Friday, May 9, 2025

Got a Tip?

James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Pricetag Approaching $500 million?

In a New York Times article questioning whether a film like James Cameron’s “Avatar” — that features no major superstars and is based on an original idea that’s not a franchise — will recoup its mammoth budget back, the dreaded $500 million figure raises its head.

The final cost of the film has not been tallied, as Mr. Cameron, who has worked on the project for 15 years, and his collaborators, as far-flung as Weta Digital in New Zealand, continue to complete their work. Published reports have put the production budget at more than $230 million. But the price tag would be higher if the financial contribution of Mr. Cameron and others were included. When global marketing expenses are added, “Avatar” may cost its various backers $500 million.

It’s a posit of course — one that Fox will probably release a counter statement against soon, we’re sure — but an interesting part of the article notes how 20th Century Fox has made sure to not take the lion’s share of risk bringing in a pair of private equity partners — Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media — “to pick up 60 percent of the budget.” This will likely limit their profit as well, but they have what they think is an ace in the hole to counter it all.

Taking no chances, Fox is backing up Mr. Cameron’s movie with what an executive recently called the studio’s “secret weapon. That would be “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel,” set to open just a week after studio marketers get “Avatar” into theaters. It is the relatively safe sequel to a chipper family comedy that cost about $60 million and took in $217 million at the domestic box office when it was released two years ago.

Furher hedging their bets, Fox has made it part of Cameron’s contract that if production exceeded $300 million, the director would have to wait to see his payout until Fox and others were compensated first. That’s what you call a labor of love, but then again, “Titanic” probably made this guy rich 50x over and that money is what’s allowed him to sit pretty and slowly develop “Avatar” by himself on his own dime for 15 years.

Still, it sounds like 20th Century Fox knew what they were getting into before the signed up which is probably smart on their part given the potential risks. The $500 hundred million mark seems excessive, but who knows. Even at say $300 million, “Avatar” will have to be a massive hit to make that kind of money back.

About The Author

Related Articles

13 COMMENTS

  1. I was wondering if the budget is $300 million how can it be considered a financial success? Wouldn't everybody in America have to see it to make it a success?

  2. It´s gonna be hard this time bringing in the 15 year old girls searching for a good love story with the furry animals on main stage…
    And this doesn´t look like any sort of actioner for the male audience either…
    Is everything resting in the arms of the name "James Cameron"…?
    Or do they actually think this will be such an immersive and unbelievable experience that people will keep going back to see it…?

    I think 20th Century Fox is screwed on this one…
    Studios have bankrupted for way less…
    Let´s just cross our fingers and hope thath "Avatar" will bomb and that will give the execs an idea that maybe smaller, BETTER, fucking, movies that make any freakin sense are in order…

    But that´s hoping to much i guess.

  3. I'm no Avatard, but I seem to remember that there was much worse talk about Titanic just before its release. Many were predicting it to be worse than Ishtar and questioning the costs overrun and whether a 3+ hour movie would sell. All I'm saying is that Cameron has been here before (worse than this) and proved everyone wrong.

    PS: No way am I declaring Titanic a great movie. Just referencing its success by revenue.

  4. Yeah, i'm not counting it out either. Agreed, about the Titanic talk. There was months and months of pre-release bad buzz because of the budget and everyone assumed it was going to be a trainwreck and then Cameron did an about face it it all and won an Oscar.

    At the time, it was kind of shocking how he came back. Everyone was against him and there were no blogs back then. Just the traditional media was super skeptical and there nothing but negative reports from the difficult shoot.

  5. Yes but… again…
    Titanic was a super smash because there are more teenage girls in the world than we care to count…
    And they all want to go see a pretty boy fall in love an see an epic love story…
    If nothing, the dreadful titanic proved just that…

    So what is Cameron trying to prove this time around…?
    That there are more geeks in the world than we care to count…?
    Hhhmhmhmhmhmmmmm…

  6. Monty you make a great point, but. . . no one knew who the hell Leonardo DiCaprio was. Gwyneth Paltrow was supposed to be Rose, so when word got out that Kate Winslet took the role, everyone was "who?" The idea of Titanic being this huuuuuuge success thanks to repeat viewings by teenage girls wasn't even thought of in the months proceeding its release.

    At the time, the big question was: who is going to watch a 3.5 hr movie about a sinking cruise ship where everyone knows whats going to happen at the end? From that perspective, Cameron surprised everybody.

    All I'm saying is do not count Cameron out. He's been doubted before and proved everyone wrong.

  7. Fully agreed. I think Avatar looks silly, thought the 20 minutes of footage was silly and I doubt I'm going to enjoy it much, but I'm not convinced audiences are going to go out in droves, and at the same time, I would never count Cameron and out and as a betting man, who makes bets on any film, I would certainly sit out any wagers on this one.

  8. Maybe Cameron's got another huge Celine Dion hit waiting for us again.
    Avatar still looks at least as enjoyable as Wolverine, Star Trek, etc and given the long layoff of Tentpole action/CGI movies, it's going to bring in huge audiences.

    I mean Transformers made $400 million so putting Avatar at at least $300 million domestic is probably a decent over/under point for any betting.

    And Fox has turned Ice Age into a money printing machine. The 3rd one in the franchise grossed $878 million worldwide on a $90 budget. It's got to be a decent insight into the prospects of Avatar.

  9. this movie will suck ass! seriously, who the HELL wants to see an action movie with creepy, blue, badly designed alien things that look like some 60s sci-fi film shit? cameron, you frickin stupid to spend 15+ years and $300 mil+ developing a movie that everyone knows will suck ass

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img
Stay Connected
0FansLike
19,300FollowersFollow
7,169FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles