequently, be deemed culturally irrelevant? Are these claims legitimate, or is the internet dogpiling on a commercial success? So today — with Avatar: Fire and Ash, the franchise’s third and final installment, swooping into theaters this weekend — we’ll quantify the cultural afterlife of James Cameron’s Avatar franchise, attempting to make sense of its perceived irrelevance. We’ll investigate various markers of cultural significance in the digital age and the idiosyncrasies that separate Avatar from run-of-the-mill franchise entertainment. Today, adapted from my Substack Stat Significant, I investigate:
Do People Care About Avatar a Decade Later?
Director James Cameron (often referred to as “Big Jim”) simply does not miss. This man has repeatedly helmed “the most expensive movie ever made,” and has subsequently produced “the highest-grossing movie of all time.” Cameron’s filmography is remarkable: Titanic, Avatar, Aliens, Terminator and its sequel T2: Judgement Day, True Lies and The Abyss. I really cannot stress how good this guy is at making movies and money (at the same time). Cameron first announced his plans for Avatar in the mid-’90s before he finished work on Titanic. The Avatar project would go on to a decade’s worth of production delays, leading to intense media fascination, numerous internet leaks, and ever-escalating hype:
As usual, the press framed Cameron’s passion project as Hollywood bloat — a decades-long disaster in the making. As usual, they were wrong because Big Jim simply doesn’t miss. In this case, Jim Cameron did not miss to the tune of $2.8B in global box office and nine Academy Award nominations (including best picture). 20th Century Fox (now Disney) promptly greenlit two sequels, and just like that, Avatar went into hibernation — not to reappear for 13 years (like those weird cicadas). It’s during this 13-year gap that claims of the movie’s nonexistent cultural footprint began appearing across the web. Yet Avatar’s perceived insignificance is far from straightforward. Using a tool called Glimpse, we can compare search volume for Avatar and other films in the 10-year period following their release. The logic here is simple: If people cared about these movies a decade after their debut, they would Google them (for various reasons). When we compare query volumes for early-2000s blockbusters (Twilight, Up!, The Dark Knight) and Oscar winners (The King’s Speech, The Hurt Locker, The Artist), Avatar emerges as the second most-searched film of the group.
At the same time, absolute query volumes only tell part of the story. Claims of Avatar’s insignificance are conditional — focusing on the movie’s footprint relative to its $2.8B in box office. According to this line of thinking, the movie’s commercial capital has not translated into longstanding cultural capital. These claims maintain some legitimacy when we examine the relative decline in search interest for Avatar against this same set of movies. We’ll use retained search interest to track this downturn, a metric calculated as follows:
According to this figure, Avatar lost a significant share of its search volume relative to the commotion surrounding its debut. By this metric, its long-term hold on popular imagination is inconsistent with its initial hype.
Given this decline in search interest, it’s tempting to conclude that Avatar has faded from cultural memory — a $2B delusion ($5B total if you count its sequel). But this regression prompts a more intriguing question: How does a film watched by over 20 percent of American adults struggle to leave a lasting mark on collective imagination?
Why Did Avatar Lose the Zeitgeist?
Most big-budget movies are built around fandoms, expressly crafted to cultivate an ever-growing mass of die-hards through successive installments and reinvention of the familiar. With each episodic release, a franchise like Planet of the Apes or Fast & Furious expands its footprint, adding to its lore and feeding its fans cultural comfort food. Cameron’s never-ending passion project defies several hallmarks of franchise world-building, avoiding brand extensions that cultivate fandom: There are few Avatar toys, no supplemental literature for fans, no Avatar TV shows, few mass-produced Avatar props or costumes and minimal Comic-Con presence. Avatar does have its own section of Disney World, and that’s about it (even then, how many people are going to Disney World for Avatar?). Unlike other billion-dollar franchises, Avatar eschews fan service, resulting in a smaller fanbase and a reduced digital presence. To quantify the film’s digital footprint, we’ll turn to Fandom, a website dedicated to building wikis for television shows, movies, and other beloved fictional universes (essentially, Wikipedia for pop culture). Within a given wiki sits hundreds of pages — character overviews, plot breakdowns, explanations of mythology, and so on — all fan-produced. As of October 2024, Avatar had a relatively small presence on Fandom compared to other multi-billion-dollar films, with fewer pages in its wiki repository.
At first glance, this makes sense — there had been only two Avatar movies released 13 years apart. Rather than rush Avatar 2 to capitalize on its predecessor’s success, Big Jim took his time, a departure from the strict franchise playbook that dominates contemporary Hollywood. But Avatar’s diminished legacy goes beyond release frequency. Over its 16-year history, Cameron’s franchise has been largely overlooked by most pockets of internet culture. Consider the film’s meme presence, and by this, I mean pictures with text that use Avatar imagery. In his January 2023 analysis of the franchise’s “cultural weirdness,” internet researcher Adam Bumas compiled data on Avatar meme activity, comparing its use as source material to other blockbusters from the 2000s and 2010s. In the TinEye chart below, each dot represents a meme, and the associated counts represent the prevalence of these memes according to platforms like Giphy and Tenor. According to these figures, Avatar has a significantly smaller meme footprint than other commercial successes.
Is meme activity a perfect encapsulation of cultural legacy? Of course not. Memes can, however, signify a movie’s hold over popular imagination. Leonardo DiCaprio’s squinting face from Inception is an enduring image from a movie laden with dense, overly complex dialogue. Someone remembered Leo’s squinty-ness and thought to make it a meme, and through internet consensus surrounding this moment’s meme-worthy-ness, the image was embraced. Related:
Personally, I don’t remember any one moment from Avatar other than the characters professing their love for a tree and bonding their hair to one another. I find neither of these sequences to be meme-worthy. In fact, the main thing I remember about Avatar is the experience of watching the movie (rather than what I saw on screen). And this leads me to perhaps the most crucial facet of Avatar’s ephemeral relevance — the project’s all-consuming emphasis on theatricality. Avatar and its sequel were marketed as can’t-miss theatrical events. You had to see these films on the big screen while wearing 3D glasses to get the full experience. It’s difficult for a movie to generate meme-worthy content when it doesn’t lend itself to rewatchability. To measure the difference between theatrical and at-home enjoyment, we’ll compare average MovieLens user ratings recorded during a film’s theatrical window with ratings submitted after it went to home video. When we apply this methodology to films released between 2005 and 2010, Avatar emerges as one of the clearest examples of a film that works better in theaters.
In my opinion, this is the crux of Avatar’s asymmetric cultural impact: It was an event explicitly produced for movie theaters. Central to its marketing was the notion that the film’s entertainment value was significantly reduced when experienced at home. Avatar and its sequel are the antithesis of most modern entertainment products — optimally designed for the big screen, scarcely merchandized, and ill-suited for consumption via Peacock.
Final Thoughts: Why Make This So Complicated?Three years ago, I went to see Avatar: The Way of Water just like everybody else. Like most people, I had forgotten what I liked about the original apart from a vague understanding that it looked really cool on the big screen, which was enough to warrant a $20 ticket purchase. As I walked into the theater, someone attempted to hand me a pair of 3D glasses — to my great shock. Somehow, I had completely forgotten that Avatar (the most commercially successful film of all time) was a 3D movie meant to be a trailblazer for the entertainment industry’s (then-imminent) shift to 3D exhibition. It was at this moment that Avatar’s fleeting relevance came into focus: Of course a film that warrants 3D glasses for state-of-the-art viewing is going to be significantly less popular once it exits theaters. Why was this so difficult to understand? The experience of seeing Avatar is entirely self-contained: you go to theaters, you get your 3D glasses, you watch a Nicole Kidman AMC ad, you go back to Pandora, reacquaint yourself with totally real Hollywood actor “Sam Worthington,” see some spectacular visuals, and then you go home excited to see the next installment in three to 13 years. Why was this movie’s appeal so widely misunderstood? Perhaps this grievance stems from misplaced expectations. Avatar debuted in 2009, just a year after Iron Man, the first official installment of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (MCU). James Cameron did not design Avatar to be intellectual property that sucks every last dollar from its fandom, yet we judge the series by standards set by the MCU (which is odd, since the MCU is presently falling out of fashion). Over the past two decades, we’ve grown accustomed to the excessive fan service that accompanies mainstream entertainment products: a franchise installment every year, a world-expanding TV series, limitless merch, casting rumors, Comic-Con trailers, co-branded Lego sets, and stories that are mostly the same but add a dash of novelty (i.e., a new actor plays Spider-Man but Uncle Ben still dies). We’re given films that serve little purpose beyond sustaining their own existence and generating future monetization opportunities — artifacts of corporate strategy that keep a fandom flywheel moving. Fortunately, Big Jim does not care about any of these things (and fortunately, Big Jim does not miss).
Got a tip or story pitch? Email tips@theankler.com ICYMI from The AnklerThe Wakeup Thoughts on Oscars-YouTube Three Amigos: A Netflix Bros. Photo Caption Contest! Plus: As the Oscars go to YouTube, Richard Rushfield asks, whither go the movies? Why Bell Media Execs Went All in on Heated Rivalry — and How the Bet Paid Off CEO Sean Cohan and VP content Justin Stockman tell Lesley Goldberg how the gay hockey drama scored globally and without financial partners Buh-Bye, Blowout Bash: Hollywood’s Lean Year Crashes the Holiday Season Invites dry up, checks are split, the $400 Wally’s gift basket is gone, writes Nicole LaPorte. Says Erik Feig: ‘Efficiency is the word of the day’ 5 Burning Questions Hollywood Should Ask After Trump’s AI Executive Order From guilds to Gavin Newsom: Erik Barmack on what studios and creatives need to reckon with now Hollywood 2026: Collapse or Comeback? Let’s Talk Odds Richard finds reasons for actual hope as we stumble and bumble into the new year Hollywood Took Your Job. The Holidays Can Help You Get Your Next One Advice from top leadership coach Lacey Leone McLaughlin on navigating parties, family and awkward questions when your career is anything but jolly Need to Sell a Film or TV Show? Just Add Christmas Reps and filmmakers tell Ashley Cullins how a Yuletide twist can turn any story into a greenlight Hollywood’s Breaking Faster Than Film Schools Can Teach It. Inside the Scramble to Keep Up Professors are rewriting syllabi on the fly as studios melt, algorithms rule and screens go vertical, Elaine Low reports Rob Reiner and a Terrible Weekend Richard on the murder of the director and his wife A Writer’s Guide to Loving the Netflix–Warner Bros. Deal Joel Stein wonders, what’s the worst that could happen? TV in 3: HBO’s Horny Hockey Hunks Go Viral; CBS Showrunner Scramble Plus: Starz’s Shohei Ohtani home run How to Make Sentimental Value: Joachim Trier’s Fantastic Four Craftspeople Plus: The Oscars jump to YouTube, and Katey Rich has so many questions Rob Reiner, Hollywood Mensch; Emily Blunt on the Emotional Toll of The Smashing Machine The Oscar nominee also tells Katey about the great note she got from Christopher Nolan 🎬 The Oscars Go to YouTube The end of an era, the start of another: what now as the venerable awards show heads to streaming 🎬 Rob Reiner’s ‘Towering Career’ Remembered Katey, Richard and Christopher Rosen examine a memorable life 🎬 New from Ankler Studio! Joel Edgerton Had Twins. Train Dreams Channeled His Emotions About Parenthood Main Character, our video series about the best lead performances in film & TV, debuts with the Australian star 🎧 He’s Just Not That Into You: How Zaslav and Ellison Fell Apart Plus: Richard on the tragedy of Rob Reiner 🎧 Kate Hudson Is Still ‘Game for Anything’ The Oscar nominee tells Katey about her ‘Aries’ energy facing ‘tornado’ Hugh Jackman in Song Sung Blue 🎧 Charlie Hunnam: ‘Purpose is Derived From Doing Something Very, Very Difficult’ The Monster star earned rave reviews — and award noms — for playing serial killer Ed Gein. But he tells Katey he’s got his eye on a next act More from Ankler Media
New from Natalie Jarvey’s creator economy newsletter: The Kindness Influencer Biz; a Creator Economy OS; MrBeast’s Survivor Collab SCOOP: Netflix and iHeart Near Podcast Deal; Videos Would Be Pulled From YouTube
Andy Lewis’ latest IP picks: A Beef-Like Revenge Thriller & The Secret History meets Alice in Wonderland Granny vs. Goliath, a Real-Life Reacher and Blade Runner for the VR Era
|
