web counter
 

Hype? What Hype?

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (47)

avatar.jpg

Avatar comes out next week, and since James Cameron has been working on it for forty-seven years and spent so much money making it that it can only be calculated in Monopoly money, the hype machine is in full roaring overdrive. We’ll sum it up here.

1. IMDB says that Cameron has spent over $500 million on the project once advertising and such is included. Plugging that into my calculomator … average ticket price of say $10 … figure around 250 million Americans over the age of eight or so … oh my. In order to break even, roughly one in five Americans has to buy a ticket. Yeah, I know, there are overseas sales, DVDs, rentals, but the sheer balls (let alone pull with investors) Cameron has to have to even attempt this is awe-inspiring. The numbers get a little more sane as you realize how insane movie budgets have gotten over the last decade though. $500 million seems unbelievable, but the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie had a $300 million budget. Of course, District 9 only had a budget of $30 million and it managed to put photorealistic aliens into a sci-fi film too.

2. They just released a final movie poster, which is funny, because I think most people see these online not outside of box offices at this point.

avatar_poster.jpg

Meh. Looks like a Japanese style RPG for the PS3 that ends up in the bargain bin for $9.99 after three weeks. Either that or a new ride at Disney Land.

3. Speaking of video games, just such a version of Avatar got released last week for every major gaming platform out there and is getting middling to average reviews from the gaming press. The summary version: eh, maybe worth a rental if you’re bored.

4. Cameron, when asked if he was concerned about negative backlash due to all the hype said: “No, it’s good, as we had to sell a movie that wasn’t a sequel or remake or part of a franchise or based on a best-seller. It had no brand awareness, and I was more worried about people not even knowing about the film than them kind of arguing about it or having high expectations or having those dashed.” Sounds more or less commonsensicle. (source, SciFi Wire)

5. The first press screenings are today. Not for us though. We still have souls and will be watching (and reviewing) the film with the rest of the peasants next week.

I think what the hype needs to be stripped back to is this: James Cameron made Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens. The man has the kind of sci-fi street cred that George Lucas would give up his Ewok real dolls just to get a sniff of. The details ooze out from behind the curtain like an evolving urban legend: he’s worked on the project for the better part of fifteen years, which he has based on “every single science fiction book I read as a kid;” he’s writing the novel adaptation himself. It might be a disaster, and Cameron might be too close to it to see its flaws. But this is a man of extraordinary talent who has poured his heart and soul into forging something he sees in his dreams. And isn’t that why we make movies in the first place?









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Eggs by Jerry Spinelli | Sean Patrick Flannery In Scavengers →









Comments

Is it just me, or is it really sick that he thinks a movie needs to have brand awareness to succeed? What about the part where it just need to be, I don't know, good?

Posted by: saartjie at December 10, 2009 9:06 AM

I totally agree with all of this. Nothing I have seen or heard about the movie excites me at all, but the last paragraph rings most true of all. Despite my doubts, I really hope this movie is good. It's very rare to see an original (or otherwise really) sci-fi movie of quality.

Terminator and Aliens, alone, have given Cameron a free pass in my book. (I'm also a big fan of the director's cut of "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2"). Aliens still ranks as one of my top 5 films of all time.

I wouldn't put too much into the bad video game. Very few movie-based video games are any good at all. (Just like movies based on video games). They are typically rushed out the door so that they can be released at the same time of the movie (though, technically they could have been working on the video game for 47 years as well).

Things are moving quick this month. I had no idea this was coming out next week. I will likely go and see it just because.

Posted by: ForbiddenDonut at December 10, 2009 9:08 AM

Is it just me, or is it really sick that he thinks a movie needs to have brand awareness to succeed? What about the part where it just need to be, I don't know, good?

Posted by: saartjie at December 10, 2009 9:06 AM

If you really think that "just being good" = success, might I direct your attention here:

http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/the-top-grossing-films-of-the-aughts.php

Posted by: ForbiddenDonut at December 10, 2009 9:11 AM

foolish me, that was a little naive hey

Posted by: saartjie at December 10, 2009 9:14 AM

London premiere is tonight. Looking forward to seeing what the concensus is. I'll be there unless reviews paint it as a total disaster. I just hope it is more story to it than it looks because I feel like I know the whole damn plot and I've only seen the trailers.

And The Abyss is fan-fucking-tastic. That and Aliens are getting an immediate update to Blu Ray for me as soon as they are available.

Posted by: TylerDFC at December 10, 2009 9:15 AM

London premiere you say? Does that mean Sam Worthington will be around? I better put my stalking shoes on.

Posted by: Carrie at December 10, 2009 9:19 AM

I don't know. This Avatar thing sounds exactly like a science fiction story I read about 30 years ago. People live in a domed city on Jupiter and use a machine to transform themselves into the native beings so they can go outside. They like it so much that none of them ever come back, and so the humans think they died. They finally send one more man and his dog out. They like it so much that they don't want to go back because the dog says they'll just turn him back into a dog. And the man says they'll just turn him back into a man. I can't remember the name of the story or the author. Anyone?

Anyway, the movie sounds just like this story, 'cept with 'splosions.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 10, 2009 9:26 AM

TylerDFC, I, too, am little worried that I've seen the whole story through just the trailers. That's generally ok for me to sit through an hour and a half rom-com, but a three-hour movie? The visuals have to be effing unbelievable and the plot amazing for this movie to hold me for that long. Plays and musicals have intermissions for a reason.

Also, for all the money this movie has spent on advertising, my mother, a well-educated, hard-working, generally up-to-date woman had not heard of it as of last week. I mentioned it in passing, marveling at the "hype," and she was like... "What are you talking about?" I told her it was a movie and then she wanted to know why it was so special and I really couldn't give her an answer other than the general specifics of the visuals and mostly unique story. She wasn't that impressed.

Listen, I know my mom is busy, but I was looking through the adverts for all the shows she watches and realized that it was hardly, if at all there. The shows on SciFi (you can't make me type it any other way) advertise it and so do other genre channels. But you know who wasn't airing commercials? ABC, NBC, TLC and all of that other crap my mom watches during primetime. Hell, Astro Boy got a cushy primetime bump on TLC (not that it served any good).

Maybe I'm missing the bulk of the TV fair, but most of the shit I've heard about Avatar has been from all the blogs bitching/praising/ranting/raving about it. And while that's all well and good for movie buffs... Middle America couldn't give a shit.

I'd really like to see if they could recoup all costs with just American ticket sales.

Posted by: Kayanne at December 10, 2009 9:46 AM

I have been cynical about this movie, but SLW did me a solid here. I'm onboard with encouraging a filmmaker's passionate vision, especially in the sci-fi arena. I wouldn't say I'm optimistic about this, but you could reasonably call me "hopeful." Or "guardedly interested." Or "marginally ambiguous." Or "well hung."

Posted by: Kballs at December 10, 2009 9:51 AM

BWeaves: that story is one of the eight component stories of "City," by Clifford Simak (1952).

Posted by: bentjohn at December 10, 2009 9:55 AM

I don't get what all the fuss is about. I like sci-fi, but why should I go see a movie that simply looks like a video game on a big-screen? What is all this hype about the special effects? Aren't the effects (for all intents and purposes) the same effects used in Lord Of The Rings? If so, the difference is that Lord Of The Rings looked real. I felt as though Middle Earth could be a real place. If the trailers for Avatar are truly representative, the world they've created looks like something out of a PS3 game, or the worst parts *and there were many) of the Star Wars prequels. It is so obviously computer-generated that no amount of story can get me to suspend my disbelief. Not to pre-judge or anything.

Posted by: 'toph at December 10, 2009 10:00 AM

I just wanna see it.

I Like his movies, he's a very good director.
Aliens is probably my most-watched-movie.

*thanks Godtopus for world wide releases*

Posted by: Magiel at December 10, 2009 10:03 AM

Kballs, I am in a PhotoShop demo and your "well hung" finishing statement made me laugh out loud. The instructor frowned at me.

Cameron has plenty of cred with me and if he doesn't with you, see some of his older shit. Even though many hate "Titanic", including me, it is still a well-made movie. And even if you don't agree, it's not sci-fi, which is where his talent lies. "Avatar" is.

Posted by: Samwise at December 10, 2009 10:04 AM

3. Speaking of video games, just such a version of Avatar got released last week for every major gaming platform out there and is getting middling to average reviews from the gaming press. The summary version: eh, maybe worth a rental if you’re bored.

That says nothing about a film. Judging a movie based on its videogame adaptation is like picking your spouse by analyzing their stool sample.

Posted by: George at December 10, 2009 10:13 AM

You've made some good points, stripe, but I've avoided everything about Avatar like the plague. I've seen no advanced clips, and I refuse to read the press screenings, because I want to see this movie on its own terms. Even if Avatar is a mess, it will still be an interesting mess.

Posted by: George at December 10, 2009 10:16 AM

@'toph:

Couldn't agree with you more. This movie feels like it has the same problem that video games do when they languish too too long in production. Namely, that it looks dated before it's even released.

If this came out (with the 3-D) seven to ten years ago, we might have been impressed by the visuals which are being advertised as the films main selling points.

As it is, it doesn't look any better than Red Vs. Blue on Youtube or anything the World of Warcraft Machinima guys are churning out.

But I'll give it to Cameron for taking this risk: If you are going to fail then EPIC FAIL!

Posted by: Anderbot at December 10, 2009 10:23 AM

George: "Judging a movie based on its videogame adaptation is like picking your spouse by analyzing their stool sample."

Hey, don't knock stool samples. Some people have based their whole PhD research and careers on stool samples.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 10, 2009 10:28 AM

I'll be honest - what I've seen hasn't sent me over the edge with desire. But I'm a sucker for any decent science fiction, and so far I don't think it's going to be a complete bomb. So I'll likely see this. And I'm guessing plenty of people will. Sigourney Weaver says she was weeping at the end. Isn't that enough to drive us all to the theater?

But what do these movie making people do to spend that kind of money? Eat it?

Posted by: Cindy at December 10, 2009 10:28 AM

Bentjohn: Thanks! I have no remembrance of that book or author's name. I must have read the story as part of an anthology of other science fiction stories.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 10, 2009 10:31 AM

It's fairly depressing that Cameron was worried people wouldn't hear about it because it's an original movie, and not something ported over from books, video games, TV, old movies, recent movies, my game cabinet, or my cat's litter box (Poo with Hair, the Movie!).

I think it looks fun. Possibly not fun enough to warrant its insane budget, but Cameron can probably do what he wants at this point.

Posted by: Phaeolus at December 10, 2009 10:39 AM

I also agree with you, 'toph. I know for LOTR they tried to use as many practical effects as possible instead of relying solely on CGI. They used miniatures extensively and built incredibly detailed sets.

And the hype is nauseating. I know there aren't a lot of Bones fans out there, and with the amount of time each episode now devotes to advertising, I don't blame them. I don't mean the commercial breaks, I mean blatant advertising built right into the goddamn plot.

They stuck a Toyota ad in there (the Matrix has plenty of room for all your corpse-hauling needs!), a Family Guy ad (Booth's brain tumor makes him hallucinate Stewie, and they actually had the cartoon character interacting with him), and now Avatar. Last week's episode was apparently custom-made to hype this movie; they showed the bulk of the trailer IN THE SHOW, had the guys in the cast comment on how awesome it was and explain this to the ones who had no clue, and spent half the episode taking turns waiting in line to see the movie. The word AVATAR was in half the shots. It was so absurd that it was insulting. That shit belongs in the breaks, not during the actual show. If I have to spend the bulk of the episode watching the stars shill for cars and other shows instead of paying attention to their own, I'm not going to watch anymore.

Posted by: DeadBessie at December 10, 2009 10:39 AM

But this is a man of extraordinary talent who has poured his heart and soul into forging something he sees in his dreams. And isn’t that why we make movies in the first place?

I should not have needed to be reminded of that; but I did, and I thank you for doing it.

Posted by: Jerce at December 10, 2009 10:40 AM

I'm so glad to read this. I keep wondering why there has been such a goldrush to bash this film and the director, especially among a demographic that grew up on terminator, The Abyss, TII, and Aliens.

I'm just not sure when or why everyone decided to hate James Cameron? was it over titanic, because he made a bloated sentimental film that people loved and it won awards and he was shit eating happy about that? if so, holy shit get over yourself cynical fans. or maybe everyone felt abandoned when he took too long to come out with a new story. I don't know.

all I know is I have been dying for avatar to come out and am willing to risk being disappointed to indulge my excitement and hopes.

I have had to avoid the "hype" as the hype seems uniformly negative. and often, off the cuff negative, like it was a standard default, putting james cameron in the same category of whining, bitching and grumpy jokes that Michael Bay falls into.

so thank you for this little reminder about a director we all loved who has spared no time or expense in trying to bring his magnum opus to the screen

Posted by: idleprimate at December 10, 2009 10:42 AM

I think people hate Cameron because he choose Celine Dyon* for that song.

So now they hear her in their heads when they see Jim's face.

*If its misspelled, Ef that, I refuse to google her.

Posted by: Magiel at December 10, 2009 10:57 AM

The truth is the budget is probably past the 700 million mark(once advertising is added) for this stupid clunker. So Cameron, allegedly, has come up with a new film-making technique? One that is twice as expensive? How is that supposed to be furthering the craft when studios will virtually go bankrupt?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 10, 2009 11:03 AM

BSlim,
If the eventual near-bankruptcy does happen, it might force them to be more picky about the films they make. But hey, wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up first, eh?

Posted by: Kballs at December 10, 2009 11:13 AM

Why care if he previously made excellent movies? I agree that he did...but so what? I'd rather watch one of those again then something I can't muster the slightest motivation for. Good people make crap sometimes. I'm not gonna pay tribute to "Aliens" by watching cartoon cat people. I'm gonna watch "Aliens".

Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2009 11:26 AM

Why care if he previously made excellent movies? I agree that he did...but so what? I'd rather watch one of those again then something I can't muster the slightest motivation for. Good people make crap sometimes. I'm not gonna pay tribute to "Aliens" by watching cartoon cat people. I'm gonna watch "Aliens".

Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2009 11:26 AM

I dunno. Maybe, despite the trailers, it's a great movie. I (and many others) thought "Phantom Menace" looked awesome based on the trailer and look how that all turned out.

That cartoon cat people don't bother me as much. The simplistic environmental angle is a bit annoying, but what's really irritating, at least based on the trailers, is the villain. The "You're not in Kansas anymore" line is very tired and lame and I don't see why his face needs to be all terribly scarred. We know he's the bad guy, he doesn't need the extra disfigurement, thank you.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at December 10, 2009 11:40 AM

okay, so go watch aliens. Good movie.

What I don't get is why people are so determend to make up their mind about a movie they didn't even see. I like to go in with a clear mind end just enjoy the movie, or be sad, or angry.

Cameron as director is one of the biggest detail-loving-directors I know, and he doesn't make that much movies because he wants those details to be right.

So I don't buy it that he suddenly can make a crap movie.

Of course, I also avoided to see much of it before I see the movie, and I don't watch TV. That probably helps..

Posted by: Magiel at December 10, 2009 11:42 AM

The truth is the budget is probably past the 700 million mark(once advertising is added)

"IMDB says that Cameron has spent over $500 million on the project once advertising and such is included."

BSlim,
I thought that way too until I read this post. I assumed it was $500 million for production and we were supposed to add advertising on top of that(people who run this place say, what, %50 of the production budget?).

Posted by: pissant at December 10, 2009 11:51 AM

What I don't get is why people are so determend to make up their mind about a movie they didn't even see.

I'm not stating that I know it's crap, I haven't seen it. I'm saying that I have absolutely no interest in seeing it, and a track record isn't going to convince me someone's invincible and that I should "give it a shot". despite all my misgivings and disinterest. And yes, people suddenly make crap all the time.

Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2009 11:58 AM

thank you magiel, that was my point, i guess. we haven't even seen the movie yet, yet people keep making these definitive denouncements

Posted by: idleprimate at December 10, 2009 12:00 PM

Posted by: pissant at December 10, 2009 11:51 AM


Yeah, agreed. Still, I still think the studio is playing fast and loose with the numbers.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 10, 2009 12:05 PM

Hey DeadBessie, if you're still out there, I too am a Bones fan. Last week's episode with all the Avatar crap just pissed me off. I'm watching it on DVR thinking, "what the hell?? You've got to be kidding me. Can't believe they've sunk this low."

Posted by: Chiggy at December 10, 2009 12:19 PM

Ya know, if he DOES bankrupt the studio it's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, the studio in question is 20th Century Fox. They used to be among the greats, now they churn out garbage at an alarming rate of speed and have yet to find a franchise they didn't end up uncontrollably shitting all over like a gleeful scat fan at an all-you-can-eat chili buffet.

X-men. Fantastic Four. Die Hard. Aliens. Predator, etc, all trashed beyond hope by the suits at Fox. Simply based on the movies they show on FX their output is god-fucking-awful even beyond the franchise entries.

So at best Avatar rocks our world. At worst, Fox goes into a financial tail spin and loses the rights to X-men in the financial fallout. It's Win/Win, really!

Posted by: TylerDFC at December 10, 2009 12:27 PM

OK I do like the sentiment of this not being a remake or a sequel or whatever, but let's not be surprised when this does well and Cameron announces a 6 movie franchise.

frankly, I think the hype will kill it. I really don't see that people are as interested as Cameron thinks they are. I'm sure it'll make a lot of money, but unless the reviews or at least the word-of-mouth isn't outstanding, it will bomb.

And I'm with Jay. I don't have anything against Cameron (though the budget thing does bug me) and I'd be all for this movie if it looked interesting. It looks...okay. Not all that. Just some monsters, pretty people, nice scenery and some REALLY bad dialogue (if you assume trailers use the best bits of a movie). Just a movie. Not anything spectacular.

Posted by: figgy at December 10, 2009 12:34 PM

Tyler has an excellent point.

BANKRUPT! BANKRUPT! BANKRUPT!

Posted by: figgy at December 10, 2009 12:36 PM

Hey, chiggy! Glad I'm not the only one! The show has interesting characters and situations (if fairly unrealistic ones at times); I don't know why they feel the need to dismiss all that and pad the show with ads.

I'm tuning in this week solely for half-naked Boreanz (guy looks even better than he did in Buffy).

Posted by: DeadBessie at December 10, 2009 1:10 PM

idleprimate - I'll tell you why I dislike (hate, even?) James Cameron: Aliens of the Deep

I went through an undersea documentary phase a short time ago, and picked up this unoffensive-looking DVD. Whoo-boy. When Cameron was not being an egomaniacal twat (rarely), he was setting the cause of science back years. Some choice bits:

1) One of the "scientists" in the film is a 23-ish year-old self-proclaimed "astrobiologist." Apparently that means he spends his time juggling and waiting for someone useful to seach the cosmos and discover the biology he intends to be an expert on.
2) They introduce another "scientist" who starts her bit by explaining that "before we will be able to find evidence of life on other planets, we must first find evidence of life on our planet." Huh?
3) There is no problem that cannot be solved by James Cameron and only James Cameron. Most of the people interviewed spent their screen time talking about what a genius James Cameron is. Oh noes! The crane we brought to drop our deep-diving pods in the water is teh brokens! Whatever shall we do? Help us, James! His solution: CUT OUT THE SIDE OF THE RENTED BOAT! What. The. Fuck.

Seriously, watch this horrible piece of shit. Actually, don't. Or do, but get drunk first. And don't expect to see anything smart.

Posted by: elizabeth at December 10, 2009 1:17 PM

Hey Jay,

You just made my otherwise depressing day!
My first time being quoted in the comments. I feel like I'm no longer a virgin and like a grown up.
Thanks for that.

To get back on the subject, Yeah, people suddenly make crap. But I think Cameron is incapeble of doing that. That's because he is one of the most anal retentive film makers I know. (Don't worry, not the best). Every shot is a long planned road, and if he can't get to the end he will not make the movie.

In the end, you and me might agree Avatar sucked. But it will be a very well made movie.

I'm a Bones fan too..
Sadly I thought the Avatar part was the best part of that episode.
Is it me or did they lost the way?

Posted by: Magiel at December 10, 2009 1:53 PM

I think they had an "astrobiologist" (even the spell check doesn't know what the hell that is) in The Day the Earth Stood Still (remake), and showed the character speculating on the type of life forms that might exist on other planets. I spent the rest of the film baffled by the concept that this could ever be a real profession; exactly how would you be trained given there are no specimens to work with, no way to prove (or disprove) your theories, and no practical use for this except in Hollywood?

If you've ever seen the short-lived sci-fi series Threshold, even they were smart enough to not invent some bullshit branch of science and just pointed out that the guy they put in charge of studying the alien infectees was well-versed in Earth biology and therefore stood the best chance of understanding what was going on.

Posted by: DeadBessie at December 10, 2009 2:04 PM

Y'all are talking about this thing bombing as if there's any other possible outcome. At $500M, the only way it could succeed is by setting box office records. Anything less would be a bomb by default.

Even if this thing managed (ha!) to crack the $1B mark domestically, it would still only be considered a marginal financial success.

I don't see any way a sequel could get made.

Posted by: ahamos at December 10, 2009 2:15 PM

elizabeth wrote:
1) One of the "scientists" in the film is a 23-ish year-old self-proclaimed "astrobiologist." Apparently that means he spends his time juggling and waiting for someone useful to seach the cosmos and discover the biology he intends to be an expert on.

Astrobiology is a real field, obviously it's very speculative at present but so is research into the origins of life on this planet (and the two are pretty closely related). If you want to get a feel for what it's all about you can look at the table of contents in this textbook or read the blog at the NASA Astrobiology Institute.

Posted by: Jesse M. at December 10, 2009 2:27 PM

Jesse M. - I'm not saying the field doesn't exist; I'm saying that James Cameron is a tool who purposely surrounds himself with people he can be smarter than. Bringing an astrobiologist into a deep-sea diver for a documentary is stupid, but bringing one who is 23 and not much of a professional scientist is just negligent. The last 15 minutes of the movie are all just speculative CG about what it would look like if we sent an imaginary robot to Europa and it found imaginary life. AND ANOTHER THING! The underwater parts of the film show more "scientist" reaction shots than anything outside the pod. I wanted to watch interesting marine life, not a bunch of idiots gaping at shit.

{deep breath}

I will admit I am partly at fault here, since I apparently watched the extended cut. But it's his fault for putting that garbage on celluloid in the first place. Where's Davis Attenborough, damnit? I need a fix...

Posted by: elizabeth at December 10, 2009 3:48 PM

Those of you decrying the necessity of brand loyalty to sell a movie. None of you work in the industry, do you?

Let me put this in terms you can understand. One word: Twilight.

Several more: I'm not an "insider." I work in the industry, and I'm more "in" than say, the ticket taker at the Akron, Ohio cineplex, but I'm not like JJ Abrams' DP either.

I'm not going to go on an extended rant about why reboots exist. We can all read box office returns and figure that out.

What I will say, is this: there are probably....generously several hundred original scripts floating around the Hollywood ether at any given time. Maybe 25 (new to any given year) of those are any fucking good. Maybe 5 of those won't get thoroughly ruined by the director/editor/actors/acts of God/whatever. Do the math, bitches.

I have no idea how good or bad Avatar is likely to be. I am more excited about A Single Man and Sherlock Holmes, myself. But I am excited about the sudden wealth of original Sci-Fi produced right now. How embarrassing that "more than one" is a wealth of originality.

Make original movies, Hollywood! What will your successors reboot if you don't?

Talking business exhausts me, so I apologize for the lack of funny.

Posted by: SavageCats at December 10, 2009 5:53 PM

Hi. Perhaps you have experimented with the particular zygor guide with regard to world of warcraft however? Simply interested on your ideas. I've heard Important things about this professionally.

Posted by: leveling guide at February 5, 2011 6:37 AM

Exactly what some really good cd players for kids? My cousin is 5 yoa and for christmas I need to buy her a music player, she loves my nano but I think it could be difficult for her make use of it. Are there any good ones for kids?

Posted by: MP3 players for kids at March 18, 2011 7:00 PM