Some people about Time Magazine have been exposed to a sneak peek at James Cameron’s Avatar due out late December this year. Not surprising, but they have a lot of wonderful things to say about it.
More than a thousand people have worked on it, at a cost in excess of $300 million, and it represents digital filmmaking’s bleeding edge. Cameron wrote the treatment for it in 1995 as a way to push his digital-production company to its limits. The movie pioneers two unrelated technologies–e-motion capture, which uses images from tiny cameras rigged to actors’ heads to replicate their expressions, and digital 3-D.
I couldn’t tell what was real and what was animated–even knowing that the 9-ft.-tall blue, dappled dude couldn’t possibly be real. The scenes were so startling and absorbing that the following morning, I had the peculiar sensation of wanting to return there, as if Pandora were real.
As with any report or tidbit we hear about Avatar, the focus seems to be about how amazing this will be. No real word on plot, story, or anything else, just the groundbreaking technology used.
So I question, will Avatar become the next Watchmen? A film so hotly anticipated for WHAT it is, and exposing itself to a limited audience struggling to meet its production costs? Surely once the advertising ramps up, Avatar will be painted up as a breakthrough from the critically acclaimed Cameron that has been over a decade in the works. But will it own up to its insane budget?
Are they taking one for the team to develop the technology. Perhaps the film itself won’t make much if it does topple those imposing production dollars, but the technology used to bridge the Uncanny Gap, and give us a computer generated image that can fool the mind to thinking its looking at reality will be used in future endeavours.
This will set a new standard for CG in movies and effects, no doubt. Everyone is convinced of that. But will the MOVIE make it big, or will we be too busy seeing if its pretty or not
I havent seen it yet, & do not plan to,can anyone tell me why its rated so high?
You have already decided you don’t want to see it but you still want someone to tell you why its such a big deal?
Seems a strange request from someone who doesn’t plan on seeing it.
I suggest watching it and forming your own opinion or not watching it and remain indifferent.
THe problem is that this film will look incredibly dated in a couple of years. Spending $300m on a movie is just insane as well. Loads of people will flock to see it because of the buzz around it (ie the cost, director, the production) but I reckon it will flop like crazy. That doesn’t mean I want it to, I just can’t see a CGI movie capturing peoples imagination. People like real stuff like the old Stars Wars movies, not CGI like new Star Wars.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned “plot and story”. Thats what Cameron does well, along with the technical aspects of film – thats what makes him so successful. And that, imo, is what Zach Snyder (and other technical filmmakers) does not always do well, and why Avatar will likely not be another Watchmen. It’ll have an enthralling story that mainstream audiences will understand and enjoy, which is what Watchmen didnt have.
I don’t really see how there’s any parallel with Watchmen here. It’s not as if Watchmen was the first film to ever have a large budget and a much smaller initial audience appeal than anticipated. Avatar may potentially be like that, but then since we really know nothing about it at this point, so could any movie really. Other than that, there’s not really anything comparable between an adaptation of a critically acclaimed graphic novel and an original sci-fi film.
Short of making assumptions based on broad public appeal of things like sci-fi, James Cameron films or effects driven films, we can’t even begin to guess at it’s potential success. Ultimatly it will all depend on what it’s marketed as; sci-fi film, character film, action film, James Cameron film, effects film…
Personally, I think it needs to be marketed around characters and story. I don’t think people will go see a movie these days just because the special effects look good. Those days are past. “Special effects” don’t wow people like they once did. Improvements to effects may help make movies look better, but they’re not going to show people anything they haven’t seen before. Back when we saw the T-100 morph in T2 or the Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, we have NEVER seen anything like it before. Now, all you can show people are the same things, but just looking a bit better than they used to. That’s not going to draw people in to cinemas on it’s own. “Come see aliens that look EVEN MORE realistic than the hundreds you’ve seen before!”
I would liken it to the difference from convincing the public to go from VHS to DVD, and from DVD to Blu-Ray. DVD was a huge leap forward, something totally new; Blu-Ray is the same, but slightly better. We’ve seen amazing special effects before; ultimately this film is the same, but slightly better.
And they better come up with something better than “James Cameron directed it” too, because these days even a big name A-list actor won’t draw people to a movie alone. A directors name sure as hell won’t. Not for the majority of the public anyway.
Ultimately, I’m sure the studio is well aware of what they’re investing in. Are they planning to recoup the money from just this film, or is this just seen as a research investment in technology? I’m sure they’d like it to be both, but it had better be a phenomenal story if they want to make more than $300 million.
Avatar will be amazing, like nothing seen before and will get a ton of repeat viewings since I believe one viewing will not be enough to take in all it has to offer. JC hasn’t done a a full motion picture in over 10 years I think the fact that he is coming back with this movie says it all.
No, AVATAR won’t be the next WATCHMEN.
James Cameron is a man who knows what he’s doing and what he is capable of. Not like Zack Snyder.
I for one am glad that WATCHMEN turns out to be a disapointment in the financial sense.
Snyder failed in both areas. Not only is this a financial failure, but more importantly an artistic one. No one will will talk about WATCHMEN in ten years, nor will it win any awards. It will go down as a failed attempt to adapt a genius work of literature and that’s that.
Watchmen was not the bomb some people are making it out to be. It certainly isn’t taking over the world, but it’s making decent money and will problably net a profit once all is said and done. Studios need to stop thinking that everything needs to make a billion dollars in order to be a success. Watchmen is doing fine for what it is, they should just be happy about that.
see the way I see it; it doesn’t really matter if the story is all that good. When a movie sets a whole new standard for every film to follow, that alone is enough to give it praise. Then later on in the future when those kind of visual effects are so “every-day whatevers” then we can all go look back on that movie and be like “what a piece of garbage.
i have no doubt it will make money ive seen alot of james cameron’s films havnt been let down yet, aliens was great, t1 and t2 both great, and i can stand here and admit that i liked titanic(yes im a staight male who liked titanic)
oh ya man i agree 100%
hell if it sucks i will eat my words no problem….then go pop on T2 and aliens lol
my brain just fries out trying to comprehend that kind of spending for a film.
I wondering if Avatar is the most expensive movie ever made. It passes Spider-Man 3 which cost like 250 million to make.
whats funny is i bet people where asying the samething about titanic….how can this movie make money…its about a boat sinking..we know how it ends…well it made fat looot.
yeah everyone knows the story of the titanic, but that movie was mostly about the love story which little girls just eat up, plus i believe it can out around valentine’s day which that would have been the perfect movie to take your date to see
i meant girls of all ages
I’m pretty sure Titanic came out around Christmas. I don’t think it opened all that well, but I definitely remember it picking up steam over the winter months. By Valentines days it was a juggernaut that couldn’t be stopped.
yeah titanic opened really low and was written off as a disaster (pun intended) immediately. The opening weekend was 25 million or thereabouts and people thought it was all over but it just grew and grew and grew.
and everyone claims it was because of girls going back but it was more than that. everyone i knew wanted to see it. my grandmother went to see it and she hadn’t been to the movies since the 70’s. the love story obviously was a big selling point but to claim it was only successful because girls went back is not true.
i didn’t know anyone who hadn’t seen or was going to see it. it was a total phenomenon.
What is this movie suppposed to be about anyway?
something like aliens on another planet that are involved in some kinda war or something.
thanks sampson, ive heard people say that this movie is gonna be great, but i havent heard anything regarding the plot.
you haven’t heard anything about the plot (neither have I) because when people mention James fuckin Cameron and THEN that he is about to do some ground breaking shit in a new movie, nothing else matters to them. The subject of the plot/story gets completely over clouded.
When a film costs this much, is it mathmatically impossible for it to turn a profit unless it pulls a Titanic?
A $300 million budget is huge. The studio wants that money back so they’ll most likely spend $100 million or more on marketing. That puts them $400 million in the hole from the start. If it makes about $600-700 million worldwide, it would be an impressive number, but spending $400 million to get only $200-300 million in profit seems to be a bad deal to me.
i agree
i disagree…this is basically a platform for the graphics company……sure if the movie only makes $200 mill thats not what they put into it…but in the future this technology will have to be paid for…and thats where the co. makes its money.
I would spend $400million if it meant I MADE $200-300m in return. Thats just good business.
But as I mentioned above, I don’t think they are anticipating the profit as this is likely just going to be one giant commercial for their breakthrough technology that EVERY cg and effects studio is going to want to use after they see it.
His talk on Battle Angel dealt with using the exact same style and effects he is using on Avatar, granted this was several years ago when he talked about both. Battle Angel may once again be another giant advertisement for their equipment, but damn that is a great story. Hopefully Avatar is also a great story, and more than just pushing the limits in the effects department.
if you spend 400 million and it makes 700 million at the box office you haven’t made 300 million.
The standard rule of thumb is a film needs to make 2-2 and a half times its budget back at the BO to make a profit.
obviously that won’t apply to every film but that is the industry standard.
The ticket money gets split many ways before the studio get their hands on it. The studio doesn’t get every dollar that comes through the door. The reason opening weekends are so important to the studios is because that is when they get their biggest cut.
I don’t know the exact ratio but it is something like this:
Opening weekend Studio gets around 80% -90% and the cinemas take the rest.
Since the opening weekend has become the be all and end all for a lot of films cinema owners want to change that long standing arrangement but that is the standard deal.
then the second week the ratio changes to something like 60-40 and as the weeks go by it drops more and more to give theatres owners an incentive to keep it on screens as they take a bigger cut but films don;t have the legs they used to as the it is all top loaded in that opening weekend. this is mainly for the big hollywood studio films. Indies run differently obviously.
but basically if a film costs 400 million and its BO total is 700 million the studio has not made 300 million dollars.
DVD has become incredibly important to studios obviously as a saviour but even DVD sales have levelled out at a faster rate then the industry foresaw. It was embraced so quickly and grew so fast that studios have been surprised to see it plateau so quickly.
as for avatar it will probably make watchmen total right now in its opening weekend. Can it turn a profit on the reported budget who knows but I sure as hell can;t wait to see it!!!!!
Does kinda look like Watchmen
what does? have u seen anything yet ? cause i havent.
sampson,
i think hes refering to that picture
I love James Cameron, but the only thing about this whole motion capture stuff is the faces always look so emotionless. The most recent movie with motion capture that I can think of Beowulf, and even then the women’s facese looked kind of barren. I heard Tintin is using a somewhat similar technology. Maybe these film can change that whole bias.
i think we can expect a new level of cineme
I have been excited about this movie since I read about it as Project 880. I hope this lives up to my expectations, and Cameron continues on to making the Battle Angel Alita adaptation. I can not imagine Avatar disappointing me, but I am curious how the rest of the world will see it.
It won’t become Watchmen because Avatar is an original piece of work. There’s nothing to compare it too. Nothing that will make it redundant.
What SML said, this is true. Watchmen, while original in it’s own way, there is still allot about it that can be compared to other comic books and stories.
The day Watchmen came out my friend pointed out to me, after we went to see it, that the over all story was very smiler to some of the the better Gundam stories, which the first Gundam series came out in 79′. I also know dist it’s smiler to the over all story of Neon Genesis Evangelion as well.
But from what I know, Avatar is really over all like no story that’s ever been done before. But I could be wrong. ;p
But will the story be enough to draw people into the theaters for repeat viewings, or will it just become a visual gimmick film, that is SO hyped up for so long that it falls short.
I could see people seeing it as a “gimmick film”, but so could Titanic in it’s own way. Hopefully the fact this is another Cameron dream project will be enough to get the masses to the theater and see it for something more than just a gimmick. I think, to Cameron anyway, it is meant to be something more.
i say hell no….peope will flock to this movie….this is the guy who brang us some of the best movies ever with litterally no bad movies….aliens, T2, titanic, etc….this movie will be huge …..what people dont seem to understand about watchmen is that most people think the story sucked…..trust me out of the 25 people who have seen it only 5 said they loved it and they all read the comic….the other 20 said it was a long drawn out movie that had to many slow motion scenes…i agree but i did like how they kept it real to the comic…..but snyder is no james cameron…batman was good but not great IMO and i think that if ledger hadnt died it wouldnt have been as succesful…it would be big but not as big as it became.
No bad movies? What about Piranha 2? I don’t no the definition of bad anymore, I guess.
its tricky because of the fantastic nature of the movie… i know alot of people that would skip out on it because of the concept