Can a movie studio make money on a film based on an original and unfamiliar story, with no Hollywood superstars, a vanishing DVD market and a price tag approaching $500 million?I mean, I understand the rationale behind it. Avatar cost an incredible amount of money to make, and I do get that it's a gamble. But I find the question depressing for two reasons. First, that production costs for Avatar include considerable investments in new film technology. I'd venture a guess that it's much easier to gain support for research and development investments like this when there's a specific project--and a specific director--involved. I'd hate to think that if Avatar fails, it might deter both big fish like Cameron, and smaller ones from trying to innovate and drive movie technology further. While I certainly believe that movies can rely far too heavily on special effects, the overall drive to expand the kind of images we can put on screen is a worthy purpose.
And I really hate the idea that "an original and unfamiliar story" and "with no Hollywood superstars" are just assumed to be death sentences. I don't entirely mind the idea that certain actors are box office draws. In a just world, Meryl Streep would be the highest-grossing actress on the planet. But are we really at a point where "an original and unfamiliar story" is an assumed liability? I use the phrase "shrunken times" a lot, which is a total ripoff from Michael Chabon's Summerland, about the decline of heroes in a world here myths are dying. But it's so often apt for the arts. And if we're done with story now, these are shrunken times indeed.