Cde. wrote:I have a feeling that James Cameron is actually the director of the first $350 million film.
If that's the case, then by the old rule-of-thumb AVATAR will have to make $875 million (or nearly a billion) in order just to break even. No stars, no pre-sold property, only a science fiction adventure story in 3-D. There's gotta be something
about this movie to draw in DARK KNIGHT- and TRANSFORMERS 2-size crowds. Especially if it's over 3 hours, as has been reported. Just because a few geeks in Amsterdam saw 24 min. of visuals and went nuts doesn't mean the movie's any good
. Can it sustain itself for over 3 hours? Will the story be enough to grip audiences for all that time? Are there characters the audience will care enough about to stick with it? Are the visuals that dazzling
that audiences will truly feel they're collectively entering a new world for the first time? And is that a big enough dazzle to get all my bootleg/download-loving, theater-hating young co-workers (all of whom were film/TV/media/communications majors) into theaters for it?
Cameron has a mixed track record here. Certainly, he achieved the desired results with ALIENS, T2 and TITANIC. But two of them were sequels to popular originals and TITANIC was based on a famous disaster and featured an actor whom millions of women around the world wanted to see in a high-profile romantic drama. What does AVATAR have going for it that will make it as "must-see" to the same audiences as the earlier films? At this point, I simply don't know. Will they convince me and the millions who haven't yet even heard of the film between now and the film's release date?
I'm skeptical, but we can only wait and see.