• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

(NYTIMES) The $500 million gamble on James Cameron's Avatar.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ripclawe

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/media/09avatar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

LOS ANGELES — Can a movie studio make money on a film based on an original and unfamiliar story, with no Hollywood superstars, a vanishing DVD market and a price tag approaching $500 million?

That question looms large for 20th Century Fox and its 3-D science-fiction film “Avatar,” among the most expensive movies ever. Despite many skeptics, the studio thinks it can turn a profit, in part because the film’s creator, James Cameron, was the driving force behind the studio’s immense hit “Titanic.”

But just in case box-office receipts for “Avatar” fall short, Fox has worked hard to hedge its large bet on the movie.

Despite the estimated half-billion dollars spent on its production and marketing, “Avatar” may carry surprisingly little financial risk for Fox’s parent company, the News Corporation, even if it disappoints. That is because of shifting industry economics, reliance on outside investors and help from a network of allied companies and in-house business units.

Fox’s efforts underscore how studios generally have been able to minimize their exposure at a time of blockbuster budgets — albeit at the cost of limiting their profit potential as well.

The final cost of the film has not been tallied, as Mr. Cameron, who has worked on the film 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.

Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos, the co-chairmen of Fox Filmed Entertainment, declined through a spokesman to be interviewed. Jon Landau, Mr. Cameron’s partner in their Lightstorm Entertainment production company, also declined to be interviewed.

But “Avatar” did get a mention in a conference call on Wednesday during which Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation’s chairman, discussed a surprise 11 percent earnings jump in the company’s fiscal first quarter, which ended Sept. 30.

“I’m confident we will lead the Christmas season,” Mr. Murdoch said. He added that he was “excited and moved” by “Avatar.”

Michael Nathanson, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, wrote in an e-mail message before the earnings call that investors “tend to ignore” the impact of a single movie on a company as large as the News Corporation.

At what point the various partners in “Avatar” would see profit from the film depends on what share of revenue each receives as the movie reaches theaters, then home video and other media around the world. If domestic ticket sales reach $250 million — a level broken in the last year by five films, including “Star Trek” and “The Hangover” — Fox and its allies would appear to be headed into the black.

Mr. Cameron’s “Titanic,” which took in more than $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office after its release in 1997, was a major corporate event for the News Corporation, then about a third the size of the current conglomerate, which has roughly $30 billion in annual sales.

Less than a year after the release, the News Corporation raised nearly $3 billion in a public offering of shares in its filmed entertainment group, partly on the strength of “Titanic.” (It bought those shares back four years ago.)

In 1980, the failure of “Heaven’s Gate” was enough to chase the Transamerica Corporation, which then owned United Artists, out of the movie business. But such company-wreckers belong more to history than to the contemporary film business.

With “Titanic,” the News Corporation was at risk for at least half of a production budget that would approach $300 million in today’s dollars, and was borne partly by Paramount Pictures.

The News Corporation is carrying a much smaller share of “Avatar’s” production cost, as a pair of private equity partners — Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media — pick up 60 percent of the budget, according to people who were briefed on the economics of the film but spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid conflict with the studio or filmmakers.

Speaking by telephone on Thursday, James Clayton, the chief executive of Ingenious, confirmed his company’s backing for “Avatar,” but declined to discuss the size of its stake. Greg Coote, the chief executive of Dune, declined to be interviewed.

In a further hedge, Mr. Cameron would give up part of his own participation in the film’s returns if production costs exceed a specified level, according to those who were briefed on the film. If final production costs exceeded $300 million, for instance, Mr. Cameron would effectively defer much of his payout until the studio and others were compensated, despite his years of labor on the movie.

Mr. Cameron, along with Vince Pace, a Hollywood technology master, also developed much of the elaborate camera system and digital technology for the film themselves, at cost of about $14 million. According to Mr. Pace, the systems are owned by a company that expects to recoup the investment by selling to other filmmakers with help from the Creative Artists Agency.

“We’re turning it into a business, as opposed to a path where everybody’s supposed to service ‘Avatar,’ ” Mr. Pace said.

While the film was largely shot in a converted aircraft hangar in Los Angeles, much of the work qualified for tax rebates in New Zealand, where Weta Digital operates under the direction of the filmmaker Peter Jackson and others.

Fox’s biggest investment in “Avatar” may be on the marketing side, where the company is planning to spend about $150 million around the world — a number that is somewhat lower than might be expected, because of recession-induced concessions on advertising prices and reliance on in-house resources. The News Corporation recently showed a new trailer for the film on Fox’s “NFL Sunday” pregame show, and has been using MySpace to build awareness of the movie.

But here, too, the studio has looked for partners to bear some of the load. One ally, Imax, worked with theater owners to set up a special 15-minute preview last summer without significant cost to the studio. “A lot of people are lending this sort of in-kind support,” said Greg Foster, chairman and president of Imax Filmed Entertainment.

Panasonic, in return for using some of Mr. Cameron’s expertise for its own 3-D home video systems, contributed technological and marketing help, linking “Avatar” to its campaign for home theaters, for example.

“We’ve been supporting the effort,” said Eisuke Tsuyuzaki, Panasonic’s North America chief technology officer, who spoke on Friday. Mr. Tsuyuzaki declined to put a price tag on that help, but said estimates of about $25 million were “in the ballpark.”

In addition, rapidly changing dynamics in the theater business have made blockbuster openings much easier to achieve.

Privately, theater owners are now predicting that “Avatar” may play in as many as 2,500 3-D theaters, while occupying almost as many conventional theaters over the holiday season, heightening the likelihood of a big opening. Theaters using 3-D bolster the overall box-office by commanding ticket prices perhaps 30 percent higher than those of conventional theaters.

Still, the studio has experienced some problems. Initial reaction to a conventional trailer was flat, and response to the 3-D Imax preview provoked doubts about whether Mr. Cameron’s movie — which uses new technology to tell the story of a planet being assailed by humans — was really the cinematic game-changer that had been promised.

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.
 
This movie is going to bomb so hard financially it's not even funny.

Simply due to the costs and nothing else. Sounds like it might still be a good movie though.

Edited: to explain a bit and elaborate.
 
I want avatar to fail hard so there will be no movie in the future which will recieve huge amount of hype based on nothing...
 
ALaz502 said:
This movie is going to bomb so hard financially it's not even funny.

Simply due to the costs and nothing else. Sounds like it might still be a good movie though.

Edited: to explain a bit and elaborate.

Yup. Mainstream audiences dont like movies with funny looking blue people.

Whats that animated movie that was the biggest bomb of the year? The characters remind me of that
 
ALaz502 said:
This movie is going to bomb so hard financially it's not even funny.

/thread

I know you have to spend money to make money, but this is just ridiculous. If they're expecting something on Titanic's level just because Cameron is involved then they completely misunderstood what made Titanic so successful.
 
When I got to that comment by Murdoch I was thinking "yeah but you'll probably make more off the Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel" and I see the article touched on that at the end.
 
jamesinclair said:
Yup. Mainstream audiences dont like movies with funny looking blue people.

Whats that animated movie that was the biggest bomb of the year? The characters remind me of that
Spirits Within?
 
Nachkebia said:
I want avatar to fail hard so there will be no movie in the future which will recieve huge amount of hype based on nothing...
So when did you see it?
 
How About No said:
Spirits Within?
Delgo

No interest in the movie at all, will be interesting to see how well it does, as it might stand as a lesson on how to (or not to) market a movie.
 
Nachkebia said:
I want avatar to fail hard so there will be no movie in the future which will recieve huge amount of hype based on nothing...

You gotta admit. Some of the technology they are using in this movie is freaking crazy though. And it might actually contribute to future cinema heavily.

WIKIPEDIA said:
In December 2006, Cameron explained that the delay in producing the film since the 1990s had been to wait until the technology necessary to create his project was advanced enough. The director planned to create photo-realistic computer-generated characters by using motion capture animation technology, on which he had been doing work for the past 14 months. Unlike previous performance capture systems, where the digital environment is added after the actors' motions have been captured, Cameron's new virtual camera allows him to observe directly on a monitor how the actors' virtual counterparts interact with the movie's digital world in real time and adjust and direct the scenes just as if shooting live action; "It’s like a big, powerful game engine. If I want to fly through space, or change my perspective, I can. I can turn the whole scene into a living miniature and go through it on a 50 to 1 scale."[39] Cameron planned to continue developing the special effects for Avatar, which he hoped would be released in summer 2009. He also gave fellow directors Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson a chance to test the new technology.[40] Spielberg and George Lucas were also able to visit the set to watch Cameron direct with the equipment.[21]

Other technological innovations include a performance-capture stage, called The Volume, which is six times larger than previously used and an improved method of capturing facial expressions. The tool is a small individually made skull cap with a tiny camera attached to it, located in front of the actors' face which collects information about their facial expressions and eyes, which is then transmitted to the computers. This way, Cameron intends to transfer about 95% of the actors' performances to their digital counterparts. Besides a real time virtual world, the team is also experimenting with a way of letting computer generated characters interact with real actors on a real, live-action set while shooting live action.[41]

In January 2007, Fox announced that the studio's Avatar would be filmed in 3D at 24 frames per second. Cameron described the film as a hybrid with a full live-action shoot in combination with computer-generated characters and live environments. "Ideally at the end of the day the audience has no idea which they’re looking at," Cameron said. The director indicated that he had already worked four months on nonprincipal scenes for the film. Principal photography began in April 2007,[42] and was done around parts of Los Angeles as well as New Zealand. The live action is shot with the proprietary Fusion digital 3-D camera system developed by Cameron and Vince Pace. According to Cameron, the film will be composed of 60% computer-generated elements and 40% live action, as well as traditional miniatures.[43] The performance-capture photography would last 31 days at the Hughes Aircraft stage in Playa Vista, Los Angeles, California.[30][44] In October, Cameron was scheduled to shoot live-action in New Zealand[16] for another 31 days.[7]

To create the human mining colony on Pandora, production designers visited the Noble Clyde Boudreaux drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico during June 2007. They photographed, measured and filmed every aspect of the rig, which will be replicated on-screen with photorealistic CGI.[45] Around 1000 people worked on the production.[44]
 
ALaz502 said:
You gotta admit. Some of the technology they are using in this movie is freaking crazy though. And it might actually contribute to future cinema heavily.

You know more I try to think about benefits of technology in cinematography harder it gets to find them, is digital cinematography a benefit? fuck no...
 
Stabby McSter said:
this. i'm way more interested in everything "avatar" that's not actually "avatar".

...what?
Nachkebia said:
You know more I try to think about benefits of technology in cinematography harder it gets to find them, is digital cinematography a benefit? fuck no...

...what?
 
$150 million on marketing? And the gaming side thinks budgets are spiraling out of control.

I really don't see this movie doing better than 250 million domestic, it's pure sci-fi with no license. Ironically, I think chipmunks will eat its lunch.
 
As everyday passes I'm thinking this movie isn't gonna be as big as Fox or Cameron hope it to be.
There just isn't that much appeal to an unknown movie with blue aliens to most people. And $500 mill is a huuuuuge amount.

Internet hype is way different from actual box office numbers. Just look at Snakes on a Plane or the Watchemn. Not to mention the movie has no recognizable stars either.

I'm totally excited but I hope Cameron doesn't make an all in gamble on it.
 
Clevinger said:
I think he's saying the stakes and drama around the movie look more interesting than the actual film.
Ah, well that makes sense.

Whatever happens when this film is released, it's going to be the box office story of the year.
 
Nachkebia said:
You know more I try to think about benefits of technology in cinematography harder it gets to find them, is digital cinematography a benefit? fuck no...
Digital cinematography IS a benefit. It's a still-in-development technology, but it allows for much better integration with all the parts of an increasingly digital process.
 
You have various Disney/Pixar affairs that gross in the hundreds of millions each year. I don't see how this wouldn't do atleast on par. Plus you've got Cameron at the helm. Seems like a pretty safe investment to me.
 
ALaz502 said:
This movie is going to bomb so hard financially it's not even funny.

Simply due to the costs and nothing else. Sounds like it might still be a good movie though.

Edited: to explain a bit and elaborate.
Everything I saw from this movie makes me thinks it will suck balls, but sadly, movies with that type of budget just don't bomb anymore, there's enough curiosity, media coverage, overseas ticket sales and DVD revenue to break even.
Remember, at the end of the day, even Waterworld made money.
 
jman2050 said:
If they're expecting something on Titanic's level just because Cameron is involved then they completely misunderstood what made Titanic so successful.
you mean giving Cameron carte blanche to make complete shit isn't a repeatable formula?
 
scorcho said:
you mean giving Cameron carte blanche to make complete shit isn't a repeatable formula?

It pains me to make this comparison because I think Titanic is a legitimately excellent piece of cinema despite some of the tripe it comes with, but the thing that made Titanic the super-mega success it was is also the thing that's making Twilight the monster it is. And that "thing" isn't blue alien sci-fi.
 
jman2050 said:
It pains me to make this comparison because I think Titanic is a legitimately excellent piece of cinema despite some of the tripe it comes with, but the thing that made Titanic the super-mega success it was is also the thing that's making Twilight the monster it is. And that "thing" isn't blue alien sci-fi.
.


The reaction from the public is unpredictable when it comes to projects like this. Avatar could just as easily bomb or become a phenomenon at this point.
 
Topher said:
.

Can't wait for the backlash. It's going to be more epic than the movie itself.

The problem is, I think a lot of people are "waiting for the backlash". So, one has to wonder, will there actually be any, if so many people aren't expecting anything?

I'm expecting this to be an all right movie, but not the next big thing. Certainly, it doesn't look that great, especially for a Cameron film. But I think I'm not alone in this thinking; honestly, lowered expectations could bring people to respect the movie on it's merits. It'll only be the people drawn in by the hype, the "RAPE MY EYEBALLS" people that are going to get burned (and they probably deserve it, if they do).
 
I'm sure Cameron and Weta are ok with the money they have in this thing because they are going to license the fuck out of the tech in this movie.
 
Chichikov said:
Everything I saw from this movie makes me thinks it will suck balls, but sadly, movies with that type of budget just don't bomb anymore, there's enough curiosity, media coverage, overseas ticket sales and DVD revenue to break even.
Remember, at the end of the day, even Waterworld made money.

Mind blown. What a piece of shit that was.

It wasn't even in the "so bad it's good" category. It was just plain bad.
 
Think it will only be a mild success. Trailers didn't fill me with any faith. The movie seems like ti is going to be horrible.
 
This is the internet age, no way a movie this hyped is going get more then 75% positive feedback no matter what it delivers.Then a 20 percent drop six months later after nerds have watched it a dozen times and picked it apart as usual. Going in mostly blind to this, they would have to screw it up on a royal scale for me not to enjoy all the effort that went into this regardless.
 
Big-E said:
Think it will only be a mild success.
Pretty much this.
I'm actually very excited for the film though.

It won't bomb by any means but it sure as shit isn't going to make 1.8 billion dollars.
 
You have to be a fool to think this movie will fail. 250 million, pfft.

Avatar has no real compeitition during it's release. Also considering how little Mainstream hype Avatar has compared to say a summer blockbuster, it's actually pretty well known. Many movies have done well with much less.

People seem to want to be pessismistic about this for some reason.
 
ALaz502 said:
Mind blown. What a piece of shit that was.

It wasn't even in the "so bad it's good" category. It was just plain bad.
And remember, Waterworld is the absolute worst case scenario, that movie bombed hard domestically.
Look at recent turds like Transformers 2, Superman Returns, the Star Wars prequels and The Matrix Sequels - all these movie broke even domestically.
 
BlueWord said:
The problem is, I think a lot of people are "waiting for the backlash". So, one has to wonder, will there actually be any, if so many people aren't expecting anything?

I'm expecting this to be an all right movie, but not the next big thing. Certainly, it doesn't look that great, especially for a Cameron film. But I think I'm not alone in this thinking; honestly, lowered expectations could bring people to respect the movie on it's merits. It'll only be the people drawn in by the hype, the "RAPE MY EYEBALLS" people that are going to get burned (and they probably deserve it, if they do).
Oh no, I completely agree. It will be average, to good. But that doesn't matter because fans have already set their expectations higher than they realistically should be. Cameron hasn't helped the situation by promising the second coming of Jesus either.
 
Is there somewhere I can read all of Cameron's "crazy quotes?"

You know, the

"this movie is as big as landing on the moon," and

"this movie is like a waking dream."

Those are paraphrased of course :lol .
 
avatar299 said:
You have to be a fool to think this movie will fail. 250 million, pfft.

Avatar has no real compeitition during it's release. Also considering how little Mainstream hype Avatar has compared to say a summer blockbuster, it's actually pretty well known.

Really? I'd contend with that statement in a heartbeat.
 
gdt5016 said:
Is there somewhere I can read all of Cameron's "crazy quotes?"

You know, the

"this movie is as big as landing on the moon," and

"this movie is like a waking dream."

Those are paraphrased of course :lol .
"Greater than your first orgasm"

Cameron has set the bar high!
 
Spider from Mars said:
I have lost all interest in this film and expect it to bomb at the box office. I will probably still see it however.
?

out of curiosity though, why does everyone think this is going to bomb?
 
jman2050 said:
/thread
If they're expecting something on Titanic's level just because Cameron is involved then they completely misunderstood what made Titanic so successful.

Yep, Avatar has no Billy Zane.

out of curiosity though, why does everyone think this is going to bomb?

I think people expect Avatar to "bomb" in the way that Superman Returns "bombed". Superman Returns made just over $300 million worldwide, not by any means a small amount of cash. Normally any studio would be extremely happy with that, but when you bring up the fact that Superman Returns cost $260 million to make, in the end it wasn't all that much of a financial success.

I don't think people expect Avatar to be a complete box office flop, it's just that, in comparison to the how much it costs (jesuschristfivehundredmillion) the amount of money it'll make won't make it anywhere near the success it's being hyped up to be.
 
gdt5016 said:
Is there somewhere I can read all of Cameron's "crazy quotes?"

You know, the

"this movie is as big as landing on the moon," and

"this movie is like a waking dream."

Those are paraphrased of course :lol .
“As usual the rumor mill is grinding out mostly spurious stuff. …I have no idea where that [rumor] came from but I haven’t rejected any trailers (yet) since I haven’t seen any yet. They’re still working on them for presentation, which presumably will be soon. …Every once in a while, as we are absorbed in some intensely detailed discussion about sub-surface scattering or the way a tail is moving in the animation, I’ll just stop and have this moment of clarity, as if seeing it for the first time. And I realize that’s what the lunar astronauts must have felt like.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom