Avatar : A Movie Revolution?

Candle Power Flashlight Forum

Help Support CPF:

3-D in an IMAX cinema and in a regular cinema is quite different.

IMAX uses LCD shuttered glasses and a regular cinema uses polarised glasses.

There are literally hundreds of 3-D movies currently being made.

It's in fashion at the moment.

No sure if the current trend will last.
Personally I don't think it will.
It will just be a fad like every other time in history.

I've seen the latest demos of Sony 3-D televisions.
They are OK, but nothing you haven't really seen before if you've seen 3-D previously.
 
About 55% of expenses goes into the distribution of movies. Only 45% goes towards production. So Avatar needs over a billion to break even.

The pundits were not worried as there is a video game out. With video games costing ~$70 vs ~$14 for a movie ticket they should make a bundle there.

The movie works well in 2D so DVD/Blu-Ray sales should be good as well.

The studios will definitely be pushing for sequels.
 
LEDninja said:
About 55% of expenses goes into the distribution of movies. Only 45% goes towards production. So Avatar needs over a billion to break even.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how you came up to this conclusion?

Are you saying that distribution costs are proportional to production costs of a movie? Are you saying that (distribution costs)=1.22x(production costs)?
 
We don't need to psychoanalyze details of profits in this thread. It's enough to know that everyone's fears about Cameron's high budget, and the movie being profitable are gone. They all took a big risk, and they deserve big rewards.
 
Seb71 said:
Can you explain how you came up to this conclusion?

Are you saying that distribution costs are proportional to production costs of a movie? Are you saying that (distribution costs)=1.22x(production costs)?
Click to expand...
Not every dollar in ticket prices go to the producer of the movie. A lot of the money goes to the cost of building the movie theaters, the electricity bill, the ushers, the ticket sellers, the advertising, the cost of the film copies. (The last one is less for this movie as the 3D copies are shipped out in reusable hard drives)
The studios have a nasty habit of signing multi-movie deals with the theaters covering the whole year. The distribution costs are calculated as a percentage of all the movies of the year. While a $500M movie has the same actual distribution costs as a $50M movie its percentage distribution costs are 10X the cheaper movie. One way the studios use the money from money making movies to pay for money losing movies through creative accounting.
A little movie called My Big Fat Greek Wedding was filmed in Toronto with no name actors, zero special effects. Probably cost $10M to make. After $500M in ticket and DVD sales, it still showed a loss.

A year or so ago I saw the 55% distribution 45% production number. A movie money analyst I saw on a news website said Avatar needs about 3X production costs to make money. Don't know which production cost he used. If the $260M number then its $780M. If $500M then its $1.5B.
Avatar is well on its way to top the $1B mark in ticket sales. Add the video game and DVD sales and there is no problem going over the $1.5B mark.
 
Last edited:
I see. But it does not seems right to me to include losses of other movies when you compute Avatar's distribution costs. Those are losses of studios and/or theaters, not of Avatar movie (as a product, manufactured and then sold). But I am not an accountant. 🙂
 
As LEDninja says, only a few movies actually make a net profit. Gross, yes; but net... the studios bury the production costs of all their flops in the costs of their box-office successes.
 
DM51 said:
As LEDninja says, only a few movies actually make a net profit. Gross, yes; but net... the studios bury the production costs of all their flops in the costs of their box-office successes.
Click to expand...

That's just a well known sham "Hollywood Accounting" scheme. They take out bushel baskets of money for everyone and their mother without leaving enough to have "net profit." A movie being net profitable means nothing. Read that link for many examples.

A recent settlement with the Tolkein family finally resulted in The Hobbit being able to be made as a movie. Despite the $6 Billion LOTR income, the studios had refused to pay them anything.
 
No point in bickering about movie profits..

grandtheftauto4.jpg


This game made $310 million dollars in its first day. It grossed more money in one week than the movie Jaws made for the entirety of its theatrical run.

Video games are the new blockbusters.
 
I loved that game. I think I played that one for 1 or 2 hrs almost every night for about 2 months. A lot of the time not playing the actual game, just driving around terrorizing the city. :devil: - On a Xbox 360
Everyone who plays it can have a somewhat different experience.

It cost more than a ticket to the movies, but it can continue to entertain a for long time after the purchase.
 
😎 :drool: 😀 😉 Saw it in I-Max 3D. I must say it seemed like a lot more than 30 minutes to me. Might be cause my somewhat worn out body does not like to sit upright for any lenght of time without complaining. Never the less...even at $13+ this is money well spent. Mr. Cameron has a better imagination than I do...thats for sure. It does seem that you enter another world...even the alien chicks start to look hot after a while 😛...:thinking:...or maybe there`s something wrong with me?

Er...back on track...I like that the movie did not try to over do the 3 D effects. Simply eye candy from start to finish. Wish 3D could somehow be done without special glasses. Looking at my TV at home now...leaves me feeling flat.

Edit: Guess I should give it some sort of rating. The story line has more/less been done before..but it is done very well none the less. Has some extreme violents...probably to much for some children. Not much in the way of sex...but I can overlook that flaw. I`m sure many will pick it apart...find many faults. But for plain fun the show delivers big time. And the visual/sound quality of the show is far beyond anything I have seen before.

I give it a A+ overall. Simply a MUST see. No way around it.
 
Last edited:
I enjoy the fact that the intro scene pretty much puts you in the same sort of disoriented state that the characters are in.
 
LEDninja said:
The studios always sign up actors for 3 movies when they can get them cheap.
Click to expand...
We don't need no stinkin' actors.
We talked about actors not being needed in teh future when I was at CSUC Chico in the late 1960's. Heinlein saw it when he wrote "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" a few years earlier.
Stunt men and women will almost certainly disappear in a few years as an actor can be replaced seamlessly with CGI in many places.
The difference between the most beautiful thing you have ever seen on a screen and a crudely drawn picture is only the arrangement of the pixels.
Tis film is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
 
The "revolution" is not about Avatar's evolution of CGI, which I would agree with you is an evolution.

The revolution is the magic this movie achieves vis-a-vis the viewer's immersion into the world of Avatar via the superb 3D. I don't know if this experience will extend to other 3D movies using Cameron's technology.

I generally hate going to see movies in theaters, and have only seen one movie twice in a theater before. The only other movies I have seen in a theater over the last 2 years were Star Trek & Dark Knight.

I've already seen Avatar twice, and going tomorrow to see it a 3rd time--always in 3D. The 2nd viewing was as "intoxicating" as the first.
 
Did you read about the little temper tantrum Cameron had when a fan asked for his autograph?

To this day, I still vow to punch Mark Mcgrath in the ear if I ever meet him for the way he treated a fan one day. Cameron's was not that bad but still uncalled for.

Oh well, the pressure of being rich and famous.
 
DM51 said:
As LEDninja says, only a few movies actually make a net profit. Gross, yes; but net... the studios bury the production costs of all their flops in the costs of their box-office successes.
Click to expand...

In other words it takes one Avatar to pay the losses on 8 Ishtars? :crackup:

Some of the younger people here may need to google that. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top