Comments on: James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Pricetag Approaching $500 million?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:21:49 +0000

Give a man some success & he strives to do better things.
Give a man too much success & his head will be in his own asshole!

By: Benny

Benny — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:52:41 +0000

this movie will suck ass! seriously, who the HELL wants to see an action movie with creepy, blue, badly designed alien things that look like some 60s sci-fi film shit? cameron, you frickin stupid to spend 15+ years and $300 mil+ developing a movie that everyone knows will suck ass

By: Greg Delaney

Greg Delaney — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:32:07 +0000

judging by the trailers, it looks like Avatar is going to include best of all worlds; it's the movie that Lucas wishes he could have made

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:22:15 +0000

I so want this film to fail and by the price tag it probably will

By: SK

SK — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:26:38 +0000

Maybe Cameron's got another huge Celine Dion hit waiting for us again.
Avatar still looks at least as enjoyable as Wolverine, Star Trek, etc and given the long layoff of Tentpole action/CGI movies, it's going to bring in huge audiences.

I mean Transformers made $400 million so putting Avatar at at least $300 million domestic is probably a decent over/under point for any betting.

And Fox has turned Ice Age into a money printing machine. The 3rd one in the franchise grossed $878 million worldwide on a $90 budget. It's got to be a decent insight into the prospects of Avatar.

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:02:51 +0000

Fully agreed. I think Avatar looks silly, thought the 20 minutes of footage was silly and I doubt I'm going to enjoy it much, but I'm not convinced audiences are going to go out in droves, and at the same time, I would never count Cameron and out and as a betting man, who makes bets on any film, I would certainly sit out any wagers on this one.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:42:24 +0000

Monty you make a great point, but. . . no one knew who the hell Leonardo DiCaprio was. Gwyneth Paltrow was supposed to be Rose, so when word got out that Kate Winslet took the role, everyone was "who?" The idea of Titanic being this huuuuuuge success thanks to repeat viewings by teenage girls wasn't even thought of in the months proceeding its release.

At the time, the big question was: who is going to watch a 3.5 hr movie about a sinking cruise ship where everyone knows whats going to happen at the end? From that perspective, Cameron surprised everybody.

All I'm saying is do not count Cameron out. He's been doubted before and proved everyone wrong.

By: Monty

Monty — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:19:01 +0000

Yes but... again...
Titanic was a super smash because there are more teenage girls in the world than we care to count...
And they all want to go see a pretty boy fall in love an see an epic love story...
If nothing, the dreadful titanic proved just that...

So what is Cameron trying to prove this time around...?
That there are more geeks in the world than we care to count...?
Hhhmhmhmhmhmmmmm...

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:04:10 +0000

Yeah, i'm not counting it out either. Agreed, about the Titanic talk. There was months and months of pre-release bad buzz because of the budget and everyone assumed it was going to be a trainwreck and then Cameron did an about face it it all and won an Oscar.

At the time, it was kind of shocking how he came back. Everyone was against him and there were no blogs back then. Just the traditional media was super skeptical and there nothing but negative reports from the difficult shoot.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:00:58 +0000

I'm no Avatard, but I seem to remember that there was much worse talk about Titanic just before its release. Many were predicting it to be worse than Ishtar and questioning the costs overrun and whether a 3+ hour movie would sell. All I'm saying is that Cameron has been here before (worse than this) and proved everyone wrong.

PS: No way am I declaring Titanic a great movie. Just referencing its success by revenue.

By: Monty

Monty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:28:54 +0000

It´s gonna be hard this time bringing in the 15 year old girls searching for a good love story with the furry animals on main stage...
And this doesn´t look like any sort of actioner for the male audience either...
Is everything resting in the arms of the name "James Cameron"...?
Or do they actually think this will be such an immersive and unbelievable experience that people will keep going back to see it...?

I think 20th Century Fox is screwed on this one...
Studios have bankrupted for way less...
Let´s just cross our fingers and hope thath "Avatar" will bomb and that will give the execs an idea that maybe smaller, BETTER, fucking, movies that make any freakin sense are in order...

But that´s hoping to much i guess.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:10:35 +0000

I was wondering if the budget is $300 million how can it be considered a financial success? Wouldn't everybody in America have to see it to make it a success?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:47:28 +0000

I'm just wondering how quickly a copy of Avatar will show up on Youtube. You don't even have to search for torrents any more.