How did Avatar make so much money?

[NickClapper]

Do I think that Avatar is the best film ever made? No.
Do I think that Avatar is a bad film? No.
Am I surprised that it made more money than Annie Hall? No.
Am I surprised it made more money than The Avengers? Slightly.
Do I think The Avengers is a better film than Avatar? No.

I really am not an Avatar detractor. I don't think it's even close to the best film ever made though, and that's why I think it's legitimate to explore how it made so much money. Being a good film can't simply be it because, let's face it, for 99% of us it's not the best film ever made yet for 100% of us it's the highest grossing film.

And I think it's perfectly easy to separate the film from the technology. I appreciate that you might want to see Transformers 3 if you're interested in special effects and 3D technology, but no one in their right mind goes to see that because it's 'a good film'. Any film that, technologically speaking, does something new and original is, inevitably, going to find an audience, regardless of whether the film itself is good or not.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Do I think that Avatar is the best film ever made? No.
Do I think that Avatar is a bad film? No.
Am I surprised that it made more money than Annie Hall? No.
Am I surprised it made more money than The Avengers? Slightly.
Do I think The Avengers is a better film than Avatar? No.

Later on, you bring up Transformers, and if you hadn't, I was going to. I think it's worth noting that the Transformers movie that made the most money is #2, the one that is most universally panned. I don't think you can use the relative "goodness" of a film in order to figure out how much money it made. Heck, look at Twilight; even some of biggest fans of that series will admit that it's not particularly "good", but it's got it's got sappy melodramatic romance, and a couple of pretty boys to look at, and that's what they're apologetically buying tickets for.

I hate to repeat myself, but the I think the clear difference between Avatar and Avengers is that Avatar is much more accessible, to way more people.

Can you take a five-year-old to Avengers? Definitely not.
Can you take a five-year-old to Avatar? Yes, and they'll be mesmerized.
Can you take your grandparents to Avengers? Only if you hate them.
Can you take your grandparents to Avatar? Most definitely.
Will a 13-year-old girl, or a 40-year-old woman, like Avengers as much as an 18-25 year-old dude? Not even close.
Will a 13-year-old girl, or a 40-year-old wome, like Avatar as much as an 18-25 year-old dude? Probably much more so.

Though Avatar is very near the top of my personal all-time favorites list (and used to be at the top), I do of course recognize that most people do not share my extreme affinity for it. Most people I talk to do not believe it's anywhere near the best movie ever made. However, most people I talk to do like it, and that's a very broad and diverse sampling group.

It's not that everyone thinks it's the best film of all time. It's that everyone thought their friend/relative/acquaintance would like it, and recommended it to them.

As for your comments on it being manipulative, I can't really agree with that. I think the environmental bent of the movie can simply be attributed to the fact that Cameron is the stereotypical bleeding-heart Hollywood liberal. The release of Avatar 2 has been delayed for at least a year, and the best explanation is that Cameron felt like taking a trip to the bottom of the ocean. He's a nature-freak, no question about that.

Plus, I don't think that's why people liked the movie. Some people liked it simply for the visual wow factor. Some people liked it for the adventure and romance. Some people liked it for Jake's story of rebirth. Some people liked it for all reasons above. I personally don't recall anyone telling me they liked it because of the environmentalism. And as far as an anti-corporate theme is concerned, that's the current bad-guy-of-choice in pretty much all blockbusters, nothing unusual there.

 

[Boxt]

OK, I understand now that she did not actually mean a silent film, she meant a film with minimal dialogue. Even so, this really isn't a consideration because films are routinely dubbed in foreign languages or at the least are subtitled.



The term "Sound Design" is not specific to audio professionals, it's a decades old general filmmaking term, like "Cinematography" or "Costume Design". I'm not trying to be rude or condescending, I'm just trying to understand: Are you saying that Boxt is very new to filmmaking and doesn't yet know what the fundamental film crafts are? Or, are you saying that many/most indy filmmakers don't know/understand what "Sound Design" is?

G

No, i am not new to filmmaking and the fundamentals. I have produced a feature which is currently touring the markets and I am currently producing a feature packaged by ICM.
I use sound design in the following sense, it means the the output of the sound designer which includes the creative use of all sound elements which includes music, effects, etc. as well the technical aspects such as mixing.
What I am saying about Avatar is that it was designed to be understood without the need to understand dialogue. I cannot say the same for the music, sound effects, et al, because they were used to heighten emotions, sense of danger, etc. that is, they were used in much the same way as in silent films. The difference between what is easier to watch in subtitled and dubbed films is a whole other discussion.
So, to answer your question Audio, the sound design in silent movies is, others have said, the use of sound effects and music, although it was not called that at the time. I don't know a sound designer who would disagree with that definition as it was defined by Walter Murch and the Academy.
Back to the point about the story, it goes to Clapper's point that a simpler, less ambiguous story travels better. That is one way. You can still take a more complex, ambiguous story to a wider audience but you will need a similar size ad fund plus some creativity, such as with Inception.

 

[Boxt]

Back in the early part of the 20th century they were sound FX for silent films.
In the major movie houses there could be up to twenty (20) people performing
sound FX behind the screen. They were usually vaudeville traps players and
sound FX types from the "legitimate" theatre. My own Aunt Emily (my paternal
grandfathers sister) did that for a while.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031203095914/http://www.windworld.com/emi/articles/soundeffects.htm

I was actually discussing this with one of the folks from TMC a number of
years ago. They have their young composer competition each year, and
the winner gets to score a silent film. My suggestion was that a group of
Foley walkers, percussionists and others perform Foley and sound FX live
to picture fro the same silent film. They eventually nixed the idea, but I
would still like to try it someday.

Excellent explanation, Alcove. I wish I had your succinctness, if that's a word.

 

[Sucramdoow]

James Cameron Will Film Three “Avatar” Sequels At the Same Time

I wonder how much he will get from all 3 sequels.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

So, to answer your question Audio, the sound design in silent movies is, others have said, the use of sound effects and music, although it was not called that at the time. I don't know a sound designer who would disagree with that definition as it was defined by Walter Murch and the Academy.

I cannot think of a single reputable sound designer who would agree with you and particularly not Walter Murch!

Silent films were made silent, there was no sound. A tiny percentage of cinemas had a person or a small team of people who created live Foley effects but the films were not made with any sound and the vast majority of audience goers would never have experienced any sound FX when when watching a film. The same is broadly true of the music.

"Sidney Lumet said recently in an interview that he had been amazed at what Francis Coppola and Walter Murch had been able to accomplish in the mix of "Apocalypse Now." Well, what was great about that mix began long before anybody got near a dubbing stage. In fact, it began with the script, and with Coppola’s inclination to give the characters in "Apocalypse" the opportunity to listen to the world around them." - Randy Thom

I use sound design in the following sense, it means the the output of the sound designer which includes the creative use of all sound elements which includes music, effects, etc. as well the technical aspects such as mixing...
..So, to answer your question Audio, the sound design in silent movies is, others have said, the use of sound effects and music, although it was not called that at the time.

I still don't understand your answer. As there was no way to record, edit, mix, design or replay sound in a silent film and therefore no sound stages, no sound recordists, no sound editors, no dialogue editor, no ADR, no ambiances, no room tones, no Foley, no hard sound FX (except very rarely those few performed live), no re-recording mixers, no sound designer and no sound on silent film period (hence why it's called "Silent"), how can the making of Avatar in anyway be likened to silent film which contains none of these audio elements?

G

 

[rayw]

If you can't see or appreciate how the public's BS meters work (relative to your own) and just explain it away as the public being dumb, IMHO, you are going to find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ever make a film with wide appeal.

Hmm...
I'm sure you're right.
Because I can't figure out the success of one Hollywood film outlier it will indeed likely make it impossible for me to ever make a film with wide appeal.
Yep. You got me bagged & tagged, G.
Put a fork in me. I'm done.

(A) Ray, I think you're really over-analyzing this.

(B) You should play the game Hollywood Stock Exchange. Being a number-nerd, I honestly think you might enjoy it. And when you see how quickly a movie's stocks can rise and fall, you will soon learn the difference between the impact of advertising (opening weekend), vs. the impact of word of mouth (2nd weekend).

(A) Definitely! To the point where it's work rather than entertaining diversion.
Don't make me start generating scatter charts of ratings & revenues!
http://mattstil.es/images/movie-gross-2010.png

(B) Interesting. I just might...

I've actually done this before (about a decade ago). It's comparable to fantasy football, but for movie nerds. Since movies are generally released once per week, you only need to make moves once per week.

Ray? I'm drawing a line in the sand.

... take you up on that!
How do we begin?
Anyone else game, or are CF & I just going to go head-to-head? (In all of our spare time. )

But to suggest that people liked "Avatar" because they're idiots -- that's offensive, and completely different from what you just said. So why does a discussion of "Avatar" get personal? Because those who don't like it make insulting comments about those who do.

And I have a theory about that. Honestly, I think the detractors of the movie are befuddled. They can't believe that so many people like this movie that is clearly crap (in their minds). They can't wrap their brains around how anyone could possibly like it, so the first thing that comes to their mind is that all those people must be idiots.

^I'm not stating that as fact, just as one possible explanation of why detractors of "Avatar" so often insult the people who like it. I've never seen anything like it, with any other movie, and I think that's because "Avatar" was so ridiculously successful that some people need an explanation as to how it was successful (and the only reasonable explanation to them is that the people who like it are idiots).

Hey, now.
I didn't say that the people that liked Avatard... I mean Avatar...d (D@mmit!) Av-A-Tarrrr were idiots because they liked or loved a film that had idiotic elements to it.

"A person is smart. People are dumb"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkCwFkOZoOY

No, this isn't movie or fortune cookie wisdom.
Mob mentality is different than individual mentality.: http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/02/15/herd-mentality-explained/1922.html
I am a functional person in our society.
There are films that are stupid that I enjoy.
It CANNOT be scientifically inferred that I am stupid because I enjoy a few stupid films.

Explain the utility of shirt collars.
Explain the utility of neck ties.
Explain why we want our new cars to look future-modern but our new homes to look classic or traditional.
Explain bank runs.

An individual person is smart.
Groups of people are not.

Can you take a five-year-old to Avengers? Definitely not.
Can you take a five-year-old to Avatar? Yes, and they'll be mesmerized.
Can you take your grandparents to Avengers? Only if you hate them.
Can you take your grandparents to Avatar? Most definitely.
Will a 13-year-old girl, or a 40-year-old woman, like Avengers as much as an 18-25 year-old dude? Not even close.
Will a 13-year-old girl, or a 40-year-old wome, like Avatar as much as an 18-25 year-old dude? Probably much more so.

I agree completely with your point here.
So, why do other four-quadrant films - with higher cinemascore exit ratings - not see the same or better revenues?
Examples of 4 quadrant movies

• Titanic
• Avatar
• POTC
• E.T
• Jurassic Park
• Snow White
• Loin King
• Most Pixar films
• Jaws
• Shrek
• Indiana Jones
• Sound of Music
• Star Wars

None of these look like 4Qs: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/15-movies-made-grade-a-222653#1


CinemaScore's website: http://cinemascore.com/
CinemaScore's detractor: http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/cinemascore-worthless/
The comments to this article about both the subject film and the merits of CinemaScore are interesting: http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/what-it-means-to-get-an-f-cinemascore/


PS: I don't see Avatar on any of these lists:
http://www.moviefancentral.com/community/lists
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
http://www.imdb.com/chart/2000s

It's number 35 on the IMDB SciFi list!: http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi

 

[WalterB]

I tried and did my share in comparing the different lists to see what elements stand out as common properties or differences between blockbusters and highly 'ranked' sci-fi & fantasy.
Some are just explaining why the story sucks or the visuals fail, lol.
That's not the question!

Others are more on topic:

..........most people are not looking for narratively complex, highbrow cinema.............

And there you have it.
The simple key.
It's entertainment!
It's like popmusic.


Target a broad audience:
Make it a spectacle for the boys.
Make it sweet enough for the girls.
Make the audience care:
Let the underdog fall for the unreachable woman.
Make his struggle a struggle against injustice.
Make the stakes high.
Shock and awe:
Blow the audience away with stunning visuals.

Now market the hell out of it, so people know what to watch.

Is popmusic bad?
Not in my opinion.
I find a lot of songs boring.
And a lot of songs a really well made and some are even very good and enjoyable
But sometimes I just like to listen to the heavier, louder, quieter and 'complexer' music: Opeth (Blackwaterpark!), In the woods... ('Omnio' and 'Strange in Stereo') Sigur Ros ('Takk' and '()' ), Solstafir (Svarte Sandir), The Ocean (Precambrian), Unholy (Rapture), Anathema (The Silent Enigma), Mono (the band from Japan).
That's taste. A lot of it will sound like noise to many people.

Past few days I listened to Iron Maiden's '7th Son of a 7th son': as conceptalbum it failed, but it has great songs full of power. Suede's 'Coming up' the only 'real' Britpop in my collection: beautiful wining and lovely emotions. Bush's Sixteen Stone: a grungy (undrappreciated) masterpiece: sad, angry and arrogant songs together. Pink Floyd's 'A saucer full of secrets' (I don't feel like discribing it ).
(Yes, it's all old stuff, lol)
There are probably a lot of people that won't like that music.
So we can debate who is not understanding the music properly, or we can analyse what the big hits have what the underground bands or the flops don't have.

And in the end you are still allowed to wonder why people like autotune

 

[Cracker Funk]

... take you up on that!
How do we begin?
Anyone else game, or are CF & I just going to go head-to-head? (In all of our spare time. )

Hahaha! Okay, it's on!

We begin, simply by creating a new account, and going to town. When you create a new account, you're given $2mil to invest. All we would have to do is decide on when we start, and how long we have to play before the contest is finished. I propose 4 months, only because that's the length of a fantasy football season, and that's basically what we're doing, but for movies. I propose we begin one week from tomorrow, to give us time to hopefully get a few more people on-board (I'll create a new thread, as soon as you and I agree on terms). What'ya think?

Oh, and just to give you a feel for what it's like, I'd say I spent about half an hour per week on it, last time I did it. Though you can spend as little or much time as you like, just like in fantasy football.

 

[rayw]

I propose 4 months... we begin one week from tomorrow, to give us time to hopefully get a few more people on-board (I'll create a new thread, as soon as you and I agree on terms). What'ya think?

One week from tomorrow puts us RIGHT ON the 4th of July.
http://www.hsx.com/security/feature.php?type=upcoming

That's cool with me if that's cool with you.

And four months sounds like more than plenty of time.
Wanna just call it Wednesday, OCT 31st, seventeen weeks?


C'mon, ITers!
Let's put some faux skin in the game of thinking like a studio chief or theater owner!


And remember, this is all just fun and games until some one loses an eye!

 

[Alcove Audio]

I still don't understand your answer. As there was
no way to record, edit, mix, design or replay sound in a silent film and therefore no sound
stages, no sound recordists, no sound editors, no dialogue editor, no ADR, no ambiances,
no room tones, no Foley, no hard sound FX (except very rarely those few performed live),
no re-recording mixers, no sound designer and no sound on silent film period (hence why
it's called "Silent"), how can the making of Avatar in anyway be likened to silent film which
contains none of these audio elements?

Here's where we part company, G. Although the term "Sound Design" is relatively new, the "legitimate"
theatre has used sound FX for many, many centuries, and someone "designed" those sounds*. Just
because it's not recorded in one way or another does not nullify its legitimacy. And, at least in my opinion
and from my research, the so-called silent films were intended to have sound FX during the performance.
Okay, silent films may not have had a specified team of sound FX folks at smaller venues, but they did have
a small musical group with a traps player (the percussionist with all of the interesting sound contraptions)
who would do his/her best to cover sound FX. Many of the early sound FX clich
és originated with these folks who
also used them in vaudeville. The vaudeville/silent film connection is very close as there would also be live
performers of all types along with the films. It's when you hit the very end of the films runat the tiny houses
that it ended up with a single piano player. It was very common for the score to be lost in transit, so these
pianists would use their classical and "pop" repertoire, resulting in many musical clichés that lasted well
into the fifties.

BoxT is making the case that "Avatar" was very visually oriented in the sense that you didn't really need the
dialog to understand what was going on, and the music and sound FX were used to push the emotional content.
Of course, music and sound FX are used by any intelligent director to enhance the emotional content, so I partially
agree with both of you.

"Avatar" was a cliché from start to finish. But it was a very carefully crafted cliché that used every single technical
advantage available to the director and his creative team. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Does it go on my all time faves list?
No, but it was a very fun diversion for a few hours.

*C'mon, G, you should know the "Steal his thunder" story.

 

[Cracker Funk]

One week from tomorrow puts us RIGHT ON the 4th of July.
http://www.hsx.com/security/feature.php?type=upcoming

That's cool with me if that's cool with you.

And four months sounds like more than plenty of time.
Wanna just call it Wednesday, OCT 31st, seventeen weeks?[/IMG]

Yeah, I kinda think it's cool to start on a holiday, particularly one that is so huge for movies. And ending on a holiday sounds great, too. Starting a new thread.

 

[Jack Lynt]

...and that's why I think it's legitimate to explore how it made so much money.

Oh definately. Thank you for a great conversation.

I hate to repeat myself, but the I think the clear difference between Avatar and Avengers is that Avatar is much more accessible, to way more people.

Can you take a five-year-old to Avengers? Definitely not.
Can you take a five-year-old to Avatar? Yes, and they'll be mesmerized.
Can you take your grandparents to Avengers? Only if you hate them.
Can you take your grandparents to Avatar? Most definitely.
Will a 13-year-old girl, or a 40-year-old woman, like Avengers as much as an 18-25 year-old dude? Not even close.
Will a 13-year-old girl, or a 40-year-old wome, like Avatar as much as an 18-25 year-old dude? Probably much more so.

Though Avatar is very near the top of my personal all-time favorites list (and used to be at the top), I do of course recognize that most people do not share my extreme affinity for it. Most people I talk to do not believe it's anywhere near the best movie ever made. However, most people I talk to do like it, and that's a very broad and diverse sampling group.

And there you have it.
The simple key.
It's entertainment!
It's like popmusic.


Target a broad audience:
Make it a spectacle for the boys.
Make it sweet enough for the girls.
Make the audience care:
Let the underdog fall for the unreachable woman.
Make his struggle a struggle against injustice.
Make the stakes high.
Shock and awe:
Blow the audience away with stunning visuals.

Now market the hell out of it, so people know what to watch.

I agree this is one of the more important explanations. I have no idea if the statistics support this. I won't even try to look them up. I know there are others much better at that than I am anyway. But I've always remembered watching Cameron on Oprah back when Titanic came out and how a woman in Oprah's audience stood up and told him something like you really get us [women] or was it more like I really get you or the love story in your film really gets me or you really understand love or something like that. I tried to find it on youtube or somewhere, but no luck. The point is, if Titanic really found an audience among women, and Avatar has much the same sort of romance, and the women who loved Titanic expected similar content from Avatar...well. As in politics, the women vote is darned important. I doubt a movie like The Avengers had that sort of built in currency.

And, James Cameron is a phenomenon, like it, or not. Titanic was a phenemenon. I'm sure that Avatar was riding the wave of those two juggernauts. At least, that had to be part of it.

James Cameron Will Film Three “Avatar” Sequels At the Same Time

I wonder how much he will get from all 3 sequels.

Holy cow.

 

[Cracker Funk]

James Cameron Will Film Three “Avatar” Sequels At the Same Time

I wonder how much he will get from all 3 sequels.

That sounds like a brain-fart, on Weaver's part. It would seem strange that the announcement that they're actually shooting three sequels, instead of two, would come from anyone other than a producer or official spokesperson.

 

[rayw]

I have no idea if the statistics support this. I won't even try to look them up. I know there are others much better at that than I am anyway.

Having spent a rather unreasonable amount of time hunting down film stats online let me reaffirm that trying to find hard data on how any film ranked on a 4Q scale is darn near nonexistent on any open resource.

If so motivated, I'm sure one could pay to get access to it, but... it's just not quite THAT important to me.
I'll infer for free.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I have no idea if the statistics support this.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics - Samuel Clemens

 

[rayw]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics - Samuel Clemens

Statistics indicate that is a Mark Twain quote.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source....,cf.osb&fp=a2e370afc0354df8&biw=1599&bih=809

 

[Jack Lynt]

And, I was thinking that it's probably practically impossible to collect any sort of reliable data of the sort I was wondering about...like how many tickets were purchased by or bought for males and how many tickets were purchased by or bought for females? Hmmmmm?

=)

 

[rayw]

And, I was thinking that it's probably practically impossible to collect any sort of reliable data of the sort I was wondering about...like how many tickets were purchased by or bought for males and how many tickets were purchased by or bought for females? Hmmmmm?

=)

LOL, indeed.

Yeah.
You ain't finding that laying about the internet.
That's the sort of data studios pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to some data collection firm that DirectorRik probably can name off the top of his head.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Here's where we part company, G. Although the term "Sound Design" is relatively new, the "legitimate" theatre has used sound FX for many, many centuries, and someone "designed" those sounds*.

"The biggest myth about composing and sound designing is that they are about creating great sounds...
What is Sound Design? You may assume that it’s about fabricating neat sound effects. But that doesn’t describe very accurately what Ben Burtt and Walter Murch, who invented the term, did on "Star Wars" and "Apocalypse Now" respectively." - Randy Thom

Creating SFX is self explanatory but Sound Design is the design and creation of soundscapes. These soundscapes are "designed" by using and manipulating all the audio elements (ambiances, room tones, dialogue character, foreground and background SFX, music, etc.) to drive character and narrative development in individual scenes and across scenes and to create an overall sound style "designed" for the film. Being a Sound Designer is most similar to being a symphony composer.

Modern film Sound Design as originally created by Ben Burtt and Walter Murch has almost nothing in common with what traps players or others did in the theatre, vaudeville or the silent film era. There are many calling themselves Sound Designer who don't even know what the term means, because they've just come out of college or just downloaded some audio software and don't know any better. The jobs these so called sound designers are really doing is that of Supervising Sound Editor or Sound Editor/Mixer. Just putting appropriate SFX in the right place at the right volume and making the dialogue intelligible is NOT sound design, it's not even close to sound design. I expect newbies to film sound and inexperienced filmmakers to not understand the role of Film Sound Designer but I really didn't expect it of you. I'm hoping it's just a misunderstanding on your part, otherwise there's little hope of the indy film world ever understanding, employing or developing sound design if even us audio professionals don't know what it is!

G