Judged by apparent success of "Avatar", James Cameron is king of the world, says Business Week. I was listening to Business Week's Behind the Week's Cover podcast (I'd been a fan while John Byrne was hosting). But you have to ponder deeper into their verbiage.
I've not seen "Avatar", and only heard very few things about it (people claim it's worth seeing). Regardless I'll try to be as objective as I can.
Apparently, a lot of people like this film. Business Week says that it has brought $1.6B in revenue, sure to surpass another Cameron's classic and highest revenue'd film of all-time, "Titanic". It seems surprising to people that this is happening. The film must be THAT good in order for this to happen. I think otherwise.
Not saying it's bad movie. It doesn't have to be that great. Unquestionably it is the beneficiary of "winner takes all" effect that is so common occurring today. You know, people go to see this movie just because a lot of other people have seen it. I wonder if there is an estimate on that number. If they rank movies based on that number, Avatar would probably come on top.
Business Week reminds us that the money spent on this movie, the time it took, and the filming technology used was unprecedented for such a movie. This is what's making this movie stand out, and thus deserving of $1.6B revenue. Wrong. They fail to realize that there had always been a film in history that was "unprecedented". "Star Wars" was "unprecedented". "Titanic" was "unprecedented". "Spider Man" was "unprecedented". There was nothing unique about this film being "unprecedented".
It got worse when they brought up the 3D movie arguments. They say 3D movie experience will be a big hit, thanks to technological advances in professional film making. It will be the "differentiator" from current home theaters. But don't they know that there will be advances in technologies in consumer electronic? And often happens at a faster pace? Didn't we already have consumer P&S cameras that can capture 3D pictures (and perhaps movies) announced at CES this year? It's still a risky bet on 3D for movie studios/private equities. The fact that it is based on a new technology does not guarantee a safe investment.
Nothing new here. Let's move on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment