20th Century Fox’s Fox Filmed Entertainment chairman Jim Gianopulos says claims that “Avatar” cost $500 million (though the NYTimes initially said it “could cost up to“) were “ridiculous.”
“That’s a ridiculous number,” Gianopulos told Reuters, however refusing to divulge the actual cost of the film. “It has actually no relationship to the actual cost of the movie. The movie was quite expensive, there is no question about that. But viewed now, from the perspective of its completion and having seen it, it’s a formidable work and money well spent.”
Will the movie make its money back or even turn a profit? “I have no doubt about that,” he said, which is sort of amusing to watch fanboys around the web sort of go, “oh good! It’s going to make money!”
We’re not saying it won’t and we would never count James Cameron out (we sort of did that back in the day with “Titanic” when the press made it seem like an expensive disaster waiting in the wings), but it’s still kind of funny to see a dubious quote like this was taken at face value from the geeks and thrown in headlines as truth. What the hell was the Fox guy going to say, “Actually, it cost more than that. We’re really scared we won’t make our money back and we’ll be fucked”???
Meanwhile, James Cameron was on 60 Minutes this weekend, but the appearance was somewhat dry and boring. However, 60 minutes did say that the film cost “roughly $400 million-plus for production and promotion.” Also Cameron give us pearls of genius like, “Hell yeah, [I gave the Na’vi character tails]. Tails are cool.”
One technical achievement the director is proud of is actually quite sad. “Even when we were doing ‘Titanic’ twelve years ago, the shot at the bow where [Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet] kiss, we waited two weeks for the right sunset to get that shot. Now we just shoot it in front of a green screen and choose the right sunset later.”
Geez, if that’s not a sad pullquote for the state of soulless cinema, we’re not sure what is. He’s also quite modest. He tells crew members that for each project of his they work on they are “going to the Superbowl” and warns them, “don’t get on the boat if you’re not ready to go all the way.” His reputation as a bonafide asshole seems calcified.
Cameron did use and abuse his painful “crowning” metaphor once again. Ugh. “You don’t ask a woman if she wants to have more kids at the exact moment when she is having a baby, you know what I mean?,” he said, apparently pleased with himself that he’s used this analogy about 12 times in different interviews now.
Evidently Cameron is working down to the wire to get “Avatar” complete for its December 18 release date. Though he actually has less time. The world premiere of “Avatar” will take place December 10 in London and its U.S. premiere will happen in L.A. on December 16, but he’s tinkering down to the last second. Here’s the 60 Minute piece and a chase sequence that was part of the 20 minutes of footage we saw earlier this year.
Ugh. Another reason why I hope (probably against hope) that District 9 will beat out Avatar for any possible Best Picture nom. Cameron singing a paean to the green-screen while Blomkamp was out in the hot sun and the trash and the dirt and the human excrement – you know, making a movie in THIS world.
Ok so now we have a number, $400 million for production and promotion. So that's maybe $100-$150 million more than other blockbusters like TDK, Iron Man, Wolverine, etc.
So will a box-office number of $800worldwide be an indication of successful theatre run? Plus DVD, merchanidsing, etc.
Fox's Ice Age 3 made over $800 million. And Avatar is looking like the first tentpole "live-action" movie for 3D so it has that novelty going for it. And I think a lot of people will want to pay a few $ extra to see it in 3D. And even regular ticket sales will be big.
If Transformers can get to $800 worldwide, and if New Moon can get to $500-600, and if The Blind Side can get to $34 opening weekend then Avatar can get to $700-800.
It doesn't look amazing, but there's still that potential for the 3D look of the movie, not that it can really make a maybe-decent movie amazing.
I have no interest at all to see this. The characters.. they just look really really really gay. I can't get past it.
I think the majority of film goers out there agree with me. Maybe the old douche-bag-fanboys can support this thing though… who knows?
@Wrrrrrr:
And what about Transformers, New Moon, Wolverine, etc. didn't look pretty stupid?
I'm not defending Avatar, but there is plenty of appeal.
It's not just about fanboys. You see what's playing at the theatres and there's this 3D epic out you've heard about. If the movies listed above can create a lot of buzz at the box office then so can Avatar.
I really think the fanboy factor is over-played or taken to highly into account. Where were the fanboys for Watchmen?
"…a sad pullquote for the state of soulless cinema."
??
really?
you don't think that EVERY DIRECTOR EVER, sitting in a fucking tent looking at the rain puring down on his location when he's scheduled to shoot the big sunlit scene doesn't think "I wish I could get the light I want RIGHT FUCKING NOW"?
yeah, using a set of tools to achieve the elements you want for a film really is the epitome of 'soulless cinema'.
if you want dogma95 you can have it…enjoy!
And these comments are the reason why H'wood keeps serving up steaming piles of retread. Here is a guy with a PROVEN track record of original, profitable movies and no one is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, he's an a-hole. And, those quotes that making movies is like "going to war" is cheezy at best and insulting at worse to members of the armed forces considering this country is fighting two wars. But, when you see that just TWO of the top 30 top grossing movies of this past decade are original*, he has a point. Producing a big budget, original film is a Sisyphean task. Very few people–even discerning movie fans like yourselves–are willing to give original material a chance.
So keep making fun of their tales, call it "Dance with Wolves" in space, Cameron's Blue Man Group, etc. . . Go ahead and judge it before you even see it, but when you are taking your grandkids to see Shrek 15 or Ice Age 23, you can still bitch about how H'wood doesn't take any chances any more. And, you get feel righteous.
*PS: you can check this stat at: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/16/only-two-of-the-top-30-grossing-films-of-this-decade-are-original/
You want to know how many of the top 30 grossing films I've seen? Zero. I watch real films alright. I'm not some idiotic fanboy.
How righteous of your wrrrrrr. You get to sit so proud in your barcalounger watching mumblecore on DVD's while you update your reviews on Netflix.
Btw, your reason for having no interest in Avatar because "the characters.. they just look really really really gay," is very insightful and mature.
But hey, no one is ever going to call you a fanboy. So, you got that going for you.
"Cameron singing a paean to the green-screen while Blomkamp was out in the hot sun and the trash and the dirt and the human excrement – you know, making a movie in THIS world."
Jesus, since when does everyone on the internet have such a huge stake in how their entertainment is made? Filming in the "human excrement" was the right call for District 9 – it was a gritty genre mash-up that turned out great. Avatar is a multi-hundred million dollar movie that spearheaded new digital technology and will try to show people movies in a way they haven't seen before, set on another planet. Something tells me green-screen technology is fairly "organic" to Avatar's process.
It's so funny when people garishly latch onto what they know when a new way of doing things comes around. Like musicians that spend way too much time touting and wrestling with old analog recording systems, rather than using digital technology and focusing on making better songs.
I don't care if it's a real sunset or not — as long as it is convincing. The trouble with big budget-'fantasy' seems to be that it limits imagination where it should expand it. To me, Avatar looks fake — in fact very similar to other big budget plastic fantasy like ILM's Revenge of the Sith etc. One of the most beautiful things in film is light, touching a delicate surface, like a person's skin — that sort of beauty is almost always lost in animation.
Great call, but I can say this from experience: watch your imagination go into overdrive when you watch this movie in 3D. It was more stimulating than I thought possible.
"You just gotta see it in 3D to know what I mean" sounds like such a lame argument, but in this case, it's valid and completely true. These 2D trailers and screencaps mean fuck-all in the scheme of what this movie has going for it. That's why it's a little frustrating reading people set in their ways to hate on this movie when they don't even understand what it's capable of..
@Anonymous
"One of the most beautiful things in film is light, touching a delicate surface, like a person's skin — that sort of beauty is almost always lost in animation."
fair enough…
I agree – this is exactly the kind of work I do for a living – and the fact is that, just about everyone in VFX uses a couple of SIGGRAPH papers written by a guy named Jensen, who worked with places like Pixar etc and developed methods of rendering translucent materials like skin – and he got himself an Academy Award for it…
everyone is trying to achieve better results…but like anything it takes time and the willingness of studios and filmmakers to take chances – and big budget sci-fi/fantasy film help pay for all of this…
as far as I'm concerned people like Cameron are trying, pushing things as far as they can go – and then further…this really will help everyone in time.
better tools are just that – tools…they have to be used well.
No Rabi, I just don't waste my time. I hope everyone that pays money to see this enjoys it. I don't care. But if its the other way around, like me for instance, that has no interest in this Avatar. that just drives you crazy doesn't it? Typical fanboy.
@Anonymous
there is a difference between saying "I don't care, this film isn't for me" and saying "this looks bad, it's for fanboys, green-screen isn't real filmmaking"
Goldfarb, you silly nitwit, playing videogames for a living in your parents basement does not qualify as what you "do for a living."
@Anonymous
damn, you got me…can't argue with that.
It's funny to see someone pull the 'mature, refined film watcher' card while using "really gay" as an insult.
They do look really gay though.
they can say whatever they want about their movie, but if it does indeed suck, word of mouth will kill it after the first weekend. if anything, its mediocre, but i have not seen it yet so i can't speak.