Why Avatar?
Over the past couple of days, James Cameron’s blue-skinned epic fantasy Avatar has reached what most people believed was a rather fortuitous milestone. In only the past 48 hours, Avatar ($1.857 billion)has surpassed the gross box-office revenue of the previous biggest seller, Titanic ($1.843 billion)(another James Cameron directed picture). But do the numbers really add up? Currently a couple of million dollars ahead of Titanic, with more revenue still to come, there are a couple of things we all need to be aware of when taking the most financially successful movie of all-time to task.
Speaking personally, I had been waiting for Avatar for years. The closely guarded secret that was Avatar lay simmering quietly for years, but still bubbling up often enough to remind us all that it was on its way.
This slow-burn policy of marketing more than four years prior to its release whetted the appetites of those that wanted to see something outstanding and visionary. Even so long before its release, enough information was released for those in the know to get a little bit more excited every couple of months.
But even with the novel snail-paced release of news on the subject, and a polar opposite of actual footage or teasers being released (Cameron himself was incredibly tight lipped and entirely reticent to be drawn on the subject of actual footage whatsoever, prior to an agreed date for a trailer release) what made Avatar the incredibly successful project?
Many have suggested (including myself on December 18th last year) that the film does not sparkle as much as the marketing would have had you believe. The ten years Cameron has spent dragging his industry to a point where the film could be made, tech-wise, may have proved to be the draw for many of the people that went to see the film, and are still going. The promise of previously unimagined visuals coupled with a monumental storyline of planetary proportions was at least half right. The film did look absolutely stunning. Marketing flimflam urged audiences to go and see the film in 3D, suggesting that the bigger the screen, the better. To that effect, in a dramatic and financially satisfying first, people flocked to 3D cinemas both here and in the States. Never before had such a massive release enjoyed the revenue drawn from higher prices that the 3D version of the film commanded. At time of writing, just under 80% of people watching the movie in the UK have seen it in 3D, with the rest of the revenue made up from 2D screenings (just under 15.5%) and the die-hards who wanted it big, shiny and in 3D on the IMAX (5.4%) If you add the 3D IMAX figures, that makes 85% of the audiences paying more to watch a film than they really had to. No mean feat for a film that may have looked jaw-droppingly beautiful but dawdled a bit too often on the scripting, pace, plot and storyline.
Neither was the film populated by box-office stars with only Sigourney Weaver (and possibly Michelle Rodriguez) commanding any kind of attention. Sam Worthington had impressed in Terminator Salvation last year, as had Zoe Saldana in Star Trek, but neither of these actors had so much as made a dent in the pulling power you would imagine required to make the biggest grossing film of all time. So we would have to assume that casting was not the prime reason for its success. With Cameron’s name behind it, it would have been unlikely that the film would even have got off the ground with the cast that ended up starring in it.
So given that the cast was not the draw and that the eye-candy probably was, this does away with the notion of audiences going to view a movie simply on who is in it. If Avatar is not an indication of such a fact, then I would struggle to think of a film more appropriate for such a comment.
Does this then mean that a burgeoning number of movie-goers are becoming more sophisticated in their outlook, no longer visiting their local multiplex purely on the draw of their favourite movie stars, regardless of the content? Well, probably not and the reason is largely due to the fact that Avatar is a marketing conundrum and as its massive profits continue to soar, it displays all of the signs of being a one-off.
Avatar’s success boils down to a very deft marketing campaign with an impossibly early lead-time, despite a very late teaser trailer, a cleverly planned release date (dominating the box office is much easier if you have no real competition) plus an overt push towards 3D from the marketing outset disguised as an event for the viewer, but really directing the user towards higher ticket prices. In short, less people have seen Avatar than have seen Titanic (at this point) but due to inflation and the added element of higher ticket prices for 3D (and even higher for IMAX, I paid nearly £25 for two seats on the opening Friday for the big, big screen experience) it would appear that the lesser of the two films (Avatar) is the more successful of the two.
Like many other films (and certainly at least one in 2009), bigger box office does not represent more value for money, or even a better picture. Why for example, did anybody spend money going to see New Moon? It made a bucketload of cash, but if we’re honest, it passed most of us by with a grateful sign when it was all over.
Avatar will no doubt go on to make even more money before it finally succumbs to the next number one film. With six weeks at number one, it is beginning to feel like it will stay there forever, but like all things, it will eventually wither. To take nothing away from Cameron, Worthington et al, Avatar is still a hell of a picture, as them that pay do the talking, after all. Not great for the soul, but still a feast for the eyes. It could be worse, it could be New Moon at the top of the box office gross. Can you even imagine how depressing that would be?
PCS Social Media
PCS Bitesize
Site Design
About Us
All Rights Reserved - Content copyright of the respective authors. Do not distribute.
