An AVATAR Crew Member Can't Take Criticism - Page 6

The only way you can sue a filmmaker is if they breached their contract. Being obligated to make a billion dollars + is not in anybody's contract, trust me.

Assuming nobody in Hollywood expects this to make a billion fucking dollars, how does a movie like this happen? Are there other long term advantages execs are counting on? Artistic prestige? Does it benefit Imax in some roundabout way?

I think a volatile combination of ego and prestige has a lot to do with it. If all these Hollywood studio people cared about was money, there are other safer ways to do it. But it's not as sexy and glamorous as being in 'HOLLYWOOD' and hobnobbing with the stars.

Couldn't a loss at the box office be offset by the promotion/selling of the technology used in the making it to other films?

I'm pretty sure the revenues from the technology don't have anything to do with 20th Century Fox. It's not their technology (right?). Plus technology can always go elsewhere. To films of other studios. A knowledge I'm sure doesn't keep Fox sleeping well at night.

Sure. LoTR had romance and attractive leads to draw in the casual female film goer. It also had the pedigree of being one of the best selling series of the twentieth century so it had cross generational appeal. It was sold as an epic (which it nailed in spades) to also add to it's crossover appeal.

The Dark Knight was going to draw very little female fans until Ledger died. A young good looking rebel in his (essentially) final film role? That has way more appeal to the female fan then the male geek fan. Batman Begins did great business with the older crowd so the sequel was likely to as well.

Titanic is pretty self-explanatory.

Avatar's appeal seems to be in area of geeks who like the minutia of Sci-Fi/Fantasy worlds and technology.

If Fox poured 200-300 million into the movie, and alot of that money went into the development of the technology used to bring that film to life, wouldn't they have some sort of financial stake or ownership of the technology when all is said and done?

I guess you could but that still doesn't enter in to whether the movie is seen as a success.

As far as I know the development of the technology doesn't count in the making of the movie. That's a separate entry entirely.

Take it easy man. It was you who matter of fact-ly announced that this movie has no appeal for repeat viewing period, as if you had already seen it. And then you follow up by saying your opinion is based on some ancient scriptment that is more than a decade old.

And don't put me in the Avatard camp please. I look forward to the film like most people in here but have no illusions about it. We are strictly discussing the B.O. right now and I think it will do better than most of you guys. Not based on a scriptment or shit like that but based on the fact that I have confidence the team behind this movie has planned a very specific and effective marketing campaign that will be unfolded soon.

I'm obviously no insider, just a layman fan, but I'm a business news junkie. From what I've read over the years, executives greenlight a project from a known, successful filmmaker with a track record.

Then, costs go up, and up, and up, all while nobody has the intestinal fortitude to say 'No' to James Cameron. I recall the story about a studio suit who came sniffing around The Abyss set. From what I remember of the story, Cameron lets him try on a sealed diving helmet, and as 'a joke' proceeds to suck the oxygen out of the helmet. The suit got the point and nobody else from the studio stepped foot on the set again.

This story was in some book about Hollywood that I read some time ago.

But the general public wasn't aware of that aspect of Fellowship's appeal until the marketing for the film went into full push, which Avatar hasn't started yet. So I think that point remains to be seen.

Avatar is unknown to people. It's in the marketing where they'll decide what aspect to push. I doubt they'll hinge the success of the movie on the minutiae of sci-fi/fantasy worlds and technology. They'll push the familiar story.

Otherwise, I agree with you about everything else.

Hollywood is a business and is populated by 75% business people, but what keeps them all in business is the 25% of innovative or original thinkers that inject a little creativity into the hacky mainstream cycle every now and again. Cameron is at the top of that list. And Titanic has made nearly twice the next highest competitor (Return of the King) worldwide. No one from the business side would ever alienate a filmmaker of his caliber, at least not at this point in his career.

I'd love to hear from someone who knows the answer to this.

If I remember correctly, Cameron used much of his budget for 'the Abyss' to create the morphing technology (and other tech things as well). While the movie itself underperformed, he was able to make a mint off of that technology in the following years.

December 18th:

"I'd like one ticket for AVATAR please."
"Okay, that will $1,000."
"WHAT?"
"Well, it needs to earn a billion, so ticket prices have to be higher."
"That's bullshit."
"Might I remind you it's JAMES CAMERON." (nods slowly)
"You're right. Better give me two tickets. I'm staying to watch it twice!"

You know, I don't think that's all that unfair. In fact, it seems a little unfair that a ticket to a movie like Avatar or The Dark Knight costs the same as a ticket to something like Zack and Miri Make a Porno, when you consider the level of risk and expense that went into the former.

ETA: Not like $1k for a ticket, but like if a ticket to Avatar is $15, a ticket for Zack and Miri should be $10 kind of thing.

I would imagine both Cameron and the company that manufactured the tech to have the patents to this stuff. A movie studio like Fox aren't Cisco, Intel or Microsoft. They wouldn't know the first thing about selling or marketing technology. It's not like they have offices of engineers, right next to those of development executives.

Unless you're Sony, of course, where you already have a history of developing technology products. The movie studio within Sony is just one division among many.

If Fox put up the money, they should own a percentage of the technology and be able to reap a certain amount of the financial benefit from it. It would seem to me that selling and marketing the technology would be Cameron's job, not Fox's.

But then there's also the fact that Cameron's been developing all this technology outside of Fox for a while before he ever really started working on Avatar. He was doing it with his Titanic documentaries. What Fox is putting down money for is being able to release and distribute the next big Cameron movie. It's a bet.

I mean, all those subtle technological steps up that we never hear about that get awarded during the Academy Awards for Motion Picture Technology & Sciences (is that the name?) don't belong to the studios, do they?

They sound like strange business people, though, if they let actual money be ignored because it doesn't count or isn't compartmentalized a certain way.

It makes sense to downplay success in order to evade paying those who earn by the percentage point, whether Peter Jackson or the taxman. And I guess you want to control expectations for the next movie. But if the dissembling leads you to stop hiring a good director just because his product made money from one place instead of another, or money that you hid instead of trumpeted, that seems completely irrational unless I'm missing something, which I probably am.

You are correct, sir. Cameron had the camera developed years before this and he and his development partner own the patent to that technology. Weta was hired for FX and had to develop new technology for rendering the environment and creatures, but Fox does not own this technology, nor does Cameron. Weta does, as it's their proprietary software that they developed internally. I do CG professionally and this is the way contracts work. Proprietary CG tools are what gives one company an edge over another, so having to give up all the tech you've developed at the end of a project would be a huge blow to your company.

And to the person who said Cameron made money on morphing. No he did not. First, he didn't invent morphing. It was used in 'Willow' years before, albeit in 2D. The ability to morph between two 3D forms already existed in Alias when the Abyss was being worked on. ILM refined it and were able to use it on subsequent projects. It wasn't technology they patented and made money from by selling to people. You may be referring to the underwater air refilling station Cameron and his brother developed and the steady cam gun rig he developed for 'Aliens'. He patened and sold THAT technology to the military and made a shitload. He's a clever, clever man, as is his brother who's an ex-NASA engineer.

Of course I'm guessing and unless someone here works for Fox, we're only speculating, but I can't see how a technology manufacturer who develops a new product allows a movie studio to control any of the rights to that tech or even lets them hold a patent.

Now there are exceptions: Disney has Imagineering and bought Pixar, and since decades back due to the theme parks, they've always had a history of developing new technology.

Fox is part of News Corp., a newspaper company at heart.

And people are basing this movie to be hugely successful based on the exact same thing. Quite simply, if people are allowed to make billion dollar BO predictions on the scriptment and what they've seen so far I can predict that it will be less on the exact same info.

That's the thing, no one is telling you that you can't make that prediction because you haven't seen it yet but that seems to be the fallback position of the Cameron fanboys when anyone even so much as makes a critical statement about this movie.

Some "shit" like the scriptment? Are you actually serious? The only direct information we have about the plot and the characters and we're supposed to ignore it? I like you so I won't lump you in with the Avatards but, dude, you have to see how absurd that is.

And you clearly have more faith in the team then I would after they dropped the ball at ComicCon. Was it a mostly positive reaction? Sure. But for the money and the braggadocio that's going on for this film it needed to be a helluva lot more then just positive.

My point still stands that it's not under the umbrella of the film but a completely different entry on the books, correct? Just in this case, it's a completely different company's books.

ETA: Never mind, you amended your original statement. Nothing to see here. Go about your business.

That was me who said that. I stand corrected

Derivatives speculation isn't really common sense either but huge corporations nonetheless reap huge profits from it. Like Wall Street, Hollywood accountants are told the end result and then charged to work out the math to match it.

Making a big budget movie is a gamble, especially with an autonomous director, but even as the budget climbed, can you imagine if an executive had told Cameron to take a hike and another studio picked Avatar up? If it tanked, the executive would look prescient. But if if was a monster like Titanic, his career would be over. That's how these people think.

Never work. There'd be no way to implement a successful tiered payment system that the public would understand and/or buy as an excuse for the system.

In LA, people who are less cheap than I will pay extra $$ to see a movie at the ArcLight, so I'm not sure it's impossible. I'm also not saying I would necessarily want a system like that, just that it seems inequitable to pay the same ticket price for Zack and Miri (which, no offense meant) as a movie like Avatar. It's like paying the same ticket price to see the Jonas Brothers as a Smiths reunion show or something.

Agreed. But sadly I'm pretty sure in your example the Jonas Brothers tickets would cost more. More expensive wouldn't mean better quality entertainment.

What I think it boils down to is that this movie has to have a VERY good opening weekend. If that is the case and the movie turns out to be good or even great then it has a good chance to make a lot of dough. Just like any other blockbuster of its kind. Now to achieve that OW they need a perfect marketing campaign, not too short or too long (too late for that) and with impressive trailers and LOTS of exposure.

If they can succeed with that then I have faith in its B.O. potential. I couldn't really care less whether it turns out to be a total flop or a huge hit, I just personally believe it will be a bigger hit than people expect.

I also read the scriptment and kinda dug it (I'm a sucker for tech stuff so that explains a lot) but wasn't totally impressed. But Cameron has stated that the scriptment was more of a guideline for him to set up the planet and the whole universe, hence all those detailed and almost pedantic descriptions of everything. But that could just be fluff from Cameron, who knows. I just don't want to put too much weight on that thing.

About the selling of patents and technologies etc. aren't Jackson/Spielberg using the system on Tintin? I'd love to find out just how much Cameron gets from all that, and I realize it's not to be counted with the B.O.

New Line sold the distribution rights of THE GOLDEN COMPASS to foreign distributors, just just what they did with LORD OF THE RINGS films (and many other films from New Line).

What other big releases are opening in December that could eat away at Avatar's (potential) business? I wouldn't underestimate the public's revitalized love for Robert Downey Jr. (i.e. Sherlock Holmes) or even the Alvin & the Chipmunks sequel.

Who cares how much Cameron might make of the use of technologies created from Avatar (it's certainly not going to be used to judge the success of it). This is exactly what I'm afraid of about Avatar, Cameron and his workers, as evidenced from the letter to Devin, seem to approach the film as an engineering project rather than an artistic endeavour. They're not building a rocket for Nasa. The best technicians working on a film doesn't mean it'll translate into the best film, much less even a good one. Star Wars prequels anyone?

Who knows maybe it'll be great, I'm sure the tech alone will make it worthwhile for all of us. But I just don't see this movie having much mass appeal. I know anecdotal evidence is hardly indicative, but whenever I tell my friends about the films plot their eyes start glazing over immediately.

Shit, I didn't know about this...

CAMERON = DOOMED!!!

We all laugh, but the first film made some serious bank.

You actually believe that letter was a collaborate effort by a bunch of people working on the film?

Am I the only one considering that notion to be completely ridiculous?

Yes it's authenticity has been called into question numerous times already (no less by me), so thank you for doing so yet again. And yes I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but it embodies Cameron's attitude perfectly as evidenced by his own words. No offense, but it doesn't change any of the points I made.

Wow he should never have used the term "Game changer" should he...

In my opinion definitely not. How can it help to set the bar impossibly high? If it ends up being a good film, it's still going to be perceived as a disappointment to a lot of people. If anything he should be downplaying expectations.

No one knows what the ultimate reaction to the film will be, but the reaction to the comic con footage from everything I've gathered was on general quite good, yet even this has been perceived as a backlash. And I don't hear anyone else joining the game changer chorus, especially in respect to its 3d effects. Maybe it's just me and my growing suspicion of 3d.

I don't feel sorry for people who bite on to these comments and raise their own expectations unrealistically. It won't be a problem to 9 out of ten people cause they don't listen to all this behind the scenes stuff.

I don't have anything to add to this discussion of James Cameron's mojo, but I do take issue with anybody who thinks they invented the term AVATARD. I'm fairly certain that word was invented about three seconds after it was coined by the first fifteen year old to stumble across it.

I always thought the 'Game Changer' quote was associated with Jon Favreau. I never heard Cameron say any such thing, though Devin says he did at some IMAX screening....?

EDIT: Here's the actual quote from Favreau. One thing to note: He's not calling the MOVIE or the FX a game changer, but the 3D format:

And one area I was particularly interested in was his thoughts on James Cameron's Avatar, since he's one of the lucky few who has seen a few finished scenes from the film. "He's trying to present this format in a way where it is a game-changer and in seeing it I think it's the future," Favreau explains.

If he could not back it up , yeah, it was stupid of him to say it.
You talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk. Cameron has said,in effect, time and time again this film is going to be on the level of "Citizen Kane" or "Potemkin" when it comes to impacting the way that films are made. If you make that kind brag, you are going to catch hell if your film does not prove you out. People don't ,as a rule, like braggarts.
The fact is that some of the Avatar backlash is aimed on Cameron's overwhelming ego which a lot of people who generally like his films..like I..find to be very,very,annoyning at times.

I'll think they'll be pushing... "From the director of TITANIC!"

Tita-wha? Stop making up words!

The specific plot is irrelevant, all that matters is the craftsmanship that is involved. You can make a great movie out of any story if there's sufficient talent behind the project.

I do kinda love tho that "game changer" is becoming the second half of this decades answer to "there is no bar".

The hubris that stems from ridiculously, cartoonishly big ego's is funny.

1942 would like to have a word with you.

If your argument was you could make a succesfull film out of any story, maybe I'd be inclined to disagree less. But great? Dead wrong. The Star Wars prequels? Not even Speilberg could save the last Indy.

Even otherwise to say the specific plot is irrelevant in either case has to be wrong. I don't think any amount of craftsmanship could make a movie about a guy taking a 2 hour long dump great.

You both miss his point. He isn't saying that great filmmakers don't make mistakes but that great filmmakers have the potential to make great movies from ridiculous plots.