How did Avatar make so much money?

[richy]

The thing is, Nick, that I can, and have to, juxtapose your anecdote with my own. My parents and I went to Avatar on opening weekend together, I think. As far as I know, we all liked it very much. But that's a shortcoming of anecdotal knowledge: where does that leave us?

Lightning in a bottle.

As has already been suggested...if it was so easy...

The money-men in Hollywood would never fail to produce hit after hit.

But of course the lightning in a bottle, in this case, isn't such a mystery. It's James Cameron.

'nough said.

Hey, I love Joss Whedon's work. But no, it's no mystery why The Avengers doesn't have the same power as Avatar. One of the things I grew up on was comic books. But even so, I can easily see that The Avengers has less substance than Avatar. The Avengers is unsurprisingly good (coming from Whedon). Good humor, clever, a technical feat, etc.

About the fourth grader assessment. Are any of those primal, core stories that humanity carries around really not "fourth grader level?" Strip those Shakespeare stories of their difficult, flowery language, and what do you really have? Stories about basic human emotions and tribulations, that’s what. That’s part of the reason why they are brilliant.

So, let's face it, it is Dances with Wolves in Space. And that's a good thing, that's its power. Let's remember, Dances with Wolves was a hit. Why shouldn't Dances with Wolves-Only-with-Blue-Cat-People-on-Another-Planet not be a hit?

Originally Posted by Scoopicman

Unlike THE AVENGERS, AVATAR hits the classic character and story points. It really is the Hero's journey, which is a character arc seen in the most popular movies - STAR WARS (original) trilogy, LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, even movies like THE LAST SAMURAI. Also, the computer scanning and rendering of characters made CGI the most expressive I've seen. Gollum from LORD OF THE RINGS was similarly appreciated.

That's it. It's the simple story of a guy, a hero, standing up and doing the right thing for his friends and for his adopted family. He fights for his family's survival, not for some bull---t abstract ideology, but for love and for family (Dances with Wolves).

I'm a fan of The Avengers and of Whedon. But, The Avengers...? It's fluff. It's comic book super heroes. And as has already been expressed, Comic book stuff doesn't get as much respect inherently.

I am a little more surprised about Harry Potter 7B, just because of its massive, built-in fan base. Then again.

So where was I? Yes. I don't get what the debate is about Avatar's 3D. Avatar's 3D was superb, very impressive. Prometheus's 3D is superb. Yeah, those conversion films have left something to be desired. But there have been other films shot in 3D that have looked great.


So why did Avatar take off?

1. The Cameron factor. Even the so-called sheeple do know Cameron. I'm not basing that on anything scientific. But, if the From the Director who brought you Titanic... stuff didn't work, then why would the money-men of Hollywood continue to use that tactic for the last many decades?

2. Its haters notwithstanding, Avatar's story is in fact quite solid, and it hits some of the key soft spots of the human heart. The hero fights not only for his adopted family, but also for such basic values as fairness. Do not underestimate the importance of fairness issues to the human heart. For example, it's a mistake for your hero to summarily execute the dog in your forthcoming movie. A dog is, I suspect, the epitome of an innocent bystander...unless it's done something terrible like maul a child or something. Your audience will hate you for it. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

3. Avatar, as a new 3D event, was a great success, contrary to the wishes of those who didn't want it to be or who just do not want Cameron to succeed.

4. Lightning in a bottle: The Cameron factor, timing, smart marketing, good content, etc....If anyone is so sure that those things are crap, that they could do better....well, let's see it. Do it. Actions speak louder than words. Give us sheeple what's good for us.

[Boxt]

Originally Posted by Cracker Funk

Which planet were you living on? For three years, I was actively seeking out any and all information I could find about "Avatar". They kept everything under lock and key. There was no info. There was no press release. There was nothing even remotely resembling advertising.

Not until a few months before the movie, then the onslaught began. Which is normal. But three years of advertising? Uhh...no.

I live on planet Earth, no need to be do rude. This isn't Twitter. Just so you know, CF, the ad spend, or rightly the 'P&A', for tent poles starts 12-18 months before the release. Although the public don't see the results of that send until just prior to that release, it definitely starts that far ahead. You have to buy the services of specialists, book tv slots for ads and editorials, same for print, hire specialists for each marketing track. The spend continues through the entire release of the film from first market (theatrical) to the last ancillary.
It was widely reported in the trades that the Avatar ad spend was set at 150 million USD for the three- year period when the ad spend started. However, if a film does well, the distributor will often step-up ad spend for a period. This does not just happen on tent-poles though, it happened on Little Miss Sunshine and Slumdog Millionaire.
Also, it is important that you understand that cinemas do not book prime screens and screening slots without seeing what the P&A budget is.

[WalterB]

I smell some anti-sell-out-opinions
Would all the negative people still be this negative if Avatar made $10,- and stayed very underground?

It's like saying people who like popmusic are stupid, because it's all artificial instruments and superficial lyrics. Or punkers are stupid, because most punklyrics and punkmusic are simple; crap production can't hide that
All blackmetalbands selling more than 666 copies are sellouts and only stupid teenagers like that. Abba is bad, because my parents like it...
Etc, etc...

It's entertainment, it's escapism and it's well made.
Add the hype, the almost religious ending and the detailed world: a massive hit.

Don't worry: you are not a bad indie filmmaker when you enjoy a blockbuster

[NickClapper]

Originally Posted by richy

2. Its haters notwithstanding, Avatar's story is in fact quite solid, and it hits some of the key soft spots of the human heart. The hero fights not only for his adopted family, but also for such basic values as fairness. Do not underestimate the importance of fairness issues to the human heart. For example, it's a mistake for your hero to summarily execute the dog in your forthcoming movie. A dog is, I suspect, the epitome of an innocent bystander...unless it's done something terrible like maul a child or something. Your audience will hate you for it. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Shit... am I only going to make $2.5 billion?

The thing is, and i have to reiterate this, my question (and the discussion in this thread) is not contesting whether Avatar is a good film or not. Let's accept that it is a good example of its genre. The question is how it has managed to take so much more money than any other film- not just a little bit more but pretty much double the movie in 3rd place and several hundred thousand more than the No.2

So saying...

Don't worry: you are not a bad indie filmmaker when you enjoy a blockbuster

...kind of defeats the point of the discussion. I don't think any rational person would argue that Avatar's success can in no way be attributed to it being a 'good' film- the question is how it made so much more than other 'good' films in a similar genre, films like, say, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, King Kong, The Matrix, Blade Runner, Alien...etc.

Not to mention 'good' films in other genres.

Why is it that sci-fi and fantasy seem to either do spectacularly well or spectacularly badly?

[JoshL]

If there was an easy, quantifiable answer, we'd all be doing it! Personally, I think it sold well as a tech demo for modern 3D and an excellent example of world building. Took itself seriously enough to drive the story, but not too seriously (I mean, unobtanium? I hear people chalk that up to bad writing, but it's not. It's a joke at their own expense). Furthermore, the cliched story, well, as someone who is into archetypes and folklore, there's ALWAYS a cultural need for familiar stories, and some stories can sustain being told and re-told. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it helps. If you are going to do something that is different, it's always good to balance it out with things that are familiar. Gives people something to latch on to. Heard the story before? Okay, good, so we can focus on the characters and the world.

Undeniable that they had marketing power going into it, and sustaining it. But the week to week drop off was insanely low, and lots of people saw it multiple times. The characters were cross-culturally familiar and relatable, so it plays well no matter where in the world you are.

It's hard to talk about the movie without getting people's personal opinions because people have VERY strong ones about it. Which means, love it or hate it, it got a response from a wide variety of people.

So my thoughts? Right time, right place (to tell the story and to sell the tech). Can it be replicated? Probably, but with LOTS of luck!

[rayw]

I just saw a CNN headline that read "Good News At The Gas Pump: Gas prices down on fears of economic downturn".

Tell me people AREN'T stupid.

[Alcove Audio]

Originally Posted by rayw

I just saw a CNN headline that read "Good News At The Gas Pump: Gas prices down on fears of economic downturn". Tell me people AREN'T stupid.

People aren't stupid. The media and entertainment industries treat them as if they were. Two very different things.

[LasVegasIRA]

Originally Posted by Scoopicman

Unlike THE AVENGERS, AVATAR hits the classic character and story points. It really is the Hero's journey, which is a character arc seen in the most popular movies - STAR WARS (original) trilogy, LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, even movies like THE LAST SAMURAI. Also, the computer scanning and rendering of characters made CGI the most expressive I've seen. Gollum from LORD OF THE RINGS was similarly appreciated.

The only movie you can compare Avatar to is Dances With Wolves...

[rayw]

Originally Posted by Alcove Audio

People aren't stupid. The media and entertainment industries treat them as if they were. Two very different things.

Agreed, business owners (media and entertainment industries) and their customers (the people) are two different things.

Dare I suggest that pretty much all of us in all of our non-film professional lives routinely experience customers that think each of our jobs is considerably LESS complex than it in fact actually is?
"Ah, for film sound all you gotta do is blah, blah, blah... "
Yeah, Elmer. It ain't quite that simple.

Likewise, the assorted media and entertainment industry owner/operator/boards of directors which promote programming that outright panders to their paying customers are likely smarter than the same customers that think what they're being spoon-fed is indeed the "real skinny" on anything from economics to celebrity gossip to documentaries that follow a three act structure and end either on a high or low note, depending upon where the director/producer/distributor wants it to go.

As directors, and more often than not producers, we need to understand - and appreciate - that we are in the position to craft stories and products that pander to the needs of our audiences.

To over-think our film products is perhaps NOT always in our best interests.
Dollar Tree & Dollar General DO NOT sell the best quality products available - but they satisfy a great number of customers.
WalMart sells good enough products - but they still aren't the best available - and bazoodles of customers keep pouring in their doors.

Can AVATAR provide a story full of... less than thoughtful actions by characters consumer audiences WANT to see again and again?
Yes.
Do the people see the holes in the Emperor's new clothing?
Yes.
Do they care?
No. Not really.

So, back to the original question of "HOW?", my answer remains marketing+stupid people.

And it's not just AVATAR.
There are plenty of films with high viewer ratings that made low to no revenue.
And there are plenty of films with low viewer ratings that made tons O' revenue.

Why, in the latter case?
Marketing+people are stupid.
They are attracted to "An Interesting Premise" which AVATAR et al have in abundance.

Marketing & Promotion.
Marketing & Promotion.
Marketing & Promotion.

No disrespect to the customer, just providing what they want BECAUSE I respect them.
Giving them what they need isn't always better than giving them what they want.

[Zensteve]

People have mentioned the novely (at the time) of it being 3D

Is there a breakdown of revenue of the 3d screenings vs. 2d? Just wondering, 'cos there were a tonne of theaters back then that did not have any 3d projection capabilities.

[8salacious9]

personally i liked avatar, the story was consistent and the picture was beautifully displayed, my kids also enjoyed as did my gf, i think the reason why it did so well is because it appealed to families.

also the 3D factor was kinda new at the time.

[Cracker Funk]

Ray,

I know you don't think I'm stupid. Because you and I share ideas with each other, and I think I can speak for us both when I say that it is a respectful relationship between us. I come from a pretty well-educated family. Both parents - masters degrees. Older sister - masters in Biology (that's pretty nerdy). Younger sister -- medical doctor. I know for a fact that my entire family liked "Avatar". And I'm the only one who went on opening night (that's the advertising part). Everyone else in my family waited to hear good things about it. So, they were influenced by me and their friends telling them they should see the movie, not so much by advertising.

So, at least as far as my family is concerned, your theory does not pan out.

Originally Posted by Boxt

I live on planet Earth, no need to be do rude. This isn't Twitter. Just so you know, CF, the ad spend, or rightly the 'P&A', for tent poles starts 12-18 months before the release. Although the public don't see the results of that send until just prior to that release, it definitely starts that far ahead. You have to buy the services of specialists, book tv slots for ads and editorials, same for print, hire specialists for each marketing track. The spend continues through the entire release of the film from first market (theatrical) to the last ancillary.
It was widely reported in the trades that the Avatar ad spend was set at 150 million USD for the three- year period when the ad spend started. However, if a film does well, the distributor will often step-up ad spend for a period. This does not just happen on tent-poles though, it happened on Little Miss Sunshine and Slumdog Millionaire.
Also, it is important that you understand that cinemas do not book prime screens and screening slots without seeing what the P&A budget is.

My sincere apologies, mate. I honestly just intended that phrase as a playful way of telling you that I thought your perception was a long ways from reality. I did not mean it to be rude; I'm sorry it came across that way.

Anyway, when you mentioned three years, perhaps I misunderstood you; it sounded to me like you were implying it had run ads for that long. But of course the first publicity didn't come until Super Bowl.

But now that I know that you were talking about the behind-the-scenes P&A budget, well yeah, I know all of that. But that's no different for "Avatar" than any other blockbuster. It's not like "Avatar" was the invention of a huge marketing campaign. So, if that's all it takes, then why don't all blockbusters make $2.7bil?

You seem to be very knowledgeable about how theater revenue works, so I'm assuming that you know the following is true --

Originally Posted by Cracker Funk

Star-power, a recognizable franchise, and advertising have their biggest impact on opening weekend. The farther away from opening weekend, the less of an effect they have. The farther away we get from opening weekend, the more a movie's staying power (legs) is effected by word-of mouth.

An average movie will drop off 50% in it's 2nd weekend. A really bad movie will drop off 70%. Word of mouth works fast. You simply do not get these kinds of numbers, without lots and lots of positive word of mouth, from a varied and wide range of people.

Steve -- I don't have a link, but if I remember correctly, "Avatar" revenue was very largely skewed towards 3D screens. That was definitely an impact on how much money it made.

[Leister]

If you have enough money to advertise your product and praise it as the next big thing, you could even sell penguin shit in preserving jars.

[rayw]

CF -
I don't have time for a thoughtful reply to the other valid points you address - BUT - I do want to take just one moment to confirm that you and I are A-Okay 100% fine.
We can agree to disagree as civil adults - and I don't even think we can conclusively state that we DON'T agree on this legit business issue.
I bet once we parse this down enough we'll end up benefiting from an excruciating dissection of the audience's subjective perception of good and bad.

Yeah, I think we're both pretty smart enough, and there's never any disrespect between us or even directed towards others.
Well... maybe a little towards some of the drive by jerk-offs that wizz through here. But they don't count


To be continued... !!!!

[Boxt]

Not all tentpoles have the budget of Avatar. It is still in the top four P&A spends if all time, the other three all go to Chris Nolan pictures.

The opening weekend thing is a bit misleading. What happens is that the studios/mini-majors push for a strong opening weekend to create the biggest momentum and hype. If there are bad reviews ( and New York and LA reviews can sink a film) they can counter them with a media onslaught of hype and free coverage, based on the opening weekend and usually up to the next 3 weekends. If the movie looks as if it can sustain itself at the box office the studios will continue to spend and sometimes increase the P&A. If the movie cannot cover the 'house nut' the cinema will pull it. This never happened with Avatar and it generally doesn't happen with the tentpoles until month three. Of course, there are exceptions. The point I'm making is that the studios try to predict what will happen with the movie over the coming weeks where as the cinema makes a decision on sales. Therefore, there is a lot error in the decisions of distributors at this stage and someone who wants to be safe and does not fully understand audiences, can end up making a decision which is harmful to the film. This is especially true when higher level bosses, who are not directly running distribution, rely on revenue patterns to try and predict the optimum rate at the P&A balances with the revenue. You would think that they would keep going as long as theatrical revenue is coming in but they do not make their biggest profit in theatrical, it always makes the lion's share of profits from the ancillary markets. Currently, Blu-Ray and VOD deliver the best margins. Most distributors see the theatrical as the best advertising campaign to sell VID/Blu-Ray, etc.. So, it is not that the movie has its best chance at the opening weekend, it is that the distributor bases his decision on that weekend the next three, skewing the importance of that weekend.

What Avatar had, and First Knight and Inception had too, was a head of distribution who understood that there is life after the opening weekend. They learnt from films with (manufactured) word of mouth and created teams of people to do this. They also had a huge P&A which they put in on the basis of Cameron's success with Titanic. Cameron wisely involved 3D, VFX and other film skill bases from numerous countries ensuring some level of free and committed support from within foreign film industries. They also planned ahead for the digital and 3D drive. Most European and Far East nations received government support for converting to digital and for 3D screens. Cameron, and it was his idea, arranged for half hour teasers for the owners, funders of 3D screens and the manufacturers of the technology. They were persuaded to hold the film over for a much longer period than the usual run and between them they devised a campaign whereby Avatar became the ad campaign for 3D. Most of this was funded by government grants combined with money from the other 3D participants. So, that money should really be added to the cost of marketing the film as an indirect cost.

There was always a plan to keep Avatar on screen for a long time. There was new marketing material available for each month of the campaign: there were pre-planned, pre-scripted interviews, tours, behind the scenes footage; there were tie-ins (the Coca-Cola one was huge), competitions, all planned at least a year ahead. Nothing they did was an accident. It was a mastercass of marketing. The great thing about Cameron is that he can think. Quite often producers look at numbers and patterns and don't understand behaviour. Cameron does.

You can do this for indie films too, see Slumdog Millionaire, but because the P&A is lower you won't reach the same heights as Avatar but you can make that money work smarter. Slumdog sustained a year long top ten position in the international top ten, despite having no names, because they used some similar tactics (minus 3D of course).