Home > Entertainment > Movies > Film Making & Production
Is spending $200 million to make a cutting-edge movie like 'Avatar' worth the pricetag?
Results so far:
| Yes | 49% | 205 votes | Total: 418 votes | |
| No | 51% | 213 votes |
Yes
by Anthony Megna
Created on: December 22, 2009 Last Updated: July 10, 2011
Worth it to who? To the movie studio, to the audience, or to the filmmakers? Since the movie has now become the all-time top grossing movie, it seems like it was worth the money!
Spending $200 million dollars to make "Avatar" is worth it for the movie studio and James Cameron because they're taking the risk with their own money. The marketplace will be the ultimate judge whether the movie makes its money back or not. The basic formula is you must make about 3 times the cost of the movie to break even.
Back in college I spent close to a hundred grand to make a film. I got a friend's rich father to kick in the majority of the cost of the film, and I was hoping to sell the movie to the new market of home-video. This was back in the 70's, and you could transfer a home movie to videotape and somebody would buy it! So, it was almost a risk-free venture and it was worth it. And ultimately we recovered our money and made a few bucks. If someone back then said why are you spending so much to make a film I would have laughed.
The same is true today. Who is it for anyone to say what to spend on a movie? Are you funding the film? If you are, then you have the right to object, because in essence you are the executive producer of that film. Otherwise, if someone wants to spend a billion dollars to make a movie, that's their business, as they're taking the ultimate risk.
Big budget films have been around since movie-making began. Do you remember the film "Cleopatra" back in the early 60's? That film starred Elizabeth Taylor and the price-tag was around 40 million bucks. The film was a flop, but eventually the studios made their money back through sales to foreign countries and through time. It didn't hurt that Taylor was in the film either. They took the risk, they lived with the outcome, good or bad.
James Cameron is one of the hottest, cutting edge film directors today. He has an astounding track record with films such as Terminator and Titanic. These films are big budget behemoths that cost boatloads of money, but have made their money back. His movie-making style has advanced the art of film-making by leaps and bounds, and this celluloid experimentation costs money. Lots of money! If someone or some company is willing to shell out the funds to make the movie, then why not? Again, they're taking the risk. If you as the movie-goer don't want to see the film, no one is holding a gun to your head to shell out the money to buy the tickets, right?
Learn more about this author, Anthony Megna.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Doniv Stark
Created on: December 10, 2010
Perhaps yes, to a precedent for the cinematic form set by a movie like 'Avatar', but a certain No for all the movies in the future that will join the $200 plus million bandwagon wishing for the same success, ripping off or emulating the cutting edge technology used in this movie.
I think the unprecedented success of Avatar will definitely propel the ever changing filmmaking process towards new directions and possibilities. As is always the case, the cost of making digital images comes down quickly. The technology will also get lighter. We will see a great future for the next generation of fantasy movies that will look unbelievably smooth and seamless.
However, the culture of the general filmgoer is to desire slicker products, and the culture of any film industry is to emulate commercial success. This means that movies that establish precedents with cutting edge technology will deliver big blows to independent filmmaking, because we cannot expect many movies that can have the luxury of being able to use, or even know how to utilize a farm of 4000 computers, like they were by the makers of Avatar.
Going back in history, Hollywood has consistently produced mega movies that have pushed the envelope in terms of budget right from the silent era, say from Griffith's 'Intolerance'. However, the key question for me, beyond the obvious parameter of budget, is how much have these big budget extravaganzas advanced the parameters of Form and content?
As one who has studied filmmaking, I have understood that that the crucial terms of Form and Content are the basic building blocks of any Art, not just movies. I think most people, if not all will agree with me that Avatar was more of an exercise in Form, with not much done in terms of Content. Well, sometimes we do have to ask where our dear good Content has gone; a lot of it seems to have got lost in the trash bins of the writers and directors homes; and Production offices.
Cameron's earlier movie 'Titanic', worked better for me, because of its stronger content, and perfect synthesis with its inconspicuous form. I remember it had a caption, "Bigger is better," which seems to be a mantra that has many takers, and has proven to be true time and again, but mostly again, not for the Content.
Well, in this mad rush for breaking the Form barrier every time, one can't help but think what the next big thing is. Perhaps it would be to generate for the movies a world consisting of the same expressive human like characters, but entirely on computers, totally avoiding actors, green screens or sets. I guess that would be the 1 billion dollar movie!
Learn more about this author, Doniv Stark.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley