Calculator's Broken

email this story
read comments (24)
post a comment

Michael Cieply's financial assessment piece in today's N.Y. Times about potential revenues from James Cameron's Avatar states the following:

(a) "Published reports have put the production budget at more than $230 million";

(b) "[But] when global marketing expenses are added, Avatar may cost its various backers $500 million";

(c) "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";

(d) Rupert Murdoch's 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";

(e) "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."

I'm lost -- totally lost. MCN's David Poland posted a pretty good slice-and-dice reaction piece last night. Says what I was thinking and then some.

Imagine That<< previous | next >>Slamdunks & Slummers

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 9, 2009 at 1:23 PM

comment #1

Jonathan Spuij says ...

What's with the sudden backlash against this film? Why are people desperately trying to sink it beforehand? I mean geez, if this movie fails it'll probably affect the whole industry. Even the journos.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at November 9, 2009 2:07 PM

comment #2

Nick X says ...

New trailers certainly look better than the August one did.

Posted by Nick X at November 9, 2009 2:09 PM

comment #3

Telemachos says ...

I thought the article was actually a positive one (for Fox and "Avatar"), despite the screwy numbers.

Posted by Telemachos at November 9, 2009 2:27 PM

comment #4

qwiggles says ...

Yeah, someone's gone hog wild with the abacus.

What the hell. It's like they heard the FernGully complaints and said "Exactly! It IS like FernGully!"

Posted by qwiggles at November 9, 2009 2:34 PM

comment #5

Mark says ...

What's the box office range here? Absolute failure, i.e, Golden Compass, to awesome success, i.e., Return of the King? So either ticket sales of the theatrical run equal the budget plus marketing costs ($370M) or the movie is up $700M pre video? If anyone involved is concerned about loss, i will gladly pay face value for their points on the movie.

Posted by Mark at November 9, 2009 2:38 PM

comment #6

DeeZee says ...

Johnathan: It's payback for being bored with Titanic and having to sit through Leo's Cage-esque performances in his later films.

Posted by DeeZee at November 9, 2009 3:01 PM

comment #7

Jonathan Spuij says ...

Are we firing the Titanic-arguments up again, DeeZee?
And what's wrong with Leo?

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at November 9, 2009 3:08 PM

comment #8

DeeZee says ...

Jonathan: He plays the version himself from fifteen years ago in every movie.

Posted by DeeZee at November 9, 2009 3:15 PM

comment #9

Mark says ...

There could be a whole thread on what is wrong with Leo.

All I'll say for now is that at some point, some young star has to cash in his star power to launch the next great under 40 director. If it's a female director, then all the better. New blood with budgets is much needed.

Posted by Mark at November 9, 2009 4:07 PM

comment #10

Cobraverde says ...

Golden Compass made $302 million in foreign box office. New Line sold all the foreign rights and didnt see a penny of that. It tanked at $70 million in the US - a smash everywhere else. Have any other tentpoles gone this way?

Posted by Cobraverde at November 9, 2009 4:30 PM

comment #11

DeeZee says ...

Cobra: Basterds for Weinco. :)

Posted by DeeZee at November 9, 2009 4:40 PM

comment #12

corey3rd says ...

hard to get excited. This is looking like The Abyss 2.

Posted by corey3rd at November 9, 2009 5:55 PM

comment #13

Colin says ...

DZ's right DiCaprio's performances in The Departed, The Aviator, and Blood Diamond are exactly like Titanic.

Posted by Colin at November 9, 2009 6:00 PM

comment #14

DeeZee says ...

Colin: Yep. Same whiny, smart-ass kid. Though at least Marty had the sense to make The Aviator about the character, and not Leo.

Posted by DeeZee at November 9, 2009 6:09 PM

comment #15

Colin says ...

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'll grant you your hate of Tarantino, but DiCaprio is one of the best actors of this generation.

Maybe instead of The Departed you watched Growing Pains.

Posted by Colin at November 9, 2009 6:16 PM

comment #16

Atticus Grinch says ...

Okay, I'm excited for this film an all, but what's with the music? It's like the soundtrack to a 1980's Amblin film. That music is so wildly off base from the imagery and from all of the other trailer and promo pieces I've seen.

And I actually burst out laughing when the narrator said "20th Century Fox invites you to experience...THE GREATEST EXPERIENCE OF ALL TIME!"

That's quite a hilarious self-endorsement.

Posted by Atticus Grinch at November 9, 2009 6:19 PM

comment #17

gradystiles says ...

Pretty obvious that the new commercial is intended for parents and kids, isn't it? Maybe not, from the comments here...

Posted by gradystiles at November 9, 2009 7:29 PM

comment #18

DeeZee says ...

Colin: Except he's not the best actor of his generation, but an adult version of the kid from Growing Pains, which is the problem with his career as a whole. [Levitt's in a similar predicament, since he still seems like an older version of that 3rd Rock kid to me; but at least he doesn't have the mixed blessing of Titanic keeping him from diversifying his portfolio as badly as Leo.] The best actor would've been River, if he hadn't OD'ed. Leo's just a poser.

Posted by DeeZee at November 9, 2009 7:34 PM

comment #19

Mighty Kornholio says ...

O.K after innitially being disappointed by the first trailer, I'm warming up to this movie a lot. I hope the trailers haven't given the whole thing away, though.

Posted by Mighty Kornholio at November 9, 2009 8:10 PM

comment #20

Gordon27 says ...

"Same whiny, smart-ass kid."

Yeah, except for the part about him being whiny and smart-ass and a kid, that perfectly sums up the three performances being discussed.

Now, if you were saying something a bit more reasonable, like he's still somewhat limited because he *looks* too young, I'd grant you that, for 'The Departed'. He never fully sold me in that movie because he still looks a bit young. But, on the other hand, he managed to age 20 years in 'The Aviator' with very little make-up, all in his performance -- so he's clearly capable of it.

And, as for 'Blood Diamond', I have problems with that movie, but he's fucking great in it. I'm glad to see that DZ, as a negative barometer, confirms my diagnosis.

Posted by Gordon27 at November 9, 2009 9:18 PM

comment #21

DeeZee says ...

Gordon: I told you. The Aviator was the one time when Leo played the character, rather than himself.

Posted by DeeZee at November 9, 2009 10:21 PM

comment #22

Rich S. says ...

The extended Avatar trailer, in 3D, was on the IMAX 3D Christmas Carol I saw this past weekend. I know that audience reaction isn't any real determinant, but they seemed to respond more to the floating head of the Cheshire Cat in Burton's Alice.

I think Avatar has two strikes against it going in, and both relate to Cameron and others pitching it as a "game changer." First and foremost, it's a story we've seen a thousand times before, going back to at least Tarzan and probably even farther (Cooper's Last of the Mohicans?). I think people were hoping that this new wonder would be tied to something that, if not entirely new and different, at least wasn't so damn familiar.

Second, as impressive as the CGI is, unless Cameron is holding something back (which is entirely possible), it's not a quantum leap over what we've seen before. It still looks like something you'd see on one of the recent games for the PS3. The latest trailer was pretty nifty in IMAX 3D, I'll give it that. But I think people were expecting something more. (For example, why did Cameron make the Na'vi humanoid?)

I'll see it opening weekend, for sure, and I hope it blows away all my expectations. I certainly understand the backlash, however.

Posted by Rich S. at November 10, 2009 4:24 AM

comment #23

Gogocrank says ...

Wow, that voiceover totally makes it sound like the promo for a new ride/immersive 3-D "experience" at Disneyworld. First trailer lost me, second got some of me back, this one is ROFL-ific.

Posted by Gogocrank at November 10, 2009 6:37 AM

comment #24

gradystiles says ...

Again, isn't it possible (in fact, probable) that this commercial is intended for family audiences who might not be interested in the same aspects of the movie that some of us here are?

Posted by gradystiles at November 10, 2009 7:42 AM