Cameron's "Avatar"

[Darth Elektra]

Nice

 

[Electrix]

James Cameron's 'Avatar' Initially Budgeted at $195 Million

Last week, Cinematical reported that two 3-D movies both intend to open on Memorial Day weekend, 2009: the James Cameron film Avatar and the Dreamworks movie Monsters vs. Aliens. I was reading a Chicago Tribune article about the dueling blockbusters when a sentence caught my eye: "With an initial budget of $195 million, Avatar ..." Whoa, back up there! An initial budget of $195 million? My initial reaction was, "How many films could John Sayles make for that kind of money?" (Probably all his films so far.) I realize that Cameron's last feature film, Titanic, was a huge moneymaker -- but that was 10 years ago, and he's made no blockbusters since then. Avatar is about an alien-human conflict on an alien planet, so you can imagine where the big budget will go: making that alien planet look realistic. The studio behind Avatar is Twentieth-Century Fox, which as an Austinite I remember as the studio that fought with Mike Judge on Idiocracy, but somehow I suspect they'll be a little more forthcoming if Cameron asks for more money to finish his special effects.

On her Thompson on Hollywood blog, Anne Thompson of Variety recently noted that Spider-Man 3 may have set new records for budget: possibly as much as $350 million, although Sony execs are denying those numbers. She points out that it's difficult if not impossible to gauge exactly how much money a "tentpole" film costs, and that we should be skeptical of the numbers being thrown around. However, she also observed, "The whole idea of a tentpole is to pay your other bills with its profits -- not to barely break even." Bear in mind that even if Avatar never exceeds its production budget of $195 million, Fox will still have to pay distribution and marketing costs, and it's expensive to release a movie both in 2-D and 3-D formats. Does Fox truly believe that Avatar will do so well worldwide that it will bring in lavish profits over and above its costs? No pressure there, Mr. Cameron ...

http://www.cinematical.com/

 

[black_dust]

/\ he is right though, its a hell of alot of money to be playing about with, and not everyone likes scfi films, Titanic did so well because they know what happened and Cameron built a story into it.

 

[Galactus]

Lot of money, yes, but if no one ever dared to take some risks we would never get movies like Lord of the Rings and hopefully Avatar will also be worth waiting for

 

[Cinemaman]

^^^

Let's hope so, The Avatr can turn out as new Titanic or another King-Kong (in box office meaning).

 

[black_dust]

Only time will tell, i will see it no matter what! (unless i go blind)

 

[L0ngsh0t]

http://www.cinematical.com/

Name one bad James Cameron movie, and then we can talk

 

[cryptic name]

That's a disfferent technology that won't be acailable for wide distribution for at least 15 years, maybe longer. The film will be created for that technology, but will be shown in theaters wuth the Real-D system.

oh? that's a little dissapointing, i was all jazzed about that tech. supposedly peter jackson say some test footage of it and said he never wanted to make another movie without it

 

[Hunter Rider]

Well if this turns out to be one of those movies where you need to sit with goggles on i'll pass

 

[Horrorfan]

http://www.cinematical.com/

Wow...what is that guy on?

How do these people call themselves film fans?

 

[L0ngsh0t]

Well if this turns out to be one of those movies where you need to sit with goggles on i'll pass

What if it turns out to be the experience of a life time?????t:

Its not my no.1 most anticiapaited movie (TDK, AWE) but it's up there, but it is definatley the most intriguing movie I can think of

 

[matrix_ghost]

Lot of money, yes, but if no one ever dared to take some risks we would never get movies like Lord of the Rings and hopefully Avatar will also be worth waiting for

True , risks should be taken but the question is just how big a risk do you wanna take
The problem isn't so much with taking chances with these ambitious projects as it's more about whether you can make money with such projects.
ONce something is commercially succesful , people take notice. Avatar is something unique and with a 195 million budget ( initial green lit budget) it better deliver.
I had read way back that after Titanic cameron wanted to make a movie with CG characters. Unfortunately the technology just wasn't that good yet and at that time the budget would be around 360 million. Fast forward a couple of years and Cameron is finally making his movie and while 195 million is no where near 360 million , it's still a hefty budget.


However if Cameron is truly able to live up to what he's saying , then i can definately see this movie making money.
3-D is the way to go these days and if everything works out well , Avatar may yet be able to bring that same feeling to the audience that many people experienced for the first time they laid eyes on Jurassic Park.

 

[bluejake01]

Well if this turns out to be one of those movies where you need to sit with goggles on i'll pass

Even having to wear glasses the 3D is amazing. We are sitting right on the edge of the next generation of theatrical event movies. Fully immersive, HD experiences that bring you in to the filmmakers canvas in a way never seen before. The projectors are spitting out 48 frames a second of alternating right eye/left eye information. The result is a sharp, clear, highly detailed image that doesn't cause headaches. 3D has finally arrived.

The company I work for has been doing tests with James Cameron for this project, and even if they go another way, the fact that we have added stereoscopic support for RaveHD interested a LOT of people at NAB this year. I just got back and I must have spoken with every major studio about 3D. There is going to be a big push to create 3D theater experiences. I wouldn't be surprised if a dozen or more features hit the theaters before Avatar and his next project Battle Angel Alita make it out.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Well if this turns out to be one of those movies where you need to sit with goggles on i'll pass

have you seen any movies in 3d at IMAX? the last one i saw was Superman Returns. i wear glasses my every waking minute and i had to wear goofy looking plastic glasses (not goggles) but even though i was wearing 2 pairs of glasses i still loved every moment of the 3d scenes. it really DOES make the movie feel more epic and immersing...

...at least imo. that's probably why i'm so eager to see this movie made. even if the movie ends up crappy (yeah right!) i'll still go just for the 3d experience...

 

[bluejake01]

have you seen any movies in 3d at IMAX? the last one i saw was Superman Returns. i wear glasses my every waking minute and i had to wear goofy looking plastic glasses (not goggles) but even though i was wearing 2 pairs of glasses i still loved every moment of the 3d scenes. it really DOES make the movie feel more epic and immersing...

...at least imo. that's probably why i'm so eager to see this movie made. even if the movie ends up crappy (yeah right!) i'll still go just for the 3d experience...

Those IMAX movies are great and most are not even really filmed in 3D. They have a simulated right eye and left eye. Even Meet the Robinsons was simulated, since they decided to release it in 3D at the last minute. A movie that is filmed with right eye and left eye cameras with the new 3D projectors that are being used looks SOOOOO damned good.

 

[DorkyFresh]

that's what i'm sayin'. there were parts in Superman Returns where the 3d effect literally made my jaw drop and those effects were pulled from 2d images. i can't f-ing wait to see a true stereoscopic 3d film! i can already tell i'm gonna have an eyegasm and a dorkgasm simultaneously!

 

[Terminator]

I'm a Terminator geek and this will be the first Cameron film i've seen in a theatre. I'm excited to say the least.

 

[CAH]

You know what is great about a film like this...?

It has a GREAT story...an original story...Yes, Hollywood, I said ORIGINAL. James Cameron has created some absolutely marvelous films, and this one will be no different...pretty images and effects and great box office take in does not matter to me, it ultimately depends on IMO the story...no one is going to watch it if its a story that NO ONE will like. But Sci-Fi is Cameron's arena, so we are perfectly safe with 'Avatar'.

CAH

 

[dark_b]

interesting to see people talking that 190 is a lot of money. what about superman returns? it had 200 milions and i bet that cameron will show us a movie that will look like a 400 milion budget movie.

 

[matrix_ghost]

interesting to see people talking that 190 is a lot of money. what about superman returns? it had 200 milions and i bet that cameron will show us a movie that will look like a 400 milion budget movie.

For me it's isn't about the fact that 190 seems less compared to movies like SR , POTC 2/3 or Spiderman 3 .
To me it's more about these two things :

1 No "established" movie ever got a budget that high. Movies like Superman or Pirates or SPider-man or even stuff like the matrix sequels and LOTR are known to the public. It's not like they know nothing about it. Avatar is just completely new project and no one knows what to expect of it. To give such a movie that high of a budget is nothing sort of amazing.

2 From what i've read so far the movie is shot totally with blue/green screens. That means that probably 85-90 percent of the budget will be used for VFX. One can only imagine the sheer size and complexity of those VFX
To give you an idea of what BIG VFX in movies can cost
Spiderman 2 had a VFX budget of 54 million
Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions had a combined VFX budget of 100 million
Heck even the SW prequels didn't cost that much ( ROTS and AOTC cost 115 mil ) and they were also shot against blue/green screens.
And 195 million is just the INITIAL budget. Not the final budget. Yeah you can definately count my ass booked to see what 195 million in VFX looks like

 

[DorkyFresh]

Yeah you can definately count my ass booked to see what 195 million in VFX looks like

VERY well said! if this movie turns out to be as revolutionary as it's sounding then i will consider James Cameron the god of cinema.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Even having to wear glasses the 3D is amazing. We are sitting right on the edge of the next generation of theatrical event movies. Fully immersive, HD experiences that bring you in to the filmmakers canvas in a way never seen before. The projectors are spitting out 48 frames a second of alternating right eye/left eye information. The result is a sharp, clear, highly detailed image that doesn't cause headaches. 3D has finally arrived.

The company I work for has been doing tests with James Cameron for this project, and even if they go another way, the fact that we have added stereoscopic support for RaveHD interested a LOT of people at NAB this year. I just got back and I must have spoken with every major studio about 3D. There is going to be a big push to create 3D theater experiences. I wouldn't be surprised if a dozen or more features hit the theaters before Avatar and his next project Battle Angel Alita make it out.

I have great respect for the tech being used and devloped,i hope to see it in cinema;s without the need for goggles in time

have you seen any movies in 3d at IMAX? the last one i saw was Superman Returns. i wear glasses my every waking minute and i had to wear goofy looking plastic glasses (not goggles) but even though i was wearing 2 pairs of glasses i still loved every moment of the 3d scenes. it really DOES make the movie feel more epic and immersing...

...at least imo. that's probably why i'm so eager to see this movie made. even if the movie ends up crappy (yeah right!) i'll still go just for the 3d experience...

Oh it's not a vanity thing,i find anything from caps to glasses around my head or eyes uncomfortable,i doubt I'd be able to enjoy the movie sitting with them......it also begs the question of how they will do the trailers for this.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Oh it's not a vanity thing,i find anything from caps to glasses around my head or eyes uncomfortable,i doubt I'd be able to enjoy the movie sitting with them.....

dang that sux...hehe. well, i hopefully Cameron will blow us away and be able to have 3d tech without the need for glasses...

 

[bluejake01]

dang that sux...hehe. well, i hopefully Cameron will blow us away and be able to have 3d tech without the need for glasses...

It's not Cameron that would need to impliment the technology. 3D LCD displays exist, but the limitations are great. Creating a display large enough to deliver 3D without polarized glasses in a theater would be EXTREMELY expensive. I doubt we will see that anytime soon. The trick is creating a display that can control the direction of light coming out of it so that the viewers right eye and left eye recieve slightly different image angles. But the technology is very limited on where a person can be sitting, both in distance and angle. It would be difficult to deliver a glasses free, immersive 3D experience to an audience without some serious cash ponied up by the theater.

 

[DorkyFresh]

cool video explaining James Cameron's 3d method...keep in mind that this was posted August of last year...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-241532803911842846&q=3d+camera