ROTTEN TOMATOES: Can Avatar Make Money? Comments

Can Avatar Make Money?

by | November 09, 2009

Summary

The New York Times says James Cameron's "Avatar" will cost nearly half a billion dollars -- and asks the crucial question: Can something so expensive ever hope to turn a profit? Back to Article

(1-20 of 122 posts) | Reply

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 09 2009 04:23 AM

Provided I like it the first time, I'll plant for it at least twice more for support. Risk taking, guts, passion, inspired work, these things are still worth endorsing.

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Nov 09 2009 04:25 AM

"Taking no chances, Fox is backing up Mr. Cameron%u2019s movie with what an executive recently called the studio%u2019s %u201Csecret weapon.%u201D

"That would be %u201CAlvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel,%u201D set to open just a week after studio marketers get %u201CAvatar%u201D 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."

Game Set Match

(Reply to this)

oddjob323 writes:
on Nov 09 2009 04:44 AM

I think it will be one of the top 3 highest grossing movies of the year. The buzz is already huge.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 09 2009 05:06 AM

In reply to this comment (#2559675)
It certainly deserves to be. And if I'm wrong on this one, then screw it I'm wrong. Doesn't seem likely though. In Cameron we trust. ;-)

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Nov 09 2009 05:56 AM

The film cost $235 million, it's not hard to believe this film reaching the $300 million plus domestic level. It's definitely gonna be profitable. Look for it to be 2009's second biggest film squashed in between Transformers $400 m and Harry Potter's $300 m.

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Nov 09 2009 05:57 AM

I could see Avatar going either way. Cameron's bag of tricks seems to be wearing thin, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I actually watch it, although I will say I'm worried Avatar might be a little to content to rest on its visual merits. At least the blue man group is getting some work.

(Reply to this)

John N. writes:
on Nov 09 2009 06:24 AM

De4ective- We all know how you feel about Avatar, you don't have to express it on every single Avatar related article.

(Reply to this)

Gordon Franklin Terry Sr writes:
on Nov 09 2009 06:58 AM

Of course AVATAR will turn a profit . . . over time. It like when you invest in a mutual fund and await the dividend checks . . . eventually with a "blue-chip" vehicle like AVATAR the dividend will either come in the mail as a check or be direct-deposited or be automatically reinvested.

But take into consideration:
1. The Unemployment Rate is 17.5% (people may be less inclined to spend
money on an "unfamiliar" film)

2. AVATAR is a weird "unfamiliar" title (like ISHTAR that ALSO flopped)

3. The creatures in AVATAR aren't that appealing (to me at least)

3.1 The story is an "original" jast as James Cameron's THE ABYSS was
"original;" and the plot of AVATAR can be as muddled as THE ABYSS

4. A CHRISTMAS CAROL (with Jim Carey) did not meet expectations
INDICATING a possible trend in movie-goers' attitudes

5. DVD and Bluray sales are reportedly down, another INDICATOR of people not having "extra-"money.

Yet, the aforementioned "litany" of considerations only applies to North America (domestic trends).

AND AVATAR must make money because AVATAR is a MUST-SEE film; everybody HAS TO SEE AVATAR just as EVERYBODY HAD TO SEE:
ALIENS; TITANIC; STAR WARS (and sequels); SUPERMAN; THE DARK NIGHT; TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY; PEARL HARBOR; GHOSTBUSTERS;, ET THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL; THE GODFATHER; THE GODFATHER 2; FORREST GUMP etc.

(I mean AVATAR WILL make ALL of its money back AND MORE. There will be so much social/peer-pressure to see AVATAR in order to "fit in" at the "water-cooler-discussions" [at work] that anyone who doesn't see AVATAR will be out of "the loop" and be a total "square"

(Reply to this)

Escapefromalcatraz writes:
on Nov 09 2009 06:58 AM

Having seen the trailer in full scale at the theatre (playing in front of Paranormal) I can tell you it's VERY exciting stuff. It doesn't look at all like it does in front of your computer screen and that view had me fairly titillated. The overall sense you get from the trailer is the textures involved. The skin of the Navis, the "skin" of the mechs and the depth of the plantlife. It's friggin unbelievable to be quite honest.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 09 2009 07:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#2559689)
Hey, every thread needs a killjoy. Sh.t, sometimes it's me! lol.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Nov 09 2009 07:57 AM

i'm interested to see how it does. its a tossup to me but could be saved by the action sequences being sweet. worthington being in it taints it. he was boring in T4. plus the avatars look odd. i will say i doubt it'll be as good as the dorks who swear up and down it'll change cinema forever and having been jizzing about it for ages now. for all that hype...the trailer didn't deliver. i'll have to see it to make judgement though. i say it comes close to a profit but doesn't make it.

(Reply to this)

Confounded writes:
on Nov 09 2009 08:13 AM

I think it looks like a decent movie. Not "Aliens" good, but still a good, fun flick to take in. That being said, with its massive budget, extensive marketing campaign, and every other dime tossed in there; it will be a challenge to make a good coin on this.

We need to accept the "couples theory" when it comes to movies. Titanic did amazing because every woman that went to see it dragged their boyfriend/husband/married affair along with them. We put up with chick flicks because...well, either A) we're getting some action out of it, or B) it's just less painful to sit through it for 2 hours than have to deal with getting bitched at for not going for 2 weeks.

We don't do that for guy flicks. Frankly, most of us would rather go alone than listen to annoyed heavy sighs every 45 seconds.

And considering this movie appeals mainly to the geek-o-sphere of men age 14-35...that's a big mountain to climb (money-wise). It's certainly not the biggest fan demographic to have, even though they are usually the loudest with praise and criticism.

Ultimately it will rely on how many of the people that see this movie will want to shell out another $9.50 for a second and third time through. And that will likewise rely on how many people are still living in their parents' basement not paying rent and have their Warcraft subscriptions paid up through the end of the year. I'll see it once I'm sure, but in the new millennium of cinema, shelling out almost $10 for a movie is a one-time deal.

Best of luck to them though. Cameron is a great director, I just hope his eyes weren't bigger than his stomach this time around.

(Reply to this)

Cutler to the rescue writes:
on Nov 09 2009 08:35 AM

Seeing the reaction of the crowd to the trailer this past week i can say that this movie does not have a huge audience. It might make money but not come close to Star Trek, Harry Potter, T2. Besides people on this site the movie is not really anticipated.

(Reply to this)

spitting into the wind writes:
on Nov 09 2009 08:47 AM

Wow that is a ridiculous amount of money. especially for a movie that from the clips Ive seen looks so crap.
Everything is quite obviously cgi. Done in a way that makes it obvious to you as you are watching. Does not look good to me.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Nov 09 2009 09:04 AM

Regardless of Buzz, which I think there is a significant amount for this. Cameron's movies tend to succeed or fail based on their own merits. I just can't tell with this one. One time I watch the trailer and I'm severely underwhelmed then I see it again and I can almost see what the pro-Avatar crowd is raving about. Bottom line is I just don't know, but I'll definately be finding out when it comes to theaters.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Nov 09 2009 09:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#2559673)
Isn't this the same ploy Fox used when Bakshi's Wizards was making bank for two weeks until they premiered Star Wars and stole Wizards's thunder? The more things change...

(Reply to this)

Salty Gritts writes:
on Nov 09 2009 09:38 AM

It still looks like a video game to me, with a very basic sci-fi action plot with irritating environmentalism themes draped over it. And while that will fly with younger viewers, this movie is going to miss out completely with older viewers. Titanic, and to a lesser extent The Dark Knight, were so huge because they appealed across demographics to all viewers. Avatar is banking mostly on 3D, IMAX, and James Cameron to bolster its ticket sales, but for most people the extra money they have to pay for those special features aren't worth it, and Cameron hasn't been relevant since 1997.

I expect a decent opening weekend from this film with a sharp drop off in sales due to bad word-of-mouth and the fact that it is a high concept sci-fi film, which always have large second week drop offs. Can you tell I'm not big on this movie?

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Nov 09 2009 09:45 AM

I still can't get over the fact that the main character is in a wheel chair. Sorry, but with technology that can take humans to other planets, implant one's brain function into another body and back again, shouldn't being able to fix a mere spinal cord injury be like walking into a Lasik eye surgery store in a strip mall???

I can't wrap my head around this at all, but I'll probably still see it. I like most of Cameron's work, but he is treading lightly at this point..

(Reply to this)

King Thor writes:
on Nov 09 2009 09:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#2559726)
@ Salty Gritts

Wrong. James Cameron did the huge box office hit 'Aquaman' in 2005.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Nov 09 2009 09:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#2559728)
I don't know, that kinda makes sense to me. To use your LASIK example just because your average American can get it doesn't mean everyone can. You Albanian peasant or Kuwaiti Bedouin is just as SOL as he always was. Plus Spinal Cord injuries have always been one of the hardest things to correct. I don't know, maybe they'll explain it in the movie.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Avatar

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links