Den of Geek

Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?

Simon Brew


Has James Cameron’s Avatar really cost half a billion dollars to bring to the screen? And can it make back its cash?

Published on Nov 9, 2009

Dropped into the middle of an article at The New York Times about the financial challenge facing the release of James Cameron's Avatar next month, there's a number casually mentioned that pretty much made our eyes pop out of their sockets. For it relates specifically to the amount that Fox and its many financial partners on the movie have had to spend to bring Avatar to the screen, and sufficiently promote it.

The article specifically cites "the estimated half-billion dollars spent on its production of marketing".

Half a billion dollars! $500,000,000 just to get the film out there in the first place? That, to us, sounds like a film that doesn't have a cat in hell's chance of making back its money anytime soon.

After all, the film itself - outside of the circle of James Cameron fans - is a swine of a sell. It's got no stars, the early trailers haven't blown anyone away particularly, and it arrives very close to Christmas, just as Oscar season begins to kick in. It strikes us as a film that's got a window of a couple of weeks at best to make its cash, before the available screens for it dry up.

Its chances haven't been helped by the performance of the other big 3D film of the summer, A Christmas Carol. That opened to a surprisingly low $31m in the States last weekend, but at least it's got several weeks ahead of it into the Christmas season to make its cash. A Christmas Carol could yet push $150-200m if it gets sufficient seasonal traction.

Avatar will struggle to do that, too, unless James Cameron pulls something genuinely spectacular out of his proverbial bag.

That said, there is the potential saviour of the worldwide box office to count on. This year, Terminator: Salvation was dragged into solid hit territory by taking twice as much overseas than it did in the US, and if Avatar can get its way to $200m at the US box office, then it's not utterly unfeasible that the same amount - if not more - could be added once the international market is taken into account.

However, there's a further problem ahead for Avatar, and that's the decline of the DVD market. Granted, the film should make headway on the more lucrative Blu-ray format, but whereas before a film's cinematic run could be regarded as a trailer for the DVD release, arguably Hollywood's most potent well of money has begun to dry up.

Whatever happens over the coming month or two, it is likely that this is the last time in a very, very long time that Hollywood will gamble so much money on a non-franchise property. And given how tough Avatar is proving to sell, Fox is more likely to commission a third Alvin And The Chipmunks movie than it is to greenlight a venture of this kind of risk again.

We hope we're proved wrong on that point...

NY Times

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By Nocturne 1 November 9, 2009 09:40:48 AM

I wouldn't say it's got no stars, it's biggest name has to be Sigourney Weaver, although her biggest box office grossers seem to have the world Alien in the title. Sam Worthington seems to be the new Christian Bale at the moment with the amount of projects he's linked to.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By gudge 1 November 9, 2009 09:45:09 AM

Once again VERY old news. While the money has been atributed under the Avatar umbrella, the majority of cash spent is on the brand new technology to make the film. So while it seems excessive the money spent on this will help countless other films - it's called economies of scale.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By cbrigden 1 November 9, 2009 10:13:10 AM

I'm more curious as to how Avatar's impact will be with films like Christmas Carol - both with lots of mocap and 3D. Avatar was supposed to be the next big thing, but with 3D already a mainstay in cinemas now due to the recent glut, you have to wonder if some of its thunder hasn't already been stolen. It's whether Cameron's story is good enough to shine through the gimmick.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By mark-reed 1 November 9, 2009 10:17:36 AM

Reminds me of U2-3D which apparently cost £15m, but most of that spend was centered on developing technology. Avatar isn't a film as such, but an investment with a film was 'proof of concept'.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By gudge 1 November 9, 2009 10:54:53 AM

most of you dont seem to understand here. Mark is spot on when he says proof of concept. Avatar is completely different to all the other 3D projects of the last few years - its a completely new technology. All the reverse fanboys saying Cameron is bumming himself or whatever - he has a bloody right to. He has reinvented the way we film 3D movies. Its not a gimmick unless you believe CGI was a gimmick when he brought that to The Abyss.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By cbrigden 1 November 9, 2009 11:59:25 AM

I don't see the 3D and the CGI in The Abyss as the same thing. The way CGI was used was a pretty integral way to render the effects as he wanted for the story to be told, something which could not be done with traditional VFX to a photo-realistic level. I'm struggling to see (maybe you could help me?) how 3D will be that integral to telling the story, as opposed to just providing a more immersive experience.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By gudge 1 November 9, 2009 01:48:17 PM

i never claimed it was integral to the story - i am likening the situation to how the CGI technology was implemented for the first time which in turn became the mass-effects driven Terminator sequel (at the time the highest costing film of all time), that then became widespread accross the industry. The development of the technology is what is costing so much on Avatar - he has developed a completely new type of camera that will be used on hundreds, if not thousands of films in the future. Regardless, if it does indeed do what he says it will (and i have only seen in 3D at cinemworld so far, not on IMAX, and its still the best 3D i have seen) and makes the film more immersive, then surely that helps with the storytelling as you feel more involved. I dont have enough time to word it properly but theres a lot of things online talking about it that can explain it much better than what i can.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By kail 1 November 9, 2009 03:06:29 PM

Psst! That's production and marketing , not production of marketing .

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By benheck 1 November 9, 2009 03:56:40 PM

This movie could very well bomb the way everyone thought Titanic would. The pundits will be "surprised" when New Moon and Chipmunks 2 blow this out of the water, but I won't be.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By gudge 1 November 9, 2009 04:43:36 PM

Ben, u talk bollocks. New Moon will make money from teenage emo girls, sure. But The Squeakual? No way. Ur ripping Avatar to try and be cool and edgy. Fun fact: saying a film won't be good doesn't make you cool. I don't read articles about New Moon because I really couldn't give a shit (because A. I'm male. B. I'm older than 14. C. I'm a real geek that likes geeky shit cos it's cool, not because I liken teenage puppy love/angst to vampires.) If u don't like the look of Avatar ignore it.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By RobGordon23 1 November 9, 2009 10:37:12 PM

Maybe it's just me, but wasn't this number thrown around for Pirates 3 AND Spiderman 3 and no one gave a rats ass?

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By Walley 1 November 10, 2009 01:08:01 AM

FTA: "the estimated half-billion dollars spent on its production of marketing". Wouldn't that figure be about the Toys and Video-games and other goodies and not the films production budget- which I read was $230 million. Just the video game could be $50 million to produce. You have books , soundtracks , food tie-ins etc. More details would be needed to know if this total was everything total or just what was spent in marketing. How much money was paid into the production in licensing fees? For all we know the movie could have it's production cost covered by third party deals. When your last film made $1.8 Billion dollars you can get sweet terms for your next.

Re: Avatar: the film that cost $500,000,000?
Posted By capt_1ntens0 1 November 10, 2009 02:59:06 PM

Avatar, like Titanic, will destroy everything in its path- when word gets out how goddamn good the effects and 3D are, it will be hte must see release that will push US to £350-£300m and at least that worldwide. It won't be Titanic levels unless its just so original and eye-rapingly awesome that fan boys go again and again. If its as good as I hope and I was 12 again I'd have gone to see it 6-7 times minimum. I've no reason to think 12yr old geeky boys have changed since then. This could be huge, but either way the investment i technology will pay this amount back 100 fold regardless. Fox are laughing right now trust me.
Post a Comment
 
Avatar poster

Avatar

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Broadband

Mobile Broadband

Compare over 100 mobile broadband & broadband deals online!

Mobile Phones

LG ArenaHTC Magic

Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!

Click Here