- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Avatar's Marketing Budget.........
Posted on 12/17/09 at 3:43 am
Posted on 12/17/09 at 3:43 am
I see this movie's ads F@cking everywhere. How much are they spending for marketing alone?
4
Posted on 12/17/09 at 7:05 am to Ignignot
I think the budget for this movie was upwards of around 500 million. And I wanna say I've seen several times that it cost about 300+ million to make. So the rest of that is maybe advertising...??
I'm not sure how all of that works and what is included in the "budget" for movies.
I'm not sure how all of that works and what is included in the "budget" for movies.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 8:48 am to Ignignot
My daughter hates the Avatar action figures in her happy meal. 
Posted on 12/17/09 at 9:16 am to Ignignot
I've always found that when one of these big movies spends gigantic sums of money to advertise itself everywhere 24/7, it usually sucks.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 9:17 am
Posted on 12/17/09 at 9:45 am to Longbaugh
FWIW:
Yeah...the main complaint to be seen is how "average" the story plot is....but they all drool about the package it is in.
quote:
It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking.
quote:
It is impossible not to be completely immersed in the stunning visuals with such painstakingly intricate details that it would take a few viewings to catch everything.
quote:
Combining beyond-state-of-the-art moviemaking with a tried-and-true storyline and a gamer-geek sensibility -- not to mention a love angle, an otherworldly bestiary, and an arsenal of 22d-century weaponry -- the movie quite simply rocks.
quote:
The film vibrates with the excitement of discovery and awe. Not just for the sight of six-legged rhinos and butterfly-hued dragons, but for the thousands of hours of work that unite here in a creative epiphany.
quote:
For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters.
Yeah...the main complaint to be seen is how "average" the story plot is....but they all drool about the package it is in.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 9:59 am to Ignignot
Don't know, but for any new James Cameron Sci-Fi extravaganza it would be substantial.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 11:06 am to CTexTiger
There is a rather negative review by Beaks on AICN. He said all of the groundbreaking nonsense is just that for the most part. The movie is pretty and impressive to look at but the story is not.
Some estimates for the movie are as high as $400 mill with another 100 mil tacked on for marketing. Some people dispute that amount but others have defended those numbers.
Some estimates for the movie are as high as $400 mill with another 100 mil tacked on for marketing. Some people dispute that amount but others have defended those numbers.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 11:30 am to TigerMyth36
Fox is going to leave this movie having made money IMO.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 11:35 am to Volvagia
Doubtful. Most studios claim movies lose money for tax reasons and because they try to stiff everyone they owe profits too.
Lord of the Rings cost $285 million to make and grossed 2.9 billion and the studio tried to claim it made no money.
Whoops misunderstood your statement. Thought you meant they would say they made money.
Whether it makes money really does come down to how much it cost. If it really is 500 mil then it will be tough. They don't get every penny from the tickets. They also don't get a big chunk of the international sales as they tend to make deals with overseas companies to distribute the film.
It also depends on whether this is a huge mega hit or not. If it makes 250 million, then no, they are not getting their full investment back.
Lord of the Rings cost $285 million to make and grossed 2.9 billion and the studio tried to claim it made no money.
Whoops misunderstood your statement. Thought you meant they would say they made money.
Whether it makes money really does come down to how much it cost. If it really is 500 mil then it will be tough. They don't get every penny from the tickets. They also don't get a big chunk of the international sales as they tend to make deals with overseas companies to distribute the film.
It also depends on whether this is a huge mega hit or not. If it makes 250 million, then no, they are not getting their full investment back.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 11:41 am
Posted on 12/17/09 at 11:39 am to TigerMyth36
Well yeah, but that isn't what I said.
I said they would end up making money, not that they would claim to it.
They are getting big marketing breaks through the IMAX and Panasonic deals, Fox having about 40% expsoure, and with Cameron forgoing his share of the profits (assuming your high number is accurate).
If it hits 300 million domestic and doesn't bomb internationally, Fox will have made money.
I said they would end up making money, not that they would claim to it.
They are getting big marketing breaks through the IMAX and Panasonic deals, Fox having about 40% expsoure, and with Cameron forgoing his share of the profits (assuming your high number is accurate).
If it hits 300 million domestic and doesn't bomb internationally, Fox will have made money.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 11:44 am
Posted on 12/17/09 at 11:48 am to Volvagia
I'm sure there are people who will be going to see it, but I haven't met any of them yet.
Literally everybody I know is completely indifferent.
Literally everybody I know is completely indifferent.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 11:49 am to Volvagia
Just because fox recoups their 40% does not make the movie a hit. I assume Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media will also need to recoup their investments before any profits get split. And the first 40% of the gross will not go solely to fox.
So just because their exposure is 40% does not make it an easier for them to recoup their investment. It just limits the amount they lose with a bomb.
If the movie cost 500 million, then it will need to make 500 million for them to get all of their 40% back.
Once again this issue is hard to debate because studios are almost mafia like in their conspiracies surrounding the actual costs of films. If the film cost 300 mil, I think it has enough buzz to get that number. If it cost 500, then it will really need some repeat views to hit that so it will really need to be as good as hyped.
So just because their exposure is 40% does not make it an easier for them to recoup their investment. It just limits the amount they lose with a bomb.
If the movie cost 500 million, then it will need to make 500 million for them to get all of their 40% back.
Once again this issue is hard to debate because studios are almost mafia like in their conspiracies surrounding the actual costs of films. If the film cost 300 mil, I think it has enough buzz to get that number. If it cost 500, then it will really need some repeat views to hit that so it will really need to be as good as hyped.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 11:57 am
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:11 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Just because fox recoups their 40% does not make the movie a hit. I assume Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Media will also need to recoup their investments before any profits get split. And the first 40% of the gross will not go solely to fox.
So just because their exposure is 40% does not make it an easier for them to recoup their investment. It just limits the amount they lose with a bomb.
I know all this.
But the box office profits aren't the only source of income this movie has.
Seems disingenuous to include the costs of developing this 3d tech into the development costs, but not include the profits from licencing it out/selling it.
It is an asset every bit as marketable as the movie itself, and it is what I think will push the movie into overall profitability.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:18 pm to Volvagia
Long term, you have no idea how many people will use that 3-D tech they developed.
You also don't know how much of that tech money will go back to Cameron or Fox.
I just don't see the vast majority of movies using 3-d tech. Especially this expensive tech. They will continue to use crappy 3-d for their crappy 3-d movies until the current 3-d craze disappears just like it has in the past.
I could be wrong, but I think you are over estimating the tech value. Will some movies use it, probably. Similar to Lucas turning his advances in technology into ILM.
But I doubt it will be the massive stream of income you and Landshark seem to think it will be.
You also don't know how much of that tech money will go back to Cameron or Fox.
I just don't see the vast majority of movies using 3-d tech. Especially this expensive tech. They will continue to use crappy 3-d for their crappy 3-d movies until the current 3-d craze disappears just like it has in the past.
I could be wrong, but I think you are over estimating the tech value. Will some movies use it, probably. Similar to Lucas turning his advances in technology into ILM.
But I doubt it will be the massive stream of income you and Landshark seem to think it will be.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:23 pm to TigerMyth36
Nor do you, and it isn't just the 3D aspect of it. That isn't were most of the money was spent tech wise...it was on the engine that generated the world itself, which went through many iterations before Cameron was satisfied with the quality. The innate 3D implementation is only a perk.
Just offered my thoughts...just like you do when you bring up the budget in pretty much every avatar thread. Don't throw the "uncertainty" arguments in my face...I've made clear that the statement was personal opinion and not a statement of fact.
Just offered my thoughts...just like you do when you bring up the budget in pretty much every avatar thread. Don't throw the "uncertainty" arguments in my face...I've made clear that the statement was personal opinion and not a statement of fact.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:26 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
But I doubt it will be the massive stream of income you and Landshark seem to think it will be.
Link to where I suggested it would be massive income?
Based form what I read, total costs is prob more like ~350 million range. The movie itself is almost a given to make that + whatever added distribution costs. So if the movie needs an push to become profitable, it won't need to be a major one.
And FWIW, he doesn't make all that many movies, but Cameron has stated that every movie he does from now one will use this engine.
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:28 pm to Volvagia
I haven't brought the damn budget up in every thread.
You attack me for discussing the freaking budget in a thread titled "avatar's marketing budget?"
I actually hope the movie does well, even though I was not wowed in the least by the trailer. I would love to be blown away by the movie and I have no ill will towards Cameron. I like all of his movies.
I am just sick of all the ridiculous over hype by certain people on this board that have not even seen the damn film. They get mad at the haters who did not like the trailer then they go on to over hype this movie as the reinvention of cinema.
Well Mr. Beaks on AICN has seen the film and he states it is not the reinvention of cinema.
I will wait until I see it to make judgments on the actual film. Not stuff hyperbole down everyone's throats like certain people have been doing on here for the last month.
You attack me for discussing the freaking budget in a thread titled "avatar's marketing budget?"
I actually hope the movie does well, even though I was not wowed in the least by the trailer. I would love to be blown away by the movie and I have no ill will towards Cameron. I like all of his movies.
I am just sick of all the ridiculous over hype by certain people on this board that have not even seen the damn film. They get mad at the haters who did not like the trailer then they go on to over hype this movie as the reinvention of cinema.
Well Mr. Beaks on AICN has seen the film and he states it is not the reinvention of cinema.
I will wait until I see it to make judgments on the actual film. Not stuff hyperbole down everyone's throats like certain people have been doing on here for the last month.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:30 pm to Volvagia
Most likely scenario:
1) This movie costs way more than they are telling the public if you include marketing and tech r&d.
2) This movie will make way more than they will tell the public.
If you go strictly by ticket sales and the "cost of film" estimate I think the film will "break even" at approaching $300 million. Other than that, we'll have no idea how "successful" it will ever be. No one will but Cameron.
1) This movie costs way more than they are telling the public if you include marketing and tech r&d.
2) This movie will make way more than they will tell the public.
If you go strictly by ticket sales and the "cost of film" estimate I think the film will "break even" at approaching $300 million. Other than that, we'll have no idea how "successful" it will ever be. No one will but Cameron.
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:35 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
I haven't brought the damn budget up in every thread.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
Pretty much every thread about Avatar that you post in, you bring up that point. Even in cases where it doesn't apply. As you don't normally do this, I assumed you just dislike this movie in particular for some reason.
I just gets old....we got it. The movie is on the upper end of movie costs.
Let it go.
(And FWIW, this thread is not in that listing...and it was THOSE that I was referring to rather than what is in this thread)
This post was edited on 12/17/09 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 12/17/09 at 12:37 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
If you go strictly by ticket sales and the "cost of film" estimate I think the film will break even at approaching $300 million. Other than that, we'll have no idea how "successful" it will ever be. No one will but Cameron.
That is the ballpark where I think the break even will be as well.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News