avatar-movie-image

In the current economic climate, simply typing a sentence about a film that, including marketing costs, now tallies up to a reported half-a-billion dollars is surreal enough to put Dr. Evil on stun. That’s the unprecedented figure being batted around in a new NYT report about the financial realities that lie ahead for James Cameron’s Avatar and 20th Century Fox. So, what exactly are the stakes and how much does the 3D sci-fi actioner and proclaimed cinematic game changer need to gross come December?

Well, what surprised me most about the report is the flow of calm responses from inside sources that are sprinkled throughout. While the graveyard of pricey tentpole flops that includes Waterworld, Heaven’s GateCuttthroat Island, and even this summer’s Terminator Salvation would seem to loom large, Avatar’s costs are said to be well divided amongst many partners i.e. there’s not a single head that, if cut off via a flop, would slay an entire corporate beast…

At what point the various partners in “Avatar” would see profit from the film depends on what share of revenue each receives as the movie reaches theaters, then home video and other media around the world. If domestic ticket sales reach $250 million — a level broken in the last year by five films, including “Star Trek” and “The Hangover” — Fox and its allies would appear to be headed into the black.

And in this case, the corporate behemoth behind the film and behind 20th Century Fox is News Corp., and this year alone it’s said to have $30 billion in sales. And two outside companies, Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media, are said to be picking up a beyond hefty 60 percent of the price tag. What’s more, Avatar has always seemed to me like a massive good-faith endeavor for James Cameron on behalf of Fox; his Titanic remains their highest grossing film worldwide (and, yeah, the highest grosser of any film ever). Titanic played a tidy role in the future success of News Corp. in a way that Avatar—if it failed to, say, gross $250 million domestic—could never reverse. That said, the disappointment that was this weekend’s $31 million opening for Disney’s A Christmas Carol, which cost a reported $200 million and received underwhelming reviews even in the 3D/tech department, has to raise an eyebrow.

At the end of the report, the initial and now infamous fanboy reception to the first trailer is barely mentioned. And while Avatar’s buzz has experienced an upswing of late, it’s too early to gauge where the film’s event status sits in the zeitgeist of the general public. I know that personally, my expectations have cooled, but the more I see and hear from smart people, the less I’m worried that this is the Prequels all over again. There is also the general sentiment that nobody really wants this film to bomb for reasons ranging from Cameron loyalty to the sheer love of an original gamble in a land of remakes. Figure in the holidays, so many years of anticipation, and what would seem to be similar international interest, and worldwide grosses of $500 million don’t seem impossible (not that investors want the figure to stop there).

There is also the factor of DVD, a stream of revenue that continues to dry up without a solid alternative. Add in the yet-to-be-seen success of Avatar as a movie that holds up without the 3D magic at home, and its post-theatrical trajectory seems cloudy. Perhaps tellingly, a source at Fox tells the Times that the studio’s “secret weapon” this season is actually Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel. So, the real question is: Will the creator of The Terminator have his ass saved by David Cross’s CGI furballs from hell? In a year where “Chaos Reigns” and Andre Agassi admits to wearing an effing weave, anything can happen.

Feedback: Bet it all on blue? How much do you seeing Avatar grossing in the U.S. and beyond? If the film flops, what does that mean for 3D films?

  • mbellerbrock
    I can see it easily grossing 250 mil domestically in theaters alone. But to be honest, besides a good faith gesture by FOX towards Cameron, has anyone considered this a great investment? If this movie does well, which it will, it will no doubt spawn big sequels and millions of dollars worth of merchandise just like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. The story has the chops to become an epic universe spanning many genres and entertainment mediums. It could be huge.

    And really, I'm not surprised by the lack of performance by A Christmas Carol. Despite what you guys have been writing on /film the CGI is just underwhelming, and it looks sub-par, just like The Polar Express was (let alone possibly being the most unintentionally creepy Christmas movie ever made).
  • CyT
    Maybe its like the Bugatti Veyron .. makes a loss of a couple of million dollars on each car sold, but is incredibly awesome and created so much new technology for everyone else to use in the future that no one gives a shit.
  • mbellerbrock
    And no one can argue, the Veyron is quite the Halo car for Bugatti and it's owner Volkwagen. Lot's of bragging rights.
  • The first trailer disappointed many but the second one got us back on the wagon. I think the film can easily make $500M worldwide if not more. I also applaud the originality and would love this to be successful so that more studios and filmmakers start to gamble on making original films again and stop this remake/adaptation insanity.
  • Kyle C.
    Easily get to $500 million? I'm not so sure. Avatar doesn't have that built in audience like say, Transformers 2, The Dark Knight or any Pixar movie does. I do think it will do well but who really knows? We will find out in about a month.
  • Jim
    It does have the James Cameron built in audience created by the the first two Terminator and Alien movies among others, which is not insignificant though. I don't see $500M being much of a stretch, especially given the movie lineup for December and January. There's really just not much competition in the way of wide appeal action or comedies.
  • mandeep
    Well it may not make huge profit for say if it earns 1 billion still it will only have profit of $500 million only. James camerons name itself makes sure atleast it will get its costs covered.
  • JCD
    This movie was extremely cliche are you serious about originality?
  • i dont see it making very much profit if any. but thats just me.
  • greycolumbus
    I want to see if it'll have flying papyrus typography in 3D. That would be so awesome.
  • Of course it will. Consider there's the technology (cameras, CG engine), toys, collector's items, Imax and 3D ticket prices (Hey, if C. Carol could sell out an entire Imax screen, why can't Avatar?), Videogames (even the adaptations usually sell well) and later on, DVDs, Blu-Rays, Special Editions, Collector's Editions....

    ...It'll make a profit.

    And if it doesn't, at least the X-Men rights'll go back to Marvel. Since Fox'll do anything to stay afloat, I'll assume.
  • Brian
    It sounds like much of the cost is due to the invention of things like the camera that allows the operator to view within the animated world. Could these inventions then help make a profit as they are sold to other directors for other films? That's a possibility for why this film's budget was allowed to balloon.
  • mbellerbrock
    Good point, I hadn't considered that.
  • According to the article...

    "Mr. Cameron, along with Vince Pace, a Hollywood technology master, also developed much of the elaborate camera system and digital technology for the film themselves, at cost of about $14 million."

    It's worth noting that Cameron appears to have a sizable chunk of cash invested in the film as well.
  • clarencesomerset
    Cameron might be remembered in the future more as a scientist than a filmmaker at the rate he's going!
  • DrLickies
    I hope so. While not a big fun of the bulk of Cameron's output (Terminator and Aliens excepted, of course), I do respect what he tries to do from a technological point of view. If you don't have people with his level of bank pushing the tools forward, you end up standing still. I think it's great that someone is geeking out on the back end.
  • Drew
    This movie will tank, mark my words. Super huge budget and crazy FX =/= good film. It's all flash. I truly don't see it being some sort of "game-changer" whatsoever. Eye-candy and nothing more.
  • Ehh, your kids'll consider it a cult classic, then.

    ...Blade Runner wasn't considered anything but flash back when, you know.
  • Octoberist
    Thanks for your constructive input, while ignoring the fact that it is a James Cameron movie, not Brett Ratner.
  • You ignored the point of my comment...
    How internet-like of you.
  • Lance_HBomb
    You don't seem to realize he wasn't responding to you..
  • mbellerbrock
    I'll bet you $5 thru a paypal account that it will gross $250M domestically in theaters.
  • No bets of less than $100 in the comments. Thanks.
  • mbellerbrock
    Haha, seriously? I'm not that rich.
  • topheavy
    That my dear friend, was awesome.
  • Rowdy
    in a way I agree with you....for the fact that you can look at King Kong, how it was "up to expectations" box office wise. for some reason I am getting the same vibe for this :/ I will be there opening night just for the fact that I am a James Cameron fan and love anything he is apart of, (yes even Dark Angel cause that was amazing).
  • IceKeen
    have you seen it?
  • starscream9289
    Maybe if Cameron hadn't decided to start marketing the film a month before it's released, people might actually know of its existence.
  • mbellerbrock
    Not up to Cameron in the least, that's all on FOX's shoulders. And who knows, maybe this strategy has somehow helped, I doubt it but it's a possibility.
  • stevenkar
    The AVATAR budget makes sense: Pirates of the Caribbean 3 cost $300 million, with some Hollywood "insiders" from rival studios claiming it cost more. And the marketing costs for Transformers 2 where between $150-175 million according to the LA Times.
  • I might be alone in this opinion but movie sites should implement a new rule that goes, "Any film that costs $300-$500 million is to have its title presented in CAPS in all articles posted before and after release." Thanks for keeping up the good fight.
  • antho42
    Those figures do not include marketing. Typically marketing does not get reported. Avatar 500 million includes marketing. Marketing usually increases the doubles or triples the budget. Hence, Watchmen was not a box office success.
  • If it includes marketing costs, then it's only an estimate... it's still over a month left before the movie opens, they've yet to spend any REAL marketing money.
  • stevenkar
    The article is estimating these costs. They say the studio people are planning on spending $150 mil to market the movie globally. They mention the production budget that the studio will admit publicly is $230 mil. It's all in the article. Of course nobody really knows how much the movie will end up costing except for the accountants.
  • stevenkar
  • stevenkar
    Antho,

    Why are you telling me this? I know it already. But the $500 million AVATAR budget, according to the NYT article, DOES include marketing, and the $300 million budget of PotC3 that I mention in my post is only the reported production budget of that movie minus the marketing. My post, though brief, was not that ambiguous.
  • stevenkar
    TITANIC supposedly cost $200 million, if you believe 20th Century Fox. Adjusted to 2009 dollars, that's $270 million. Add Titanic's marketing costs which at the time where $110-130 million, and that's $444 million in today's money. Just putting things in perspective.
  • MadmanMundt
    Who in the world would ok the idea of making a film for 500 mil. Why would they assume that anything would make that kind of money back. Studios cannot make movies for any where this kind of money in this economic climate. Are they insane? They better hope its good because Im not sure you can make 500 mil on a Transformers quality movie.
  • antho42
    transformers 2 with marketing cost around 400 million.
  • antho42
    MadmanMundt. Remember studies usually do not reveal marketing costs. That is the reason why Paranormal activity probably made more profit in the states than Star Trek because it cost less in budget and marketing.
  • You have to realize that budgets usually increase during production. I believe the original budget that was approved by Fox was only $180mil, which over time increased to the alleged "official" $200mil. But this movie was shot over 2 years ago, and the #1 result of an overly-long post-production schedule is an escalating budget.
  • Ralphy
    Always bet on black!!
  • smrtalec
    jeez if the production budget for this movie is $500 million and they plan to make sequels (if it is a hit), how much will the sequels cost????
    is this movie considered to have the largest production budget in cinematic history?
  • Avatar might be coming out at the wrong time, but look at Dark Knight, hopefully Avatar will be a success so we can see a little more risk in Hollywood.
  • MattEss
    You'd like to see more risk based on what? Shovelling money into more purely special effects driven films? They already do that, buddy. I would love for Hollywood to risk piles of cash on something that also has a cutting edge script and fantastic acting, that would be risky. Cameron has stated himself, that Avatar's script is nothing to write home about. It's understandible (annoying too), you don't spend 500 million dollars reinventing the wheel. The damned thing might not even roll right, hence the reason that Hollywood loves to just make the old wheel shinier.

    But, by all means, "look at Dark Knight", made on a reletively modest budget (compared to Avatar) and it still made truckloads of cash. You could probably count the special effects shots from The Dark Knight using both hands, so that must not be why people liked it. What could it be???

    Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to Avatar and hope it's awesome, but it's probably not the type of "risky" we should be hoping for.
  • Not the best example to say you can count TDK's FX shots "on both hands" as there are actually a ton of shots that use CGI, but people don't know it because they're so incredibly well done. Like Wayne's penthouse, for example... most of it was greenscreen.
  • dagreenman18
    To be perfectly honest, i don't know a single person who is excited to see this film. With Star Trek there was hype. The Hangover had great word of mouth, and the other 3 movies were Up (it's pixar), Harry Potter (it's harry freaking potter), and... uggghhh... Transformers 2. Avatar has James Cameron which, lets be honest, isn't enough to get the mainstream on it. Combined that with the fact it's about Blue Cat People vs military and the perspective audience takes a massive hit.

    I think this movie is going to bomb.
  • CyT
    I'm excited to see this film. Most of my friends are all excited to see it too. Im pretty sure its gonna gross 500 million plus internationally and im not sure why you think it doesnt have the hype of those other films. Its all over the shop with marketing at present and was at comic con, all national newspapers and even had its own Avatar Day.

    But for me its not about the Cameron loyalty, the 3D gimmick, the Na'vi, or anything other than this: we just dont get big budget awesome Sci Fi films often and so Im going to enjoy the crap out of it while I can.
  • Is it wrong of me that I kind of want this to fail so that no movie company will waste this much money on a film ever again.
  • MattEss
    Wrong, or not, I've got a similar feeling in the pit of my stomach, too. I don't really hope it fails, unless it is downright horrible, but I kind of hope it just barely makes it's budget back, so nobody's hurt, but they don't wanna try again either.

    On the othe hand, if it's a truly amazing film I hope it is recognized and rewarded for it. I just don't see that being the case though. I see Avatar as probably being a pretty decent story with some, hopefully, fun and exciting action sequences, nothing more..... hopefully nothing less.
blog comments powered by Disqus