|
| ||||
AVATAR - WHY ALL THE HYPE?
|
||||
|
"Avatar has more in common with Titanic than just its director . . ." |
Box office observers remarked that the movie did so well because of teenaged girls – a previously overlooked demographic in a Hollywood where teenaged boys are the Holy Grail when it comes to expensive special effects summer blockbusters – who rewatched the movie endlessly. DiCaprio’s boyish non-threatening teen throb looks, healthy wallops of Mills & Boons sentiment and Celine Dion’s warbling on the theme song proved to be an irresistible combination when it came to this particular demographic.
Avatar’s poster art work may market the film as by “the director of Titanic,” but the movie is in fact aimed at altogether different demographic group, namely the male audiences who made Cameron’s previous science fiction action efforts such huge influential hits, namely The Terminator (1984), Aliens (1986) and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). These iconic hits – a Holy Trilogy of sorts - aside, the 55-year-old director’s output has been spottier. His underappreciated underwater 1989 epic The Abyss failed to set the box office alight and his 1994 spy-actioner True Lies may have done well at the box office, but that was largely thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger who was at the height of his popularity right then. It simply wasn’t the sort of innovative effort die-hard fans expected of the bearded one.
Most
fans in this demographic probably cringed at the schmaltz in Titanic
even though they still went to see the film out of loyalty. For them the
question is, will Cameron make another huge, innovative science fiction
film like he did back in 1991 with
T2? For Fox, the studio
behind Avatar the question is much simpler: will Avatar make
back its money? Splurging millions of dollars on the director of the most
popular movie of all time may seem like no-brainer, but things simply
aren’t that simple. Avatar may have a lot in common with Titanic,
but its success isn’t guaranteed at all . . .
Avatar has more in common with Titanic
than just its director. For starters, Avatar is hugely expensive
even though it actually cost less than Titanic. Luckily inflation
didn’t get to Cameron: Avatar actually cost $10 million less
than Titanic. But $190 million is still a hefty amount of pocket
change even in spendthrift Hollywood.
Dark Knight cost $185 million to make and
G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra cost $170
million. However unlike these big budget blockbusters Avatar has
its work cut out for it when it comes to attracting audiences. It comes
with no marketable pre-branding: it isn’t based on a hugely popular and
recognizable comic book character (Batman,
Spider-man) nor is it based on a popular toy
range (G.I. Joe,
Transformers). It isn’t based on a
best-seller or popular videogame, doesn’t feature a big star nor is a
remake of a well-known movie or television series.
Next: "For Hollywood marketing folks Avatar is a nightmare!"
Click
here to receive our free weekly e-mail newsletter.
Sci-Fi Movie Page |
Movie Reviews | DVD Reviews
| What's New? |
Search |
Contact Us |
Discussion Board
| Download Scripts |
Upcoming Movies |
Clips & Trailers
Copyright © 1997-forward James O'Ehley/The Sci-Fi Movie Page (unless where indicated otherwise).
|
|