Avatar - a less technical thread

[Paul Bruening]

I hear what you’re scream’n, but (and I’m asking with 100% sincerity) do you think the studio has that control over James Cameron? Like if he tried to write something a little less generic, but still with a bunch of big VFX, the studio would have stopped it?

 

Honestly, I don’t know any of the politics involved in big studio productions, just hearsay… ;)

 

Let's try this perspective: If an unfamiliar idea or message is placed on the market through a movie, it's safe to assume that half the market will be okay with the idea and half will balk at it. Would you want half of your viewers bad mouthing your movie simply because you put an idea on them that was too much or disagreeable to them? Who can afford such an artistic indulgence in the face of harrowing industry economics?

 

The principle message in Avatar was safe. It had the highest likelihood of broad approval. I really can't think of any person that I know taking offense at it and assuming the defense of the evil and exploitive corporation. The 1D characters were a weak support for the corporation's case. It would not have been hard to create stronger characters in circumstances that made the plight of an exhausted Earth more justified in the consumption of other planet's resources. The use of 1D characters steers the viewer toward the creator's desired conclusions. All of this is indirection to carefully place the blame on we movie consumers. In our present time, we consume the Earth. Then, our future selves must chew up other planets to continue our ways. This is a strong condemnation of we (you and me) the viewers. One that we definitely and indefensibly deserve. Why is that message not enough for you?

[Nate Phillips]

Hello Georg,

 

It's not that I have a snobby attitude, or a better-than-them attitude.

 

 

 

Yes, you do.

[Justin Hayward]

"It's not that I have a snobby attitude, or a better-than-them attitude."

 

Yes, you do.

 

He's defending the movie. I'm the one with the snobby attitude.

 

I can't possibly account for James Cameron. But, may I ask, what ideas or messages would have satisfied you more, for example?

 

Dunno. :(

[Paul Bruening]

Yes, you do.

 

First post. Please, add more.

[Mathew Rudenberg]

the evil and exploitive corporation.

 

Not exactly a new bad guy in Cameron's filmmaking either - see Weyland Yutani in Aliens or Cyberdyne systems in T2.

 

I think Cameron has always been more interested in spectacle than story, and it's worked rather well for him so far.

 

I do agree that the audience will enjoy a more mature message wrapped in spectacle eg. the Dark Knight (which does, however, become broader at the end) and I guess it would be nice if Cameron wanted to push the story and characters more, but that never really was his style, unlike Nolan who from the start (following and memento) was interested in more experimental characters and story arcs.

 

Cameron's first film, Terminator, on is a fairly straightforward horror film with a touch of sci-fi and spectacle. Many directors have certain themes and stories that interest them and Cameron is the same way, he just has a lot more money to do it with now.

[Paul Bruening]

Well here's some more reality on the money side as the media goes nuts over the Avatar numbers. It's now being trumpeted that the film has made 2 billion. An impressive number, no doubt.

 

Now the theatre chains and owners take 50% of that, so so far the studio has 1 billion in the bank.

 

The film cost 250 million but they got a 45 million dollar tax credit in NZ, so the real cost is more like 200 million.

 

1 billion minus 200 million is 800 million, ok still a great number.

 

But now there are the P&A costs to also come out of that 800 million, that would have added up big time on a movie like Avatar. Not 800 million but still a lot of money. The studio must pay for all of this, the exhibitors will not pay a penny of this.

 

So while the media goes nuts and the public thinks the studio has made 2 Billion dollars the real numbers tell a very different story. The media just can't be bothered to lay out this financial schedule as I have done because that would spoil their news story. They want to trumpet 2 BILLION DOLLARS!!

 

The next step in the marketing campaign will be TV spots to try and pick up the last hold outs who have not seen the movie. Right now the movie is getting a nice ride from word-of-mouth and the media. Once the numbers start to tail off they'll ramp up some TV spots, I expect to see them on air in about two weeks or sooner.

 

After the Oscars they'll get another boost if Avatar sweeps the Oscars and the awards it wins will be incorporated into the last round of TV spots.

 

The 50/50 split with the theatres and the P&A costs illustrate why it's so hard to turn a profit on a movie.

 

R,

 

Hey Richard,

 

I was doing some casual math in my head following some old industry standard formulas. If they've pulled 2 bil. in box already. Cameron's cut of 16.66% of that comes out to 321 mil. Even though his worldwide distribution messes up the after-box formula, I'm still using it here. His after-box take would double his box take and put him at 642 mil. in about 10 years or so.

 

Sure, the numbers don't fall fair for the producer given that he/they are the original risk takers in any film's life. But, 642 mi. ain't bad. That's a lot of fried chicken by anyone's measure.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I will say the film does move along at a good clip, and there's not much time for fleshing out characters. Of course the bad guys are one-dimensional. What's worse is, the dialogue is one-dimensional. There's no spark or verve in the interactions between the characters. Without a hint of humor, everybody speaks their dull lines in turn, in lock step to a very predictable, very time worn plot, that knocks us over the head with a very predictable message.

 

Edgar Rice Burroughs.

 

Though, his books did have some humor.