Wrong, if we only go by (WORLDWIDE!!!) box office a lot of movies lose money or barely pass the break even point (POTC3, Star Trek, GI Joe, X3, Batman Begins etc). That's what i'm saying. I'm not ignoring international numbers, you seem to ignore ancillary revenue streams, though.

Going by you, Star Trek's $385m doesn't cut it (PB + marketing est. $300m).

You won't find anyone more pro-AVATAR than me. I'm geeked about it, I went to Avatar Day, I debate about it in box-office forums ... but at the same time, I still think (at this point) it's bound by the laws of conventional mega-blockbusters, rather than the rarified air of TITANIC and TDK. That could totally change; if we start seeing crazy sell-outs and stuff then perhaps it moves to that upper level.

Right now we're seeing the effects of a large-scale, effective, but by no means unique marketing program. What gives it the possibility of a huge breakout is that Cameron (and Spielberg and Jackson) are probably the three directors right now who can deliver a mega-VFX showcase with crazy action that also combines strong story with strong emotions.

But remember, in 2005 Peter Jackson was coming off a triumph similar to Cameron's TITANIC (albeit spread over 3 years), he was adapting a familiar story that everyone knew (in terms of the broad strokes), he was delivering cutting-edge VFX.... and the movie, while it still made $500m+ WW, performed more like a typical blockbuster than his genre-busting LOTR films.

That could happen here. I don't think it will, but it could. It's quite possible.

It will all depend on the WOM. The marketing and the buzz isn't stellar enough to give the film a stellar opening. But if it enjoys great WOM - which is well possible - it might have enough stamina to crack 500 million. But the WOM needs to be *exceptionally* strong.

If Avatar has good WOM and it makes 200+ million domestically and 550+ million worldwide, I'll call it a success even with the production and marketing costs. Those numbers would bring in a small profit after all is said and done, and it would be enough to start a franchise, which is what the studio really wants, as they have said.

The logic and reasoning convinced me of 250 million...a cent more is questionable at the moment.

What makes TDK rarified air by the way?
Obviously this was all discussed last year but in retrospect TDK was no different from any other sequel. Sure, you could argue it was better than BB (unlike ROTF was to Transformers and DMC was to COTBP, though I think both were better than the first, but that's just me) but BB didn't reach the heights and WOM that both Transformers and COTBP did. This was brought up many a time but I really think now that the biggest point of all was Ledger. Some people claimed that had he not died TDK would've still made as much but now that doesn't seem very likely at all. The thing is, Ledger wasn't exactly a Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt either, he wasn't well known so why would anyone much care about his passing enough to see TDK?
I think it mostly lies with the media, they are basically the biggest supporters/enemies a film can have. Ledger was hyped up beyond belief by the media, his passing, the best Joker, Oscar performance etc which heightened people's awareness of the movie. So either than the returning BB fans, those who caught it on DVD, Batman fans in general it was the media's hyped up movie of the year that people would miss out if they didn't see Ledger and his last performance. Of course the movie was great so the WOM spreading from a huge OW helped the film out. But, I think the most important point is that if the media hadn't hyped it up enough, the OW would've been smaller thus the amount of people spreading the WOM would be smaller and the overall gross smaller too. This is even more evident when looking at OS box office where the US media has little to no influence either than parts of Europe. Most people didn't know who Ledger was and it showed. The breakdown between DOM/OS still favored domestic gross which is interesting considering blockbusters with good WOM normally outpace domestic gross. (COTBP had a 53.3% and DMC a 60.3% and of course, I'm talking about blockbusters that appeal worldwide not to action centric-Asia i.e. Transformers. Shrek is another example)

Having said all that, what Avatar needs to do is have the media on its side not as the 'Most expensive blockbuster ever made' but 'The must-see movie of the year/decade' since talking about budgets doesn't really help or make anyone really care, contrary to what the OP was saying that it might help. The media needs to emphasize the 'revolutionary' but not get expectations to out of control/misleading i.e. Paranormal Activity's 'scariest movie ever BS' since misleading will always backfire. The trailers had negative reactions only because Cameron had said it would be the gamechanger or something to that effect, that it was better than anything and yet this year we had Star Trek, ROTF, 2012 among movies that had better first trailers and visual effects. Emphasizing the director of 'Titanic' also helps I would think and that should really be the main focus, bring back memories of Titanic and people just might forgive the 'blue aliens' and turn up. Titanic, after all, was a different kind of beast. I wasn't around then so I wouldn't know how the media was like but WOM was probably the main factor since it kept increasing and an unheard of 1.2B overseas that has never been matched.

And now I can't remember what I was actually talking about and I have work so I'll let anyone comment/rebutt.

TITANIC was declared D.O.A. before it opened and people and the industry said it will never turn a profit with a $200m budget...

EDIT: ... and it didn't help the buzz that the planned July 1997 release was postponed to December 1997...

Hmmm Titanic may not of passed $500M then with a July release.

I think there were several reasons. Ledger's death is one, although I don't think it was the primary driving force. TDK had a large, pre-existing fanbase that had been totally energized by BB (in much the same way that POTC drove DMC). The fanbase came out in force and the film had enough quality to sustain really good WOM and the ensuing buzz brought in people who might not've seen it otherwise.



Yeah, I think you're mostly right. TITANIC had lousy buzz in the media up until the screenings. Then when the reviews hit they were mostly very positive, but they weren't even emphasizing the "you've got to see this in theaters" aspect. But WOM was insane... and insane in pretty much every foreign territory.

AVATAR, right now, is in pretty good shape to become something special (we just don't know if it will). Like TITANIC, it's had bad buzz because of its budget and a desire to portray the project as filled with hubris (whether true or not). The buzz is starting to turn good as more and more footage is revealed... we'll see, once the press/guild screenings start (probably around the end of November/beginning of December) whether the early critical buzz is stellar or not. If it is, then it's one step closer to being a big success -- and it's all up to the audiences and WOM.

I don't think AVATAR can realistically approach TITANIC levels because it's inherently a bit limiting simply due to genre and, well, giant computer-generated blue people. But it could have better legs than other blockbusters and the higher prices from 3-D and IMAX tickets will help it (a lot).

So -- while I can see it turning into a huge huge hit -- I don't think we can necessarily EXPECT that to be the case.

Titanic has the best possible scenario.

It had advance buzz for over a year and was in the headlines constantly. Yet it was all BAD buzz. Overrunning the budget. Most expensive film ever. Cameron hissy fits. The film would be a major bomb, release date changes (was meant to come out on July 4th against MIB) etc.

But in the month before its release, the buzz did a 180 turn. Reviews were glowing. First time effects and quality melded together seamlessly. It was all good from there. Most box office experts worth their salt could see a $200-$250m gross with more upside overseas. The OW reflected that too - with an impressive $28m (against a Bond film to boot) but just shy of the previous weeks record breaker Scream 2.

And then it happened.... lightening in a bottle. The sort of thing that happens extremely rarely that it cant be predicted. Hence why Avatar has a momentous challenge if it were to get anywhere near Titanic's un-adjusted gross.

It began about 4 months too late, everything since has been average. Compared to Kong, its still significantly behind, as that had far more TV Spots and product endorsements saturating the market.

-Avatar Day was at best a disappointment for the studio, outside of the fact it was several months too late.
-I've yet to see any of those endorsements anywhere, and I watch solely primetime tv. The TV Campaign just isnt there yet. Sherlock Holmes is, but Avatar is missing.

Unless it picks up soon that MTV thing will be much like the one it did for Superman Returns...not watched.

You're back.

Relating to your first few paragraphs about online negative hype, I don't think that is in any way going to hurt the movie. As much as anyone would like to believe, the Internet is inherently like a few soldiers pretending to be an army. The number of people dissatisfied with the trailer really amounts to very few since mostly the same people are commenting on each site. Also the article writers are some of the most biased and most fanboyish in nature thus anything they say should be taken with a huge, boulder-size grain of salt. Something like ComingSoon just states plainly whereas places like Ain't It Cool News and most other sites add their own opinions. See: Snakes on a Plane fiasco.

Whilst this doesn't give any strength to goodwill for Avatar, it certainly doesn't hurt or take anything away from it. Like always, we'll know when it releases, since only then will the paying consumer see the product and form an opinion on it. The rest of the speculation remains that, speculation. I'm hoping Avatar will do well but Fox really needs to get effective marketing done instead of just throwing things hoping they'll stick. Like I've mentioned a million times, the posters are some of the worst a blockbuster has ever received and sure aren't doing the movie any favours.

Excel. Do you not watch football?

Because I see 2-3 Avatar spots during EVERY GAME. Do you know how many viewers that reaches? Anywhere between 10-25 mil.

I watched every game yesterday and saw a whopping 1 tv spot to 4 for Sherlock. Avatars spot got awkward reception from my boys; they thought it was a disney movie.

Just because you think it looks like crap, doesn't mean you have to lie.

"Yo! Excel! This tv spot looks like a disney movie"

Those words were never uttered by anyone you know. And you're white, stop acting black.

Oh, and I watched every game yesterday and saw 1 Sherlock spot and 10 Avatar spots.

More like
Excel: "That movie is supposed to be really good"
Boy 1: "Really?"
Excel: "Yeah, its James Cameron-titanic, terminator, yo know"
Boy 2: "Yeah but it looks weird. Its a disney movie right?"
Excel: "wah?"
Boy 1: "Yeah, theyre going to back the old animation right?"
Excel:

You're a fucking clown.

To even bring up the idea that you have more than one friend is preposterous!

Chip, I don't know you very well, but do you have some kind of rage problem?

No.

He's just a troll.

No. I just call people out on their idiocy.

So do TV Spots for Tidy Bowl but that doesn't mean anyone cares about it..

If they didn't care, Tidy Bowl would be out of business.

Tidy Bowl's a proven product.. AVATAR isn't and again, no one cares... Hmmmm, something tells me the AVATAR/Cameron worshippers are really gong to take this hard when this movie proves to be an EPIC FAIL....