How did Avatar make so much money?

[Cracker Funk]

Gonzo, if it were that simple, then every Summer blockbuster would make $2.7 billion. That's a ridiculous oversimplification.

CF: I do appreciate that people liked it in general and that it got high audience reaction responses but, for example, my sister and my parents heard that it was about blue aliens and were immediately not interested and have never seen it. They can't be that atypical.

Well, yeah they kinda are. Not in the sense that they are turned off by a sci-fi about blue aliens. Lots of people aren't into that kind of movie. But I think you're seriously discounting how much "Avatar" invaded the public's consciousness, and for how long. Perhaps my perspective is different, because I'm a bartender and I overhear everyone's conversations -- for months, "Avatar" was the biggest topic that people were talking about. People who hadn't even seen it were talking about it, just because so many other people had told them (good things) about it.

Is it atypical to not be interested in blue-alien-sci-fi? No. Is it atypical to not be swayed, at least a little bit, by the constant barrage of all sorts of different people who keep saying good things about it? Yeah, that's a little unusual. And the important thing to keep in mind is that the positive words weren't coming from just one particular demographic, but everywhere.

Five year old kids liked it. Grandmas and grandpas liked it. College-aged stoners liked it. 13-year-old girls liked it. Middle-class conservatives liked it. Working-class liberals liked it. Sci-fi geeks liked it. People who don't normally like sci-fi liked it.

Obviously (as evidenced in this thread), not everyone liked it, but it's extremely broad appeal cannot be denied.

In my lifetime, only one movie (series of movies actually) has had a more broad appeal, cutting across so many different groups of people, and it happens to be one of the few movies with a higher box office gross than "Avatar" (when adjusted for inflation). I assume you know which movie (series) I'm referring to.

The thing that you touch upon which I think it's actually the important reason, is the iPod analogy. There was something about the way that it was billed that suggested it was a real game-changer (something it hasn't really proved to be). I think people went into the cinemas with the expectation that the 3D would be something incredible and that probably explains a lot of the ticket sales. What might be interesting is how the filmmakers and marketing department managed to convince the general public that the film was going to be that sort of decisive cinematic landmark.

It is now unusual for a blockbuster to not be released in 3D. Yeah, you still have the 2D option, as you should. But almost all of them are shown in 3D, with an increasing number actually being shot in 3D (thank God, cuz the 2D conversions have been horrible). You can thank/blame "Avatar" for that. Yes, it was a game-changer.

I also think that the fallout from that film has probably affected other films grosses. The 3D in Avatar is very good, hasn't been bettered, but it confirmed a lot of people's misapprehensions about 3D and the other 3D releases shortly after it (like Clash of the Titans) were just dismal. Thus the ratio of 3D to 2D has on major releases (like Harry Potter 7b) tipped back in favour of 2D. With Avatar there was little doubt that, if you were going to see it, you were going to see it in proper 3D.

What fall-out? "Avatar" had a fall-out?

The 3D fall-out has nothing to do with "Avatar", except in the sense that people were disappointed, repeatedly, by movies that failed to live up to the brilliant 3D in "Avatar". Of course they failed to live up to it -- they were shot in 2D, and converted in post, and that has proven to be a crap method. "Prometheus" looked F-ing great in 3D, as did "Jackass 3D". I've heard "Hugo" was beautiful in 3D, but I only saw the 2D.

The success of "Avatar" is only a mystery in circles like ours. For whatever reason, there seems to be a lot of dislike and disdain for the movie, among indie filmmakers. The same is not true in the general populace. Anyway, the success of "Avatar" is definitely not a mystery to Hollywood execs.

Do some reading up on box office success, and what different factors influence how and when a movie makes money. The patterns are clear, and it's not rocket surgery to figure it all out. 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.

So, back to my original answer to the question -- how did "Avatar" make so much money?

People liked it.

 

[NickClapper]

I do see the 3D fall-out as starting with Avatar. As always I don't really want to discuss the merits of Avatar as a movie (I enjoyed it in the cinema and although I have problems with it, I think it's an absolutely harmless piece of escapism) but people went into Avatar expecting something amazing from the 3D. Yes, the 3D was great but it didn't solve half the problems associated with the format.

So, yes, the amount of films being made in 3D (or retrofitted) has gone up post-Avatar but that simply because studios can't ignore $2.7 billion. Avatar set a high bar that has instigated the 3D fall-out partly because it has shown up all the later efforts and partly because it showed that current 3D technology has some inherent limitations.

The Avengers was retrofitted into 3D against Joss Whedon's wishes, The Dark Knight Rises is going to be a massive hit only in 2D, Ridley Scott says he's unlikely to use 3D again after Prometheus... the real test is going to be when Peter Jackson's Hobbit comes out this Christmas because early reports say that the 3D and 48 fps combined is a really jarring effect.

So, for me, Avatar was released under the expectation that what we were seeing was the advent of a new kind of cinema (like the talkies or colour). That fed word of mouth both before and after it was released, I think probably to a greater extent than positive reviews.

 

[TheLoganDaniels]

I am going to have to disagree with you, Cracker. The general audience didn't like Avatar, they LOVED it. I know a ton of people who hadn't gone to the theaters in years that went to see Avatar multiple times. These same people haven't been back since. A lot of people kept going back because they wanted to enjoy the movie again with one or two friends who still hadn't seen the movie. It was a movie that everyone wanted to see and no one wanted to wait until the DVD/Blu-Ray release (except me).

No other film has gotten such attention from the media before and after. The promise of 3D that would forever change the way the industry worked was generally the main focus of interviews. Everyone had to have some sort of BTS coverage.

And as a defense of Avatar, the movie is extremely deep. The overall premise may simply be Pocahontas in space but the movie has so many more motifs. I think many filmmakers and storytellers that hate on Avatar's story are really just jealous. People turn a blind eye to all the other story elements in order to make the Pocahontas in space claim. If you think your story is deeper than Avatar's, the truth is it probably isn't.

I, personally, hate 3D and think it ruins live action films. The only good 3D I have seen, so far, has all been cartoons. The best yet is Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs.

 

[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.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Logan, I agree strongly with almost everything you said.

However, I do have to say that Nick has wisely made this thread not to be a commentary on how good or bad we might think the movie is (I agree, there's a deeper level to the simple story, but we can't really talk about that here).

And, I also agree that 3D works best with animated films (which "Avatar" pretty much is). Though the 3D looked great in "Prometheus", it had zero impact on how much I enjoyed the movie. Like Nick, I'm waiting to see what "Hobbit" looks like.

 

[TheLoganDaniels]

I saw a couple people comment on the simplistic story being the reason the film made so much money so I felt the need to comment on that.

Honestly, as has been pointed out already, there were a ton of reasons why the movie made so much money. There are also reasons why it may not have made as much money as it could have. Sure, the glass ceiling was broken but that doesn't mean it couldn't have done even better; the movie was not universally loved. The movie could have made at least $15 more if I had a job at the time and/or I wouldn't have penny-pinched, which, in hindsight, I didn't need to do.

I find Avatar extremely slow at times which makes it difficult to watch over and over again, but that doesn't detract from me enjoying the movie as much as I did.

I am excited for The Hobbit, also. I want to see what 48fps can do for both 3D and 2D. I don't think 48fps is the answer for good live-action 3D, but if touted as such for/through the media then we may see The Hobbit surpass Avatar. Avatar and The Hobbit are built as game changers, movies like The Avengers, not so much.

 

[rayw]

The question I'm asking is not 'how did Avatar do so well given that it's not that good?' but 'How did Avatar do so well compared with every other film ever?'

People, God love 'em, are stupid.

First, there's the marketing.
The 3D tech was a big screen debut nuclear bomb of interest.
Once the marketing genie was out of the bottle there were specials left and right promoting the "gee-wiz!" factor.
I had never seen such a ridiculous clamboring for association with a filmmaking project.
There was like an hour-long special on some program about it.
The breadth and depth of promotion was deep four-quarters.

Second, even though the story was retarded the sheeple just kept coming back for more and more.
I can understand everyone beeing hoodwinked the first week, but we know the directors and editors don't get feedback from audience reviews then re-edit then re-release a "corrected cut" for the second and subsequent weeks.
No.
If a film sucked the first week it's gonna keep sucking the second week, and third and so on.
But people kept on coming back for more, like eating sh!tty spaghetti - the first bite was sh!tty, guess what the next bite is going to taste like? And the third? Etc... !

So, did the story suck?
Yes.
Did people keep coming back?
Yes.
Why?
Because people are stupid.


I'll be d@mned if I'm going out into an alien environment without knowing what plants and animals are out there to kill, maim, and injure me and the people I'm supposed to be responsible for protecting.
I sure as h3ll ain't getting sidetracked swatting big pink coral bushes and giggling like a mirthful fool.

Couldn't just chronically gas the valley with CS or CN gas? Duh!!!!
Idiots in the audience love idiots on screen.

 

[Cracker Funk]

And there you have it. You simply cannot have a discussion about "Avatar", in these circles, without somebody insulting the intelligence of those who *gasp* actually like the movie.

You heard it here, first -- THE ENTIRE WORLD IS STUPID.

Thanks for the insightful comments, Ray.

 

[Alcove Audio]

No, people are not stupid. In fact, most are about as smart as you are. But they are not filmmakers. They're people who go to other kinds of "mundane" work and raise their families. The last five years or so have been tough on people, and in hard times people want some time away from their troubles. A film like "Avatar" or "The Avengers" satisfies a basic need in people during troubled times - the good guys win and the bad guys lose. Add in the prospect of discovering someplace totally new. You can identify with the good guy, especially a "crippled" good guy (when many people feel figuratively or literally crippled by their own situations) who gets a chance to do what's right and decides to take the chance. Most would like to feel that when the chance is given they would do the same, dive off the deep end and defy all odds to make things right. They live vicariously through films like "Avatar."

Combine that with the three years of hype and there is a formula for success. So what if he pandered to the LCD? Whether we like it or not, filmmaking is a business, and businesses are about making profits. So from a business perspective Cameron and Co. pushed all the right buttons and made a product that sold in a big way. From a technical standpoint it was the best looking 3D film made to date, the sound design was terrific and the score was great. The lesson here for all of us indie types to learn is that the technical aspects of the presentation count for a lot with the audience.

 

[trueindie]

Ray and Alcove, I have to disagree with you gents. Look, I'm not a sci fi lover. Farthest thing from it. But I do love a good story. A good human story that I can relate to. Avatar I could relate to. I saw that movie and I thought Dances with Wolves in Space. It's a very relate-able story. I kept thinking "man, humans are complete f'ing dicks." And when their giant tree fell, I felt SO bad,...SO bad... for these blue people, that I knew in my head, do not exist, I thought Cameron had done a wonderful storytelling job.

Avatar and Avengers is not the same type of story. Avatar is relate-able in a very fundamental human, historical, philosophical way. The avengers is kind of like a comic book shoot-em up. I mean no disrespect to The Avengers. I grew up on comic books (although I'm more of a Batman, Daredevil, Spiderman type of guy). I have nothing against Avengers. But Avatar works in multiple ways. It had the 3D thing going for it. It needs no backstory to completely relate to. It also has special effects and big explosions. It satisfies the Sci-fi crowd. If you're not a sci-fi guy you can still enjoy it and discuss the movie afterwards. I can't see myself discussing Avengers... with anybody. And I knew all the characters going in.

We should have a separate thread moderated by Cracker (c'mon CF... dooo iiiit) on Sci-Fi. All Sci-Fi's are not built the same. It does not help our understanding of the audience, as filmmakers, to just dismiss them as stupid.

 

[Jack Lynt]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.