CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › An AVATAR Crew Member Can't Take Criticism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An AVATAR Crew Member Can't Take Criticism - Page 5

post #201 of 421
7/27/09 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott & Prospero View Post
The old man thought it was pretty important, Dick.
*slow clap*
Reply
post #202 of 421
7/27/09 at 6:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
Nobody is going bankrupt over this movie that is all I'm saying. Whether it will be seen as a disappointment? Who cares.
You're wrong. Really wrong. This movie cost over 300 million dollars (and believe me, if SPIDER-MAN 3 cost 300 million, this probably REALLY costs 400), and that means it needs to make about a billion dollars TO BREAK EVEN.

Studios don't make films to break even. They don't spend this kind of money chasing technical Oscars.

This movie could be a huge blow to Fox. If this movie tanks (and I honestly think that's possible, although unlikely), Rothman's out.
Reply
post #203 of 421
7/27/09 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
If this movie tanks (and I honestly think that's possible, although unlikely), Rothman's out.
You promise?
Reply
post #204 of 421
7/27/09 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
If this movie tanks (and I honestly think that's possible, although unlikely), Rothman's out.
I could be wrong, but wasn't Rothman on his way out anyway? I usually follow the major business press, and I seem to remember some general news about executive re-shuffling at News Corp., which included the top spots at Fox. From what I recall reading, he was getting kicked upstairs, from running Fox to overseeing something at the parent company.
Reply
post #205 of 421
7/27/09 at 6:31pm
Avatar tanking means Rothman's out... Who's side should I be on? Oh dear oh dear.
Reply
post #206 of 421
7/27/09 at 6:54pm
It's an odd thing... people talk about how risk adverse studios are yet they're always taking gambles like this. If it's really that difficult to make it profitable, who would bet on Avatar at all? Sure it's helmed by Titanic guy but what's the upside? It's not a name brand or a franchise... doesn't seem to be worth it.
Reply
post #207 of 421
7/27/09 at 6:57pm
So any movie costing 200 million must make at least 800 million to break even? We have a lot of failures out there then. But since I don't really see a problem for Avatar in reaching a billion my point stands.

Now about the 300 million, who came up with that number? I've heard Cameron himself deny it with a big laugh and when a Times article mentioned that number back in March they had to retract and said the correct number was about 200 million.

But I'm not saying it's a surefire hit and it could end up being another Abyss.
Reply
post #208 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:12pm
Not only has no director ever told the truth in regard to production costs, a lot of them probably don't even know. Certainly not on this level. Maybe nobody knows exactly when you figure in things like promotion.
Reply
post #209 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:18pm
The rule of thumb is a film needs to take in twice it's cost to break even, since the film studio only gets to keep roughly half the amount of ticket sales,the other half going to theater owners, distribution costs and other overhead expenses. It varies a bit from country to country, but worldwide Fox will only get roughly half the gross.
I have heard so many different figures for "Avatar" ranging from 200 Million to over 300 Million, I don't know who to beleive.
But I am sure not taking Cameron's word for anything. He might well have reasons to low ball the figures.
Reply
post #210 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
It's an odd thing... people talk about how risk adverse studios are yet they're always taking gambles like this. If it's really that difficult to make it profitable, who would bet on Avatar at all? Sure it's helmed by Titanic guy but what's the upside? It's not a name brand or a franchise... doesn't seem to be worth it.
You also get into the area that the amount you spend on a fllm is important. A film that might be a reasonable gamble at 150 Million might be reckless at 250 Million.
And let's face it, Cameron is one of the true champions of going massively over budget.
Reply
post #211 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
So any movie costing 200 million must make at least 800 million to break even? We have a lot of failures out there then. But since I don't really see a problem for Avatar in reaching a billion my point stands.

Now about the 300 million, who came up with that number? I've heard Cameron himself deny it with a big laugh and when a Times article mentioned that number back in March they had to retract and said the correct number was about 200 million.

But I'm not saying it's a surefire hit and it could end up being another Abyss.
You seriously think Avatar will make a billion dollars? There's nothing in this movie that screams crossover to wide variety of demographics which is what you need to get to a billion.
Reply
post #212 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
The rule of thumb is a film needs to take in twice it's cost to break even, since the film studio only gets to keep roughly half the amount of ticket sales,the other half going to theater owners, distribution costs and other overhead expenses. It varies a bit from country to country, but worldwide Fox will only get roughly half the gross.
I have heard so many different figures for "Avatar" ranging from 200 Million to over 300 Million, I don't know who to beleive.
But I am sure not taking Cameron's word for anything. He might well have reasons to low ball the figures.
Twice to break even isn't the case. You have to factor in prints and advertising. In a case like this, I would wager 100-150 easy. So now your budget is actually 500 million. And you only get about half of the gross. So you need to make a billion.
Reply
post #213 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Not only has no director ever told the truth in regard to production costs, a lot of them probably don't even know. Certainly not on this level. Maybe nobody knows exactly when you figure in things like promotion.
There are a few folks who know what things really cost, and what the true break-even point is. These people are carefully hidden so they can never be served with a subpoena.

How many big budget movies are real winners on the domestic film front? Seems like ancillary revenue streams from a worldwide release, home video, merchandising, and cable/streaming licensing fees is where the true profits are made. Though, in deciding who doesn't get fired, the immediate return on investment is probably crucial.
Reply
post #214 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
There are a few folks who know what things really cost, and what the true break-even point is. These people are carefully hidden so they can never be served with a subpoena.

How many big budget movies are real winners on the domestic film front? Seems like ancillary revenue streams from a worldwide release, home video, merchandising, and cable/streaming licensing fees is where the true profits are made. Though, in deciding who doesn't get fired, the immediate return on investment is probably crucial.
If you had access to the REAL accounting of the studios you would see it's very rare that a movie truly loses money. But Hollywood is all about image; it's why THE GOLDEN COMPASS, with 300 million in foreign grosses (!!!!) but only 70 in the US is seen as a huge bomb.

(It's the film that killed New Line because they didn't own the foreign)
Reply
post #215 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Twice to break even isn't the case. You have to factor in prints and advertising. In a case like this, I would wager 100-150 easy. So now your budget is actually 500 million. And you only get about half of the gross. So you need to make a billion.
Oomph. This only serves to emphasize that costs for movies has gone way, way out of control.

What's the budget on something like District 9? I smell 'breakout huge genre hit' and that thing couldn't have cost more than $60 Million to make.
Reply
post #216 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:44pm
Thread Starter 
D9 cost 30 million. That's the stated budget, and it's what Sony paid for it (it was made independently). It's possible that Jackson ate some of the cost and sold at a loss, but that seems wildly unlikely. And D9's FX were not Weta, so they didn't get an in-house break.
Reply
post #217 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:46pm
Plus if they end up renting out all the IMAX's in August, that's a sizable chunk of money.
Reply
post #218 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:47pm
Thread Starter 
IMAX loves Cameron. They know Cameron is their future. They may be giving up the space for a song.
Reply
post #219 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
D9 cost 30 million. That's the stated budget, and it's what Sony paid for it (it was made independently). It's possible that Jackson ate some of the cost and sold at a loss, but that seems wildly unlikely. And D9's FX were not Weta, so they didn't get an in-house break.
30?? Wow. So all involved stand to see A LOT of upside if it's even just as big as Cloverfield was. It doesn't need to light the world on fire, just be successful as a genre movie and sell well on DVD, and D9 could be a future franchise gold mine.
Reply
post #220 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:48pm
Thread Starter 
If Sony spends right, D9 makes its budget back weekend one.
Reply
post #221 of 421
7/27/09 at 7:55pm
I thought that 300 million $ for Spiderman 3 already included prints and advertising as do most of the inflated 200 million + budgets?
If that's not the case I really want to know what chunk of the real production budget is going directly to vfx houses these days. Must be insane.
Reply
post #222 of 421
7/27/09 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
If you had access to the REAL accounting of the studios you would see it's very rare that a movie truly loses money. But Hollywood is all about image; it's why THE GOLDEN COMPASS, with 300 million in foreign grosses (!!!!) but only 70 in the US is seen as a huge bomb.

(It's the film that killed New Line because they didn't own the foreign)
I must immediately do some research to figure out why The Golden Compass was so much more popular elsewhere. Maybe it's a film for atheists, and Europe loved it?

Quote:
D9 cost 30 million. That's the stated budget, and it's what Sony paid for it (it was made independently). It's possible that Jackson ate some of the cost and sold at a loss, but that seems wildly unlikely. And D9's FX were not Weta, so they didn't get an in-house break.
Somehow, independent films seem to be made so much more efficiently. Less bureaucracy? Less padding of costs to reduce the taxable revenue by buying things at a gigantic mark-up from ancillary vendors that are, in fact, controlled by the studio? People work for less in the hope of getting rich off a share of the profits?

So much to ponder. I wonder how much more it cost to market and distribute a movie like Blair Witch, Primer, or My Big Fat Greek Wedding than it did to actually make them. Probably by a factor of hundreds, if not thousands.
Reply
post #223 of 421
7/27/09 at 8:27pm
So can we rally around a quality genre film and make D9 a hit the way we were supposed to for Drag Me To Hell?

Devin just got me excited for this movie.

And I'll see Avatar in the theater with the expectation of seeing a quality product that may or may not rise above the rest. And those toys look awesome.
Reply
post #224 of 421
7/27/09 at 8:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nefilim View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by trench View Post
IO9 has a piece about the Avatar hype backlash. It pretty much confirms that Devin's in no way unique in his opinion.
...and that makes him right ? and Pine Power, you really show how well chewers take criticism ... what are you, 13 ?
Nope. I was just thought it was interesting that Devin's opinion on this one was just one of many yet he got singled out for a frankly bizarre attack from some alledged crewmembers. He wasn't being contrary to get traffic, it was the general concensus. Yet they didn't send out a raft of these mails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
But Cameron's grandstadning has reached the point where it is beginning to turn people off. You have to know when enough is enough when it comes to hype, and Cameron does not.
Agreed. Cameron's only a few steps away from becoming the Peter Molyneux of cinema. At least Molyneux seems to have learnt his lesson after Fable, (Very good game + Shedloads of hyperbole = Masses of Underwhelmed customers), and holds his tongue until he can actual show product to back up the hype.

All of which sounds a bit negative which is odd as I'm a fan of Cameron's and am looking forward to this. I just hope he doesn't keep trying to insist he's going to reinvent cinema with it.
Reply
post #225 of 421
7/27/09 at 8:41pm
Gosh I hope D9 doesn't bomb... Get that second trailer out there. Keep those wonderful ads going...
Reply
post #226 of 421
7/27/09 at 8:45pm
D9 is not going to bomb. The marketing has been clever, unlike the marketing for my poor sweet DRAG ME TO HELL. I'm guessing the BO will be comparable to CLOVERFIELD.
Reply
post #227 of 421
7/27/09 at 9:00pm
I don't know. I've been enjoying the hell out of the ads, but I wonder if it's too subtle to create a Clover field audience.

EDIT: But back on topic.
Reply
post #228 of 421
7/27/09 at 9:04pm
I imagine Avatar will do slightly better than Watchmen, mainly due to it being on more IMAX and 3D screens. The film is being released in five months, and there have been no trailers or publications that have been released to non-geek media outlets.

I think what it comes down to is: outside of movie geeks, does anyone even know this movie exists yet in the general public?
Reply
post #229 of 421
7/27/09 at 9:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody Wanker View Post
I think what it comes down to is: outside of movie geeks, does anyone even know this movie exists yet in the general public?
I don't see how they could.
Reply
post #230 of 421
7/27/09 at 9:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody Wanker View Post
what it comes down to is: outside of movie geeks, does anyone even know this movie exists yet in the general public?
I'll be honest, I read this site a lot and the forums slightly less and I didn't know anything about the movie beyond the name and director until this weekend.
Reply
post #231 of 421
7/27/09 at 9:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
You seriously think Avatar will make a billion dollars? There's nothing in this movie that screams crossover to wide variety of demographics which is what you need to get to a billion.
Just to clarify, but that number was including DVD sales.
Reply
post #232 of 421
7/28/09 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody Wanker View Post
I imagine Avatar will do slightly better than Watchmen, mainly due to it being on more IMAX and 3D screens. The film is being released in five months, and there have been no trailers or publications that have been released to non-geek media outlets.

I think what it comes down to is: outside of movie geeks, does anyone even know this movie exists yet in the general public?
At the moment, far more people in the general public know about the Avatar anime that Shyamalon is adapting(with a title change).
Reply
post #233 of 421
7/28/09 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
Just to clarify, but that number was including DVD sales.
Can't include DVD sales in to whether or not this thing is counted as a failure. A billion dollars including DVD sales would not save Rothman's job or Cameron's reputation if it only hits 600 million worldwide at the BO or it opens weak.

I also think you're dreaming at that mark even if you include DVD. This is not a cross-genre repeat viewing experience.
Reply
post #234 of 421
7/28/09 at 12:35pm
How can anybody be making BO predictions for this movie at this point?
Reply
post #235 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:15pm
We are allowed to guess right?

Quote:
This is not a cross-genre repeat viewing experience
Have you seen it?
Reply
post #236 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Twice to break even isn't the case. You have to factor in prints and advertising. In a case like this, I would wager 100-150 easy.
Wow. Really? Cripes.
Reply
post #237 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:38pm
I always laugh at doomsday scenarios like this. Cameron struck big with Titanic...but the odds of him making another movie to hit a billion theatrical is so miniscule as to not even exist. I have no sympathy for a studio that would assume he can do it again and in successive order! Especially on a non franchise, 100% original concept...I don't care if there are blowjobs by Maxim cover girls offered at the screenings...this movie will more than likely not make a billion dollars. The story may be just as potently emotional as Titanic...but the same elements that separated it from every other emotionally charged films that fail are not there for Avatar (namely Leo Dicaprio, doomsday scenario, etc). So the studio is essentially a blind man trying to walk across the guard rail of a bridge just because they were able to cross a street without getting hit. Again, no sympathy.
Reply
post #238 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
We are allowed to guess right?


Have you seen it?
Nope but I'm going on the scriptment which has very little that will appeal to women or anyone over the age of 45. It's pretty much rooted in it's genre which has limited appeal.

I'm also getting pretty tired of people basing their love of this project without having seen it using the critique of "you haven't seen it" to slam people who think it looks and sounds unimpressive. We're all pretty much guessing. Use something else.
Reply
post #239 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
This is not a cross-genre repeat viewing experience.
Every movie to break a billion worldwide is science fiction/action/fantasy/adventure. To be fair though, they were all based on already established, well selling material.

I know I just argued against Avatar making that much, I'm just saying.
Reply
post #240 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
Every movie to break a billion worldwide is science fiction/action/fantasy/adventure. To be fair though, they were all based on already established, well selling material.

I know I just argued against Avatar making that much, I'm just saying.
And most had the ability to cross genres. LoTR had it, Dark Knight had it and Titanic had it. Avatar seems to have none of that.
Reply
post #241 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:57pm
Yeah, my mom and dad went to see Titanic. I doubt they'll go to see ten-foot glow-in-the-dark aliens.
Reply
post #242 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:58pm
If AVATAR would "bomb", I wonder if FOX could take steps to sue Cameron to recover some of the loss? If James didn't deliver what was promised that is. He's got to worth a billion dollars on his own.

Could be a "game changer" after all.
Reply
post #243 of 421
7/28/09 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
And most had the ability to cross genres. LoTR had it, Dark Knight had it and Titanic had it. Avatar seems to have none of that.
Can you get specific?
Reply
post #244 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkatthemoon View Post
If AVATAR would "bomb", I wonder if FOX could take steps to sue Cameron to recover some of the loss? If James didn't deliver what was promised that is. He's got to worth a billion dollars on his own.

Could be a "game changer" after all.
If Fox sued Cameron, no major filmmaker would want to work with them. Bad move.
Reply
post #245 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkatthemoon View Post
Could be a "game changer" after all.
Well, if FOX follows New Line's route, it will be. Anyone know where all the money is coming from? I'm surprised a single studio is bankrolling something this big on their own, the way business is down nowadays.
Reply
post #246 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Well, if FOX follows New Line's route, it will be. Anyone know where all the money is coming from? I'm surprised a single studio is bankrolling something this big on their own, the way business is down nowadays.
They're bankrolling it on their own because they shared on Titanic and it made a billion dollars. Not hard to figure it out.
Reply
post #247 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:13pm
I'd hate to think that these letters came from anyone of consequence on that production.
Reply
post #248 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Twice to break even isn't the case. You have to factor in prints and advertising. In a case like this, I would wager 100-150 easy. So now your budget is actually 500 million. And you only get about half of the gross. So you need to make a billion.
Well they've certainly been saving money on advertising thus far. ;-) I'm curious about the print cost, however. When they project it in 3D as intended, I'm assuming it will be a digital projection and not an actual film print (though I could be wrong). How many theatres are even capable of showing a 3D film, is it only IMAX? If so, you can bet they're bending over backwards to accommodate him. They're trying to push 3D as the future of film, and Avatar seems to be the one they're hoping will lead the way, so they've got a lot riding on its success.

I'd like it to succeed if it's good, obviously, but the thought of Rothman being thrown out on his ass........hmm.....
Reply
post #249 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtZim View Post
When they project it in 3D as intended, I'm assuming it will be a digital projection and not an actual film print (though I could be wrong). How many theatres are even capable of showing a 3D film, is it only IMAX?
Most of the theaters out my way have converted to all digital and are capable of doing 3D shows (they usually do both 3D and non-3D and price accordingly). I live in Buttfuck NC, so I'm assuming this is somewhat standard across the states(?).
Reply
post #250 of 421
7/28/09 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkatthemoon View Post
If AVATAR would "bomb", I wonder if FOX could take steps to sue Cameron to recover some of the loss? If James didn't deliver what was promised that is. He's got to worth a billion dollars on his own.

Could be a "game changer" after all.
I don't think any studio could sue a director because the film wasn't as successful as they'd hoped. If so, then people like Renny Harlin and Michael Cimino would've been sued back to the stone age for 'Cutthroat Island' and 'Heaven's Gate' respectively. Everyone knows the risk involved with making a big film when they set out. It's never a sure thing...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › An AVATAR Crew Member Can't Take Criticism