did anyone else thinkedward norton was james cameron at first or was it just me
Yup. Thank god it wasn't
did anyone else thinkedward norton was james cameron at first or was it just me
Actually, they greenlit Avatar sequels because the first film was the highest grossing film I history. And even then, they've only greenlit the entire production process of Avatar 2&3. They're waiting to see how they perform before allowing Cameron to go further than completing performance capture work on 4&5 (capture work on 4 is already done).Like I said, if interest isn't there, I agree. If it "bombs" than no one is going to want to throw good money after bad. If there is shown to be potential for the series, I could see this being a special case since some times studios are willing to continue to bet on a series they believe there is potential in, even if one film isn't particularly strong or breaks even.
Just look at all the "bombs" Warner Bros. funds because they believe in the director. Fox wants Cameron for 4 Avatar sequels before they even see how audiences respond to one Avatar sequel over 10 years after the fact. I don't think this project is necessarily bound by typical Hollywood conventional wisdom due to it being Cameron's project.
did anyone else thinkedward norton was james cameron at first or was it just me
Actually, they greenlit Avatar sequels because the first film was the highest grossing film I history. And even then, they've only greenlit the entire production process of Avatar 2&3. They're waiting to see how they perform before allowing Cameron to go further than completing performance capture work on 4&5 (capture work on 4 is already done).
It's really not the same at all.
Yes, if Alita JUST breaks even and then has a successful life on home video, a sequel might get greenlit under the right circumstances. But that's very different to what you were suggesting earlier and comparing to with the Avatar sequels.
Um, you think that maybe Cameron having an amazing box office track record has something to do with how much leeway he's given compared to Joss Whedon and Abrams? lolObviously Avatar's sequels are a different beast after being one of the highest grossing films of all time, but no one was giving Joss Whedon that sort of benefit of the doubt after the first Avengers, nor J.J. Abrams after TFA.
As a matter of fact, forget about the sequels, they gave Cameron an opportunity to make a brand new IP in Avatar for a budget of probably over $400M total. Who else is getting that kind of leeway for a movie that could be a total flop, even after Titanic, especially since Titanic also had delays and ballooning budgets?
I'm not saying that Alita is Avatar, I'm saying that Alita is Cameron, and as being Cameron's passion project, I could see him trying to move mountains to get a sequel in the way that he basically did to get Avatar made.
Going by Wikipedia,Um, you think that maybe Cameron having an amazing box office track record has something to do with how much leeway he's given compared to Joss Whedon and Abrams? lol
Before Avatar (which btw, isn't one of the highest grossing films of all time, but is far and away the highest grossing film of all time by a ridiculous amount), Cameron also had the highest grossing movie of all time with Titanic. He also had huge box office successes like T1, T2, Aliens and True Lies under his belt.
No shit Cameron would get more leeway than Whedon, who feature-wise had one bomba under his belt with Serenity and Abrams - whose, like Whedon, biggest successes came from being attached to already established properties with an in-built audience that already guarantees a certain level of success whether they're helming it or not.
Comparing what studios offer a proven blockbuster-maker director like Cameron with franchise hop-ons like Whedon is a ridiculous way of making your point.
And Avatar's budget wasn't over $400m. It was still higher than the officially reported $230m, but by all reports was closer to $300m.
Even by the likely lowballing studio estimate, they still put it at $387M total.Estimates put the cost of the film at about $280–310 million to produce and an estimated $150 million for marketing, noting that about $30 million in tax credits will lessen the financial impact on the studio and its financiers.[20][21][22] A studio spokesperson said that the budget was "$237 million, with $150 million for promotion, end of story."[4]
Firstly, why are you including the marketing budget for Avatar? Nobody ever includes the marketing budget or every tentpole would easily eclipse $300m.Going by Wikipedia,
Even by the likely lowballing studio estimate, they still put it at $387M total.
Maybe I didn't make a great point by comparing Cameron to Whedon and Abrams, but my point isn't about the Avatar sequels being greenlit at all, because obviously they are coming on the back of a successful film, but the fact that even in the way the sequels were greenlit, even in the way the first film was made, this is not the normal way that directors are able to make movies. James Cameron is a special case and he has built up that clout through a career of success, and lately through a career of incredible success, but he also has a method of making big meticulous films, on which Alita is one of, having been in development for as long as it has.
He's not a director for it, but he's a producer on the film with practically as much skin in the game and involvement as if he was still attached. I think Fox knew that to even support Alita in the first place because it's James Cameron. It's like because he's not behind the camera that people want to treat this as if it's not his film.
I included the marketing budget because it is an insane amount for any brand new IP. It's insane enough that it's over $200M, that it would get even close to $300M, but then to get another $150M at least in marketing on top of that is crazy. Not for a Star Wars film, but for a brand new movie about alien cat people.Firstly, why are you including the marketing budget for Avatar? Nobody ever includes the marketing budget or every tentpole would easily eclipse $300m.
Secondly, it's not about how much skin Cameron has in the game. It's about how much skin the studio (aka the guys actually paying for the thing) do. And so that is where the huge goddamn moon-sized gulf of difference lies between Cameron directing and producing lol. Cameron producing guarantees nothing.
What did you think of that 3D cave-diving movie he produced a few years ago? That's right, you're looking it up right now because you have nfi what I'm talking about.
I figured it was because of all the artificial cyborg people, they were all used to that kind of stuff.Me and my friend were both floored that not a SINGLE person in the whole movie commented on her freakish eyes. They completely gloss over it in what i assume is a power move from the director.
Me and my friend were both floored that not a SINGLE person in the whole movie commented on her freakish eyes. They completely gloss over it in what i assume is a power move from the director.
Ever heard of Strange Days? That's a movie Cameron wrote and produced. You think a sequel would get greenlit by a studio?I included the marketing budget because it is an insane amount for any brand new IP. It's insane enough that it's over $200M, that it would get even close to $300M, but then to get another $150M at least in marketing on top of that is crazy. Not for a Star Wars film, but for a brand new movie about alien cat people.
I don't know what you mean by the "3D cave diving movie", because I'm seeing everything from documentaries that he actually also directed to movies he "produced" but was credited as as executive producer, which is not the same as doing the production and development of the movie as a producer. To take that even further, on Alita, Cameron also wrote the screenplay so from a studio's perspective, how do they look at all that and equate that with the same hands-off involvement as being an EP on some deep sea doc?
There certainly was a lot of movie in this movie.
I think I enjoyed it? Alita was great, but her relationship with Hugo was pretty cringeworthy (and basically built on him being the only boy she knows).
Me and my friend were both floored that not a SINGLE person in the whole movie commented on her freakish eyes. They completely gloss over it in what i assume is a power move from the director.
I think it's the opposite; it makes sense to me that people in that world realize she is a cyborg and just accept it as "weird cyborg shit", but I'm floored that people watching it still get so hung up on it, despite the whole movie being filled with inhuman-looking cyborgs that look more like machines than anything organic.Me and my friend were both floored that not a SINGLE person in the whole movie commented on her freakish eyes. They completely gloss over it in what i assume is a power move from the director.
See, this was my first thought, but then I remembered what teenage boys and girls are like and how obsessive they can be. Her infatuation with him was actually really endearing, even more so because he looks like a discount store Jonas brother.
If Cameron truly cared about Alita he should have found a better director or just held off another decade and done it himself post Avatar unless he just wants to retire after that
Cameron honestly should have coaxed Del Toro to do it. Those guys adore each other and Del Toro was the one who introduced Cameron to Alita.Better directors like Nolan or Russo brothers probably don't want an anime ip since GitS didn't make it. Robert Rodriguez is a freak so Cameron can trick him into making it.
Rodriguez is a solid director, I think he did better than Nolan would with the action sequences.Better directors like Nolan or Russo brothers probably don't want an anime ip since GitS didn't make it. Robert Rodriguez is a freak so Cameron can trick him into making it.
Rodriguez is a solid director, I think he did better than Nolan would with the action sequences.
Maybe if Strange Days wasn't a bomb, broke even, had interested audiences, and was meant to have sequels based on the source material it would have. Going by your logic, it being the last original sci-fi story Cameron wrote before Avatar, that's even more reason Avatar would have never been made if anyone but Cameron was making it.Ever heard of Strange Days? That's a movie Cameron wrote and produced. You think a sequel would get greenlit by a studio?
And no, every tentpole has roughly that marketing budget. Even unknown film IPs. Mortal Engines. The Lone Ranger. John Carter.
A studio tentpole is a studio tentpole is a studio tentpole. Acting like it's surprising that the marketing budget on an UNKNOWN $200m+ tentpole is as large as the marketing for a Star Wars film makes no sense. Of course if it's unknown and it costs that much money, a studio needs to market the hell out of it.
I'm not sure why you keep fighting the obvious logic of this whole thing anyway. Cameron as a producer means jack all when it comes to a studio deciding whether or not to greenlight a sequel to a movie that has put them in the red.
If Cameron were proposing the direct said sequel himself, it might be a different conversation. But that's not what you've been talking about. And nothing you have said has shown why a studio would be willing to do otherwise with him only producing.
It should tell you something that Fox refused to greenlight Alita itself once Cameron handed the directing reigns to Rodriguez, unless the budget was slashed to $170m or below. By Rodriguez and Cameron's own admission, Cameron's version of the film would've cost twice as much. Cameron producing made then lose confidence.
Cameron offering to produce a potential sequel to a what might be a potential bomb makes even less sense for the studio to greenlight.
Maybe if Strange Days wasn't a bomb, broke even, had interested audiences, and was meant to have sequels based on the source material it would have. Going by your logic, it being the last original sci-fi story Cameron wrote before Avatar, that's even more reason Avatar would have never been made if anyone but Cameron was making it.
"Unknown" IPs all based on known source material, unlike the completely original IP Avatar. $150M is still on the high end of marketing, and if any wholly original creations, even movies based on existing IPs that they are cautious of their money making potential will be met with more conservative marketing budgets. Not to mention that Avatar's big selling point of 3D was still not thought to be a selling point for a film at that point, definitely not to the point of helping it to break world records.
I'm not fighting the "obvious" logic that you insist that Cameron's name only matters as a director and not a producer. That kind of logic maybe matters to the mass audience but in the studio system, that's where a person's reputation has way more clout as not just a director but as a producer as well, especially when you look at other directors who are able to throw their clout behind productions to make the movies they want to make like Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson. Would Mortal Engines even get made if it wasn't for Jackson backing it?
Not to mention Cameron is also teaming with Jon Landau as producers on Alita, who previously produced both Titanic and Avatar with Cameron. The fact that Alita even got $170M (which is not a small amount) for an ANIME ADAPTATION (which the closest films to even be on the same scale were, I believe Speed Racer at $120M and Ghost in the Shell at $110M, which both bombed) with a director who usually works on films with a fraction of that budget and more flops than hits, outside of Sin City and half the Spy Kids movies, it's a minor miracle that it got made at that budget at all.
How are we "changing the conversation"?Spielberg and Jackson have gotten movies greenlit as producers, yes. Just like Cameron (and Landau, yes) has with Alita. Again, this is not the conversation we're having. The conversation we're having is whether any one of them - Spielberg, Jackson or Cameron or fucking anybody could get a sequel to a bomb (ie: not breaking even) greenlit by staying in a purely producing role. And again, the obvious answer is a resounding no.
Avatar is not on the high end of marketing compared to literally any other tentpole in the same budget range. I'm also not sure why you're harping on about the incredible gamble Avatar was and the fact that nobody but Cameron could have gotten that budget. This is obvious for reasons that we have already talked about - but mainly because Cameron was the motherfucking director of Avatar, not simply the producer. Why are you going into the history of Avatar's unlikely ability to be made under anybody but Cameron when that is a completely different conversation that everybody already knows and agrees with?
You changing the circumstances of Strange Days bombing by saying 'maybe if it DIDN'T bomb, if it broke even! etc!' is again, changing the conversation. Nobody is arguing that a Battle Angel sequel is impossible if Alita breaks even. What we are arguing, is whether a sequel would get greenlit if the first film doesn't break even, purely because Cameron (as a producer) wants one.
This is the initial ridiculous claim you proposed and what we've been talking about the entire time. Stop changing the conversation.
To which I even said to youIf there is no interest, then I agree with you, but if it breaks even, I see Cameron throwing his weight behind giving it another chance.
Sounds like you lost the plot and are trying to put that on me.Like I said, if interest isn't there, I agree. If it "bombs" than no one is going to want to throw good money after bad. If there is shown to be potential for the series, I could see this being a special case since some times studios are willing to continue to bet on a series they believe there is potential in, even if one film isn't particularly strong or breaks even.
How are we "changing the conversation"?
This is the the "conversation" that you say I'm changing, where TheVoid made this response to me
To which I even said to you
Sounds like you lost the plot and are trying to put that on me.
If there is shown to be potential for the series, I could see this being a special case since some times studios are willing to continue to bet on a series they believe there is potential in, even if one film isn't particularly strong.
Just look at all the "bombs" Warner Bros. funds because they believe in the director.
Fair enough. When I was saying a film "isn't particularly strong" I wasn't referring to a bomb or using the phrase as a euphemism for a bomb, but a movie that maybe just missed breaking even or that could even extend to a very modest success; not weak but modest in strength at best, which is how I thought of breaking even. Some may essentially see breaking even as a failure, but I was pointing out that while it can sometimes be interpreted in the industry that way, I was saying that if there was shown to be interest (at least in breaking even), that maybe Cameron can tilt the scales to give the franchise another shot because sometimes that's all a movie needs is someone on that level to champion it.Well then I apologize. The underlined combination muddled my understanding of what you were trying to say:
And whilst there is precedence after a long lull after a bomb with Blade Runner receiving a sequel from WB three decades later, the underlined is highly unlikely so soon thereafter.