Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
BAFTA Awards: What ‘Artist’, Dujardin, Streep … 
64th BAFTA Awards Winners: ‘The Artist’, Meryl … 
BAFTA 2012 Preview: Very British Affair Takes On … 
RECORD-BREAKING WEEKEND! 4 Films Open $20+M: ‘The … 
Remembered: Jennifer Hudson To Perform Whitney Houston … 
Live From NY, It’s Jean Dujardin On 
R.I.P. Whitney Houston 
TOLDJA! Indomina-BET Buy Sundance ‘LUV’ 
Saoirse Ronan Bigger Teen Action Queen 
WME Signs Writer-Director Jon Kasdan 
‘Glee’s Jane Lynch Joins Indie Film Comedy 
Universal Revives ‘Dracula Year Zero’ With … 
Jodie Foster Sending Mel Gibson Film ‘The … 
‘Roseanne’ Reunion: John Goodman To Co-Star In … 
UPDATE: Closing Arguments Conclude In Golden Globes Trial; … 
Series Adaptation Of ‘Legion’ With … 
Lionsgate Calms Investors With Talk About Charlie Sheen, … 
Ridley Scott Commits To Next Direct McCarthy’s … 
Marvel Studio’s Tim Connors Defects To Legendary As … 
UPDATE: Warner Bros Lawyers Dig In Garbage Over ‘The … 
It’s no Taylor Lautner story, but I’m told by 20th Century Fox sources that its Avatar will likely be the #2 movie of all time as soon as tonight. Its grosses, helped by higher 3D ticket prices, are overtaking 2D Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King ($1,119,110,941), but is still behind #1, James Cameron’s earlier 2D epic Titanic ($1,842,879,955). Its new domestic total, including Wednesday’s grosses, is $374,436,685. And it’s taken only 20 days! I’ll have Avatar‘s latest worldwide gross in the morning.
Loading ...
That’s both amazing and disgusting. Avatar was amazing visually, but the way Cameron boasted leading up to te realease leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
Who cares if he separated his shoulder slapping himself on the back for the achievement upon its release. He backed up his self-congratulation with stellar execution. He’s got a body of work that most assuredly warrants boastfulness.
Mr. Cameron has never been shy about promoting his films, and why should he be? He’s a director who has succeeded in creating a film that realizes a vision he’s had for 15 years and has co-created a new process for shooting 3D in the process. And, the fact that this film, like TITANIC, went over-budget gives him an extra incentive to try to get people into the theaters to see it. (If you look back, you’ll find that the further TITANIC — the #1 film in this category — went over-budget, the louder his pre-release boasting got on that film as well.)
From my perspective, Mr. Cameron is neither very nice nor very humble when it comes to creating and promoting his work. (In fact, during production, he has done things that many people would consider to be downright cruel.) That said, once he undertakes to create a picture, compromise is not an option, and he will do whatever it takes to see his vision come to fruition. For him (and for many other directors with his passion), that is the only thing that really matters.
He accomplished a stellar movie, of course he was confident, would you go see movie that the director didn’t even love. After making that masterpiece he’s allowed some self congratulations.
Pathetic touchiness. I hate humans.
Cameron always just seems confident in his ability to do something decent. Anyway, who cares even if he was bragging. His movie is unbelievable and you are still a loser.
Will be a $2bill flick when all said & done… Stars aligned for Cameron, again! Still haven’t seen it yet lol rather dl blu ray flix and old Johnny To & Ringo Lam flix lol
This movie was an experience not just a movie. Jim Cameron deserves all the success he can get because he is thinking outside the box AND he has the balls to try to realize his dreams. Innovative, smart, cocky, hardworking-great combination obviously!
It’s simple: this was your first 3d movie.
It’s not simple. I’ve seen dozens of recent 3D movies, and Cameron used it to far greater effect than other filmmakers have. “Avatar” is an immersive experience, and Cameron’s achievement deserves the accolades it’s getting. Whenever there’s something that too many people have a high opinion of, there are always those like yourself who feel a compulsion to belittle it. It’s not a healthy or productive compulsion.
Alek, sori but name one film that was like this one? This wasn’t just your average poke-your-eye 3D flick…have u even seen it?
Do any of you speak English?
What Alek said was “This was your first 3D movie”
He wasn’t belittling it, on the contrary…
What he meant was that this movie IS 3D, all those others are gimmick 2D pictures with 3D elements.
So this was really the FIRST 3D movie ever made.
Drop the condescending comments, pal. Everyone else was right in their interpretation — you’re the one misinterpreting alex’s intentions. Geesh.
Watched Avatar this week in IMAX 3D theatre. I am a big fan of action/special effects movies so have watched 2012 and the like. Avatar is way ahead of anything else that I have ever watched and Cameron deserves the right to brag and be praised. As noted by another submission, this is a full 3D movies not a 2D with bits of 3D.
No, do YOU speak English? He states, and I quote, “this was YOUR first 3d movie,” directing the statement toward the reader, implying the people who really like the movie only did so because of experiencing 3d technology for the first time.
You took his words and tried to twist the meaning to a more even keeled response that he meant this was the first “true” 3d filmed movie, which was not in the original author’s intent.
I have a feeling you were king of the high school debate team, when you could simply take what someone else had said and through smoke and mirrors and a self righteous indignation, mold it into something fitting your needs. That might have worked with high school kids in over their heads, don’t try to run that past here.
While I have enjoyed almost every single film from Cameron I still find some of the praise absolutely ridiculous. Seeing comments claiming this film should win and Oscar for Best Picture, or Director is BS. From a tech standpoint the film delivered on the hype, where it fell short was in the plot. Avatar is nothing more then a good theater film, and the entertainment offered will NOT survive the transition to home viewing.
I don’t understand those who complain about Avatar’s plot. While there are no major surprises, it’s a very strong classic tale. Have we become so ADHD that a film needs some surprise twist in order to qualify as a good story? Sorry, but no. The film is well-written, has strong themes, and is extremely tight and effective.
Not only WILL this survive the transition to home viewing, it will lead the way in revolutionizing the home viewing technology, because audiences will demand a more effective way to experience it at home. Some of you need to go watch that film again, because you’re missing a watershed moment of cinema.
I don’t think that there’s any qualifications or equivocations needed anymore: no matter how you slice it, Avatar is truly a smash hit (and, more importantly, it’s a true smash that people actually like, not a phony media driven “hit”.)
However, there is a significant factor which mitigates its box office a little bit, and that’s the fact that, here in the U.S., 75% of its tickets are being sold at inflated 3D ticket costs. So, I came up with a formula which accounts for this and approximates – pretty accurately, I think – how much Avatar would make (this only applies to American figures) if all the tickets were in 2D:
Premises and assumptions for the formula.
1) 75% of tickets sold are in 3D
2) 3D tickets cost 30% more than regular tickets
2) IMAX tickets cost 50% more than regular tickets
The formula then is this (USBO stands for United States Box Office):
((USBO – IMAX) x .25) + (IMAX / 1.5) +
(((USBO – IMAX) x .75) / 1.3)
Note, though, that Avatar is making a ton more money overseas than here in the U.S….and that’s almost all 2D! So, clearly, the 3D is not to credit for the movie’s triumph. (It’s kinda appropriate that it’s making more money overseas, considering that virtually everything about it is foreign: it’s writer, director, financiers, effects crew, etc., etc.)
” think – how much Avatar would make (this only applies to American figures) if all the tickets were in 2D:”
Sorry that simply is not true. With lower prices attendance would be MUCH MUCH higher. There is no way of knowing whether total gross would go down, or up or stay about the same.
The way you calculate it there is no reason why any product doesn’t just increase price by 30-50% since demand will stay the same. This is of course false!
There is NO marketing research saying that people are buying less tickets because of the higher 3D prices. In fact, the lure of the 3D being so revolutionary is the main pull getting people outside of the standard demo to go experience the movie. It’s also obviously causing many people who don’t care for the film from a story perspective (like me) to see the movie and perhaps even see it again.
Besides, your entire theory is flawed. It IS available in 2D. Nobody is being stopped from buying cheaper tickets. By and large, the audience just obviously prefers this film in 3D.
If it wasn’t in 3D, attendance would be down by half, the whole lure of this movie was its revolutionary 3D visuals overcoming a shitty script
I dont believe that for a second. I myself and many others I know didn’t like it because it was 3D, we liked the movie itself, I and many others even prefer 2D over 3D. So I bet it would stay the same. People would still see this movie if it was 3D. In my opinion, the 3D part of it is NOTHING compared to the movie itself.
Very perceptive comment. Brilliant in fact, aside from the potty mouth language. And I bet if he’d shot it as a silent film in black and white, the grosses would be even lower.
I’m in Germany and over here it’s also mostly 3D-tickets that are sold, which also cost about 30% more than regular tickets. So are you sure that it’s mostly 2D overseas?
The little formula that I jerry-rigged there only applies to the U.S. I’m not “sure” what the percentage of 3D screenings are outside North America….but it’s a safe bet that it’s a heck of a lot less than the the 3/4 here.
Just a few weeks before Avatar was released, Cameron said, “Probably, globally, two-thirds of the people who see this movie will see it in 2D.” I’m sure that his estimate was about accurate because he’s very, very knowledgeable about the state of the 3D industry.
(From what I know, Germany is very developed with a robust economy. But think about all the countries in southern Europe, central Asia, South America, Central America, Africa, etc.: most of those countries are comparatively poor, and that’s probably the bulk of what Cameron was talking about.)
But I can’t find precise figures for overseas, so it’s kind of a moot point. (The 75% for the U.S. came from BoxOfficeMojo.com.)
Oh yeah, all those little countries in Southern Europe, like Italy, right? Dude, go back to school, really. Even here in eastern Europe half the screens Avatar is on are 3D. 7% of all tickets sold were from IMAX.
We might not have as many 3D screens as you guys but we are growing fast, faster then you guys at least.
Alex,
Sorry that you have to deal with this dumb American and his un-informed comments. I promise you that most of us are not this way and look at the facts. We don’t make up stuff like he does to try to prove his point of view.
By the way, I have been doing research and trying to figure out how much money Avatar is making by country overseas. Can you maybe give me some information on how much Avatar has made in Italy?
Actually, Italy IS a little country- both in terms of geography and population. Now that doesn’t mean that Italy doesn’t have 3D (I’ll defer to your expert opinion on that). But Italy is really a minor country. It contains less than 0.9% of the world’s population- smaller than the Congo or Ethiopia.
I’m based out of India, which is definitely one of the poorer countries, and 90% of the theaters here are screening it in 3D (never mind bad prints and 3D glasses that are, well, not really 3D glasses). More importantly, the 3D tickets out here cost nearly double what a general 2D movie costs (USD 10 approx)
Whatever he might have said, Cameron’s not stupid – he knew the only reason Avatar would work is because of the visuals – which are, admittedly, astounding – and he’s ensured that he rolls out as many 3D prints as possible, domestically AND internationally. My guesstimate is, approx. 75-80% of the people that have seen this movie have seen it in 3D, regardless of geography.
If you are talking about third world countries, the answer is: YES.
60% of the total gross worldwide is coming from those countries and they don’t have 3d Imax or too many Real 3d screens.
yeah. i am in romania right now and avatar is mostly on 3D here and hungary, i have no idea how you guessed there is mostly 2D overseas?
yeah, you said right. mostly 3D here in Hungary as well. and the theaters are packed like crazy. I mean wow, really the only time I’ve seen this histeria before was when Titanic were screened.
JC’s name sold this picture. he deserves every success.
Wow! What a waste of time it was to go to your link and read all the mumbo-jumbo about “military subsidized hits” and then comparing Avatar’s success to a politician!
I have to admit, I didn’t read the whole article. Too boring. The main reason I did go to the link is to see the total that your “formula” came up with for the “adjusted gross” if you don’t take 3D prices into account and figure out how many people actually bought tickets to see Avatar.
I guess that part makes for interesting yet irrelevant trivia…But IT DOESN’T MATTER AT ALL!
I guess I have to teach you the same way I did with “helenofpeel” about the importance of money made, rather than the importance of tickets sold.
Any company or project has investors only interested in one thing: Money!
I used this example before, and I will use it again. Because I think it is the easiest way for you guys to understand:
A car company can state that it sold a thousand cars, which might sound good to it’s investors, but the question is, “Which model did you sell?” and more importantly “How much money did you bring in?”
That’s why companies come out with “quarterly earnings”, not “quarterly units sold”. Sure, in the report of quarterly earnings they might disclose how many units were sold, but the only thing that matters is the money and it will always be the only thing that matters.
AND THAT GOES FOR ANY COMPANY!
People like to argue that movies in the past sold more tickets so that’s why we should only look at the amount of tickets sold today.
But I bet you that when “Gone With The Wind” sold it’s reported 200 million tickets, the studio still only cared about the money that the movie made.
Do you think that 20th Centure Fox goes to the bank and tells them: “I would like to deposit the 50 million tickets sold by Avatar into the account.” The teller will just look at them and think, what the hell are they talking about?
Ok, I simplified it to make my argument, but how else are you going to understand? Money is the only thing that matters!
Technically, business are interested in profits, not money.
But I’m not a company, and I’m definitely not a movie studio….so I’m interested in a movie’s popularity, not its profits. If people cared about movie studios’ profits, then USA Today would print their quarterly balance sheets. They don’t. The reason that the public – most people, anyway – care about box office has nothing to do with interest and everything to do with gauging if, and how much, their fellow citizens enjoy a movie.
So, you might be interested in News Corp’s income statements and Avatar‘s impact on them, but most people are interested in….Avatar.
“Technically, business are interested in profits, not money.”
I’m sorry. I must be confused. What is this thing you call “profits”? Aren’t “profits” people that profisize the future? Oh no, that’s “prophets”. LOL
I will have to do some IN-DEPTH research, but I believe profits come from THE AMOUNT OF MONEY A STUDIO SPENDS, and THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THE STUDIO MAKES. When I find out the answer, I will get back to you on that one…HAHAHA
Give up on the “amount of tickets sold” idea. You know it’s just ridiculous. Maybe you thought you came up with the next “big thing” with your special “jerry-rigged” calculation that you thought would impress people.
Oh, and by the way, we know exactly how much our “fellow citizen’s enjoy” Avatar. You can tell by the 1.8% drop on its second weekend and the 9.4% drop on its third weekend. You might be new to box office trends, but usually movies drop at least 30% from weekend to weekend. Also, if a movie opens pretty big, the second weekend drop is usually 40% or more. Avatar dropped 1.8%!
And if you want to use the idiotic idea of Liz, you can say that it’s only because of its weekends falling on holidays. Well, Sherlock Holmes’ second weekend fell on a holiday and it still dropped 41%!
So, if you want to gauge what fellow citizens think of any movie, just look at the drop from weekend to weekend…A lower drop means that the movie is getting good word of mouth…Do you understand or do you want me to explain it a different way?
But, thank you for playing…Next!
At my theater in Woodland Hills, CA, the IMAX was ONLY $1 more and the 3D was the same price as the other movies on the board….
Idiots…
Where you getting these numbers?
* 3D tickets cost 30% more than regular tickets
* IMAX tickets cost 50% more than regular tickets
The 30% figure came from Cameron himself.
And as long as you’ve set the precedent that random examples establish the entire trend, then I’ll say mine: I go to weekday showings to save money. All tickets are $5….except RealD 3D movies, which are $8. So that’s a 60% increase! But wait, there’s more: IMAX 3D tickets at this same theater are $14.25, no matter the day or time. So that’s a 285% increase!
If you want to get a definitive number or just an estimate that you think is more accurate, run along and do the work. I’ll modify the formula if you come up with something. Thanks.
Where I live the daytime tickets cost $7.75 with an additional $2 for 3D glasses (a 25.8% increase) for a total of $9.75.
Showtimes after 4PM cost $10.50 with the additional $2 for the glasses (a 19% increase) for a total of $12.75.
So, now the question is, how many people go to see the movie before 4PM and how many goes to see it after 4PM.
You say that you go to the weekday showings to save money. So how do we know how many people are doing the same thing you are doing? Maybe Avatar is suffering because people like you go see it in the morning instead of at night!
If people only go to see it before 4PM in my area, that means that they spend $9.75 a ticket (including 3D glasses), which is less than people spend when they see a regular movie after 4PM at $10.50 a ticket! Avatar is losing $0.75 per ticket, because people would rather see it before 4PM when it’s cheaper!
Oh no, you have to totally change your formula now! People are actually spending an average of 75 cents less than they would if it wasn’t in 3D.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…And that’s why your formula means nothing! Anyone can just come up with their “perspective” of it all.
We all know that it’s more expensive to go see Avatar, but people don’t really seem to care…They still pay it. The movie is still raking in the cash, setting records! Everything else is just trivial!
Charl:
The formula was presented with very clear, unmistakable modesty, and all the things that you’re rabidly complaining about – in multiple posts now – were acknowledged in both my blog entry and in my post here.
Yes, the figures are ballpark estimates. Because they’re estimates and because I don’t have access to average 3D ticket costs, the formula absolutely needs to be taken with a big grain of salt.
Like I said before, if you want to do your own work and find precise figures that we could plug into it, I’ll happily modify the formula. Or perhaps we’d even find that my estimates were accurate. Until you actually do work instead of just complaining and offering potential problems, we don’t know.
You concluded your post with, “The movie is still raking in the cash, setting records. Everything else is trivial.” First, thanks for breaking that news to us all! We were all thinking that Avatar was a flop ’til you came along and set the record straight. Secondly, I don’t think that knowledge is “trivial.” I think that it’s important and, for me anyway, it’s also fun.
It’s just a harmless search for greater clarity and knowledge. I have no clue why you seem to be so offended by it.
JamesCameronBlogspot,
You state “Like I said before, if you want to do your own work and find precise figures that we could plug into it, I’ll happily modify the formula. Or perhaps we’d even find that my estimates were accurate. Until you actually do work instead of just complaining and offering potential problems, we don’t know.”
Let me ask you: Why do I have to do the work to help you with a formula that is absolutely pointless? The only thing that I care about is the facts, not some silly little formula! And that goes for just about anybody commenting on this site.
I’m not offended by your search for greater clarity and knowledge, just don’t waste our time by commenting over and over about a formula that is trivial.
You think it’s important…Why is it important? Tell me. Why do you continue to force this formula on us? How is this going to help anyone on this site? What is its importance to anything in the movie industry?
You say that your formula is only “estimates”. Then why even come up with a “formula”?
We don’t need estimates, we need facts! And the facts come from the money the movie has made in theaters. That’s all the facts that we need!
Let me ask you something else: Are people today talking about Titanic selling 128 million tickets domestically, or do they talk about Titanic making $600 million?
THAT is why your little formula is TRIVIAL.
I really don’t know what to tell you. You don’t like the idea of noting that 3D tickets cost more money. Okay. So then you don’t have to think about it. I think it’s relevant, and so I will think about it. Different strokes for different folks.
For the record, all the “estimates” were thoroughly substantiated – citing estimates from the studio, BoxOfficeMojo, and Cameron himself.
i get what you’re saying, but this “analysis” is useless and opens a can of worms. different theathers charge different amounts, and if you want to go the inflation route, then let’s talk about “gone with the wind”
part of the reason the film cost so much was the 3d, which is also its lure.
hp has 3d imax (granted not as high a % of the gross) but there weren’t as many detractors. also, there should be a premium for a 3d imax film, and there should be a higher charge.
the fact is, people are seeing it in droves and they continue to. studios love bragging about records, so i guess we will have to deal.
I am from Austria, and I have seen Avatar twice. Both times on Imax 3D. Tickets were expensive (15€ if you care to know), but it was worth it.
The point is: I assure you, if its true that Avatar makes more Money here than in the US, than it’s just because of 3D.
Nobody here watches Avatar in 2D.
[Off topic: I always find it funny how Americans think about Europe beeing one big thing, like their country. But we (Europe) have so many different countries, languages, looks, mentalities, etc etc., you can't really talk of one "Europe". It would be like comparing the USA to Mexico or Brasil, because, hell, it's all America somehow
]
Anyway: Greetings from the snow-plagued Vienna
So Whiskey, are you prepared to admit it is profitable yet?
We haven’t heard from Whiskey in a while! Hahaha
You have to realize that it’s very difficult if you have been proven wrong the way that Whiskey has been proven wrong.
Whiskey is probably going into hiding until the next big movie comes out so that he can try to pick it apart. LOL
Can we have a little inflation adjustment please?
Not to mention adjustment for all the extra cost for IMAX tickets. (Titanic tickets cost what, $7.50 back in the day? IMAX tickets are twice that, without any inflation adjustment. I think I know which movie more people actually saw.
IMAX prices, 3D prices, inflation — plus the fact its 2nd and 3rd weekends coincided with Christmas and New Year’s, preventing the usual week-to-week declines. Return of the King didn’t get a sweet deal like that one.
And yes, everyone who’s raved about this has focused on the 3D “experience” and insisted it’s the “only way” to see the film. Not a word about plot or characters. In other words, it’s a cinematic amusement park ride.
Of course, Titanic was rubbish too, and that didn’t hurt it at Oscar time — along with other overrated tripe like Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind and Shakespeare in Love. Blecch.
Oh Liz,
Check your facts a little more closely before you comment. You just sound clueless.
Return Of The King came out on December 17th – A Wednesday (Avatar December 18th). True, Return Of The King’s Christmas and New Year’s fell on Thursdays, but most people had the Friday off after each of those holidays. It was pretty much a 4 day weekend for everyone.
If you want to compare, Titanic came out on December 19th (A Friday) and its Christmas and New Year’s also fell on a Thursday just like Return Of The King. Yet, Titanic’s second weekend rose by 23% and third weekend only dropped 6% (Return Of The King dropped 30% and 44% on the same weekends, just a different year).
So, Return Of The King had the same opportunities as Avatar and Titanic, but those two movies just had much better holds.
Another reason you have for Avatar not dropping that much from weekend to weekend is the 3D and IMAX. Avatar’s prices remained the same whether it was the 1st weekend or the 3rd weekend. Ticket inflation didn’t go up in three weeks!
Also, to further prove my point, just look at the numbers for Sherlock Holmes and Alvin this past holiday season. They both had the assistance of New Year’s falling on their second weekend, yet Sherlock dropped 41% and Alvin dropped 28% (Avatar dropped only 9% on the same New Year’s weekend).
Do a little research before you make un-informed comments.
I thought the story kicked ass. I thought the whole movie kicked ass, the 3d was just the icing on the cake.
Let me help you with your request for “inflation adjustment”. Just go to boxofficemojo.com. You can find it there.
Take the plot from various movies, film in secret and convince audiences to pay higher prices to see this “gamechanger”, he deserves the potential $2 billion in revenue.
This is just going to make more studios do their blockbusters in 3-D which means the movie goer will have to spend more money, which doesn’t sound appealing. 3-D adds a nice pop to the film but its not worth the extra money.
Thankfully cable television and some network shows provide entertainment far better than what is hitting the theatres. Sure something on the scale of big budget films are rare on TV but for quality dramas and comedies nothing beats television this past decade.
The film cost a huge amount of money to produce, why shouldn’t the studio charge more? The difference is insignificant for something that transcends a normal theatrical experience. It’s like Broadway vs Off- Broadway. Cameron has made a movie that is a theatrical experience rather than something that could be seen on your cell phone. This kind of experience has been sorely lacking for too long and capable filmmakers like Spielberg, Lucas, and even Michael Bay haven’t been able to break through that wall, no matter how they tried. Cameron is a visionary equal to D. W. Griffith, someone who has changed cinema.
studios don’t set the prices in theaters, exhibitors do. However, Fox does have to pay for the prints and do you know how much an Imax 3D print is?
I couldn’t agree more, minus Michael Bay. I’ve made some pretty bold claims about Cameron, waiting years for Avatar to come out, and now here’s my next claim: 30 years from now when he’s kicked the can, and made another ten movies surpassing this caliber, he’ll go down in history as the greatest film maker of all time. Sure Speilbergs responsible for a lot content, but Cameron operates on a higher level.
I concur.
Five years from now, all TV will be for pay.
Oh yeah,there may be tv bands that run local yokal programming, but all the good stuff will be for pay. The cable systems will tighten the noose around the viewers until they fight back. Which we all know will be never. The TV mob will just watch Hulu and YouTube.$200 bucks a month for cable? Hardy, Har, Har.
Well, maybe for the ESPN/HOOTERS channel.
James Cameron : Return of the Real King.
Oh gawd. We’re never going to hear the end of this one.
“I am the King of the Universe!”
Hahaha…I bet that’s what he’s going to say if he wins Best Director or Best Picture! LOL
But, he won’t. I know some people on this site have commented on Avatar winning Best Picture and Best Director, but there is no way that’s going to happen.
I think he deserves it, but I’m afraid he might not. They have a tendency to pic small, dramatically polished films.
HelenofPeel, Good call!
Charl, I don’t know about the Best Director and Best Picture awards, but I’m wondering what will happen at this year’s Academy Awards VFX Bake-Off (during which the VFX branch of the Academy determines which 3 films out of the 7 on the preliminary list will be on the Academy ballot for the VFX award).
In the normal course, there is limited amount of time for the VFX candidates for each film to discuss why their film should win. When the time is up, a red light bulb on a stand in front of the podium comes on. However, before Jim started to speak at the VFX Bake-Off that included TITANIC, he unscrewed the red light bulb saying something like (and my apologies for not having the actual quote): “If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the course of making this film, it’s that you should always take the time you need to do the job you want to do.” He then proceeded to speak for longer than the allotted time.
According to Academy representatives, the red light is now epoxied in … but, knowing Jim, he might just bring a little black flameproof hood and cover the light.
I would like to see these figures adjusted to real dollars against seats sold to get a more accurate list!
Money probably is the root of all evil. But I’m thinking it’s also the root of ennuie. So Avatar made amazing bucks. So?
What would be amazing to you then? I believe this topic is on the business of Avatar and wouldn’t you agree #2 all time in 20 days is pretty amazing?
It’s a flop, I tell you! F-L-O-P. 100% pure unprofitability. Scribbling the word ‘FLOP’ onto the walls of my padded room with black crayon will embolden my case, if only in my pristine mind. Wake up and smell the roses people, this is Pluto Nash redux!
Agreed, Vodka. Everybody KNOWS a good film is one that makes lots and lots of money! That unforgettable cinematic masterpiece Transformers 2, for instance. With more than 400 million dollars domestic, it is surely Oscar-bound!
Oh Liz,
You agree with Vodka? Are you also in a “padded room”? I guess that would explain on the nonsense…
Vodka, any relation to Whiskey? Must come from the same hole in the ground….
Any relation to Whiskey?
This is just going to make more studios do their blockbusters in 3-D which means the movie goer will have to spend more money, which doesn’t sound appealing
—————————————–
Nobody forces people to see Avatar in 3D. It’s as much an experience in 2D too. the fact is, people choose to see it in 3d, not that they are forced to see it in 3d… People also choose to see it in IMAX…
If in future filmmakers make 3d movies and you see that 3d adds nothing to them and don’t want to pay more for the ticket, you can just decide no to go = filmmakers will suffer losses, go back to 2d format…
I worked on ‘Terminator 2′ and ‘Titanic’ and have to say this about James – he expects too much – and that, ladies and gentlemen is exactly why he is now the envy of everyone. When the ink dries, be it black or red, it only matters that the art and effort was beyond outrageous. I’m very, very happy for the outrageousness of James Cameron.
Wow. Your lucky to have worked with him. he remind me of that tough boss that pisses you off, but would later find out he helped develop you into a better worker.
I woke up at 2:55am in LA and went straight to deadline. All I saw was AVATAR EVERYWHERE…Great way to start off 2010 Nikki with some of that $150mm marketing budget.AVATAR’S going to $2 Billion…Yeah Cameron!!!!
–Rupert I’ll take my check now..:)
Just for the record….Avatar is more an independent movie than a Fox movie. According to the New York Times (a dubious source, but this is a clear statement of material fact that I don’t think even they could lie about), 60% of it was financed by private investors.
So, if somebody is making a payoff, it wouldn’t be Rupert Murdoch. And if somebody deserves praise….it ain’t Fox, who expressly rejected the movie and refused to finance it ’til Cameron & Co. found the private investors and they had the threat of going to Disney.
Avatar is, very literally, an independent foreign movie. Almost nothing about it is American.
20th Century Fox is still going to make money off this movie, right? No matter how much they put into it or what their take is in the end. They make money.
Even if an investor just put 1% into the movie, they are still going to make money.
Plus, having the luxury of people seeing this movie and all the trailers of upcoming movies will help 20th Century Fox make even more money in the future.
Don’t pretend like Rupert Murdoch isn’t making money off your dumb ass.
Man… if only more independent foreign movies had $150 million dollar studio backed marketing campaigns…
Actually, according to that same ‘New York Times’ article, Fox can’t even be praised for the marketing, ’cause they skimped out on that, too; spending about 2/3 of what they did on an average blockbuster.
But, yeah, marketing and advertising are pretty much all that Americans can do anymore, and all they did do on Avatar.
It’s funny, ’cause when Titanic came out in ’97, Cameron intentionally showed more loyalty to Fox (the international distributor) over Paramount (U.S.) because Fox had put down a lot more money. (Sumner Redstone had even mocked Avatar publicly while it was in production.) The most pointed example of this was the movie’s premiere: Cameron agreed to participate in undercutting Paramount’s U.S. premiere by having the first premiere be in Tokyo, weeks before its U.S. premiere. There’s the real possibility that the reason Avatar had its own premiere in London, and why its major press junkets were overseas, was to again recognize the investment of the movie’s major financiers.
And yet every single investor in Avatar will make money…Leaving your argument pointless.
This is my favorite movie of all time, seen it 4 times so far. James Cameron deserves every cent he earns and then some. I hope it overtakes Titanic
Avatar is still playing here at the local cinema. I talked to one my friends and he’s going to see it the movie at the stadium cinema in Pearl. But the reason for its success has been the internet PR it has recieved.
That and word of mouth. Everyone I talk to, and some point in time , the topic of Avatar comes up.
Oh, this disappoints me from someone I enjoy reading truth from all the time.
Tickets being what they are *of course* new films are going to break records and go higher than ever before.
Let me add the to the chorus of “inflation-adjust” please. Sloppy, sloppy.
Seems like he’s in a no win with many people. If he’d been modest about the film, someone would be complaining too. At least he made another event movie and is keeping our field moving forward with this suck economy and people are still shelling out money for it.
It just keeps us moving forward creatively so I give him the kudos for that.
Curt Johnson
Avatar- its great feyritail!!! (I looked a film 4 times in 3d!)
LOL! The new year is still giving birth to trolls. Don’t they have anything better to do?
JamesCameronBlogspot, while a true fan, is an idiot when it comes to film finance and distribution. First of all, almost everyone, including the mainstream press, overstate the importance of Imax, it accounts for less than 200 theaters and only about 14% of Avatar’s box office. Second, this revolutionary 3D is the reason many people are seeing the movie, so trying to parse out 2D in 1997 vs 3D in 2010 is stupid, this is a revolution and from here on out, people will use this as a baseline, ticket prices aren’t going down. And to call it a foreign, or independently financed film is ridiculous: Cameron doesn’t have one cent in the production, big deal Fox shared costs with longtime financing partners (Dune finances much of Fox”s slate), every studio does that. Fox is the one that took the risk, oversaw the production, kept Cameron in check when it looked like it was going wildly over budget or he was having doubts. News Corp is an evil empire, but you can’t slam Fox for putting a whole lot of skin in this game. I could go on, but I’m bored now…
FromTheInside:
Thanks for calling me a true fan.
IMAX’s proportion of the revenues for Avatar are directly reflected in the formula that I rigged. The whole idea was to level off the cost of all 3D tickets (be they IMAX, RealD, or one of the other systems), and so their percentage is directly reflected in the formula.
So it doesn’t matter at all how much people talk about IMAX or anything. The formula isn’t about media coverage. It’s mathematical.
Next, you said that Avatar is popular BECAUSE it’s in 3D. Well, first off, I disagree with that, because it’s an even bigger hit overseas where, by James Cameron’s estimates, only 1/3 of showings are in 3D. Therefore, it’s obviously a popular movie regardless of its format.
But actually, this complaint means you should be happy with the formula: the whole idea was to discount the 3D revenues and just focus on the gate admissions.
Lastly, you talked about Avatar’s other investors. Really, we don’t know what went on behind the scenes, but we do know (1) Fox initially rejected the movie, and (2) 60% of it is independent. Those are statements of fact. Whatever conclusion – or other statements of fact (rather than speculation) – you want to draw from them are up to you.
Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but here’s a question: is the development cost of the Fusion camera part of Avatar’s overall “budget numbers”?
If so, more revenue for this film should be counted since future rentals of the camera to other films will represent another revenue stream outside of ticket sales, correct?
You are correct except that Cameron himself, and not FOX, owns the rights to that camera system. FOX owns the movie and makes money from the film.
But generally I agree that the total should be included as it is a separate revenue stream which was developed with money from the initial investment (original budget of the film).
Probably not. I don’t know what development costs of the Fusion Camera System, if any, were passed on to the financiers. But, it is highly unlikely that the ownership rights in the system would be something that Fox or any other financier would have a piece of. Though the system was created, in large part, so that it could be used for the film, the system was developed by Vince Pace and Jim Cameron independent of the film (and requires two Sony cameras that are specifically modified for use in the system, not cameras that were developed from scratch by Pace/Cameron). So, revenues from future licensing or rentals of the system would not be considered part of the revenue stream from the film.
Although it won’t count towards the revenue for this film, it will cerainly make James Cameron a lot more money…LOL
This movie was amazing. I think it deserves more awards and income than Titanic – I still don’t get it, what was so special in that film about a sinking ship.
In my country the 3D tickets cost 300 HUF (1,5USD) more than a normal 2D ticket, that’s not much. And there are very few IMAX cinemas in the world, so don’t consider that a large boost of income.
If the Avatar takes over Titanic with a few million bucks, your yapping about 3D prizes may be acceptable, but what if it gets 3 billion totally?
This is the best film of this decade, and if there has to be a movie that gets more than 11 Oscars, this is it.
Am I the only person that saw this in 3D without paying extra? My itty bitty six-screen theater upgraded to digital screens years ago and I’m assuming upgraded more recently to 3D projectors. I saw Avatar twice in 3D (but not IMAX), the first time for $5 on “$5 Wednesday” and for $6 at the regular matinee price. It seems to me that there are places out there that aren’t charging more for the glasses — and they’re probably the ones getting the repeat business.