Avatar Expanded Edition in Theaters, August

[Kanastrous]

A new trailer is out for the re-release: http://www.avatarmovie.com/

With additional footage, most of which is actually worth seeing.

[Alyeska]

Fucking greedy studios. I ain't buying the movie on Blu-Ray again. You can kiss my ass. I will download the special edition.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah, heaven forbid that a company holding a valuable property make best use of it to earn the $$$. Why, if I were a 20th Century Fox stockholder, I would be positively enraged! How dare those sonsabitches do any more business with that movie! The nerve!

Well, since downloading crap for free is so great for the studios' bottom line (people keep claiming) why would you reward them by doing them the favor of downloading it?

[Stark]

That you're seriously defending the practice of releasing movies as many times as possible simply because it makes you money is pretty hilarious. Turns out consumers aren't motivated by shareholder benefit?

[Alyeska]

Yeah, heaven forbid that a company holding a valuable property make best use of it to earn the $$$. Why, if I were a 20th Century Fox stockholder, I would be positively enraged! How dare those sonsabitches do any more business with that movie! The nerve!

Well, since downloading crap for free is so great for the studios' bottom line (people keep claiming) why would you reward them by doing them the favor of downloading it?

I saw the movie in the theaters twice and I bought the Blu-Ray/DVD combo. I have more then paid for the privilege to see this movie. Not releasing the special edition or even releasing news of it during the initial release purely to trick people into buying it on disc twice is fucking dishonest.

So no, I am not going to reward the company for being two timed fucking assholes with my money.

[Starglider]

I ain't buying the movie on Blu-Ray again.

Wasn't this announced prior to availability of the first Blu-Ray release? In which case you really can't complain. I've always thought that the early 'cinematic' releases are to sucker impatient fans into paying twice.

[PaperJack]

Yeah, heaven forbid that a company holding a valuable property make best use of it to earn the $$$. Why, if I were a 20th Century Fox stockholder, I would be positively enraged! How dare those sonsabitches do any more business with that movie! The nerve!

Well, since downloading crap for free is so great for the studios' bottom line (people keep claiming) why would you reward them by doing them the favor of downloading it?

I don't like how they prefer to rehash the same thing 5 times instead of actually doing something new (and decent).
It seems to me that it sends the message "don't bother to make actually good movies, just make something for the cash, its easier and pays off better" to the movie industry.

[Stark]

Yeah, given a rational marketplace you'd expect people to be wary of buying any first-release anything because there's a good chance there will be at least one better release.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah, heaven forbid that a company holding a valuable property make best use of it to earn the $$$. Why, if I were a 20th Century Fox stockholder, I would be positively enraged! How dare those sonsabitches do any more business with that movie! The nerve!

Well, since downloading crap for free is so great for the studios' bottom line (people keep claiming) why would you reward them by doing them the favor of downloading it?

I don't like how they prefer to rehash the same thing 5 times instead of actually doing something new (and decent).
It seems to me that it sends the message "don't bother to make actually good movies, just make something for the cash, its easier and pays off better" to the movie industry.

Paper, the entertainment business is a...business. Yes, the endless remakes and rehashes and 're-imaginings' are pure tiresomeness. The kind of hyperconservative corporate mass-mind decision-making we're saddled with means that "don't bother to make actually good movies, just make something for the cash, its easier and pays off better" is about as succinct a description of the practice as one could write...

Now, whether or not Avatar happens to be a good or a bad movie is basically a matter of individual taste. Although while its influences are obvious - and were probably never expected to be not-obvious to any literate viewer - I think the synthesis was novel.

[Rye]

I am sure the extra footage is cool. Is it worth going to the cinema for, again? No. Will probably get the blu ray when it comes out.

[Batman]

The company has every right (one might say the DUTY as they're answerable to the shareholders) to milk the franchise for all it's worth. Alyeska in turn has the right to give them the finger as the customers are NOT required to actually FALL for it.

[Vympel]

Fucking greedy studios. I ain't buying the movie on Blu-Ray again. You can kiss my ass. I will download the special edition.

I knew about this, so I didn't buy the bare-bones Blu-Ray. They really didn't make a secret of it, IIRC.

But in order to know this stuff, you have to frequent websites like www.blu-ray.com (seriously, you should never buy a blu-ray without checking this site for a review of the transfer) - so its understandable you didn't know.

[Crazedwraith]

Hmm. I may actually see this again in cinemas. If only because I didn't see it in actual 3D last time.

And yeah that this was happening is old old news as far as I recall.

[Kanastrous]

That you're seriously defending the practice of releasing movies as many times as possible simply because it makes you money is pretty hilarious.

I wouldn't say that I'm really defending the practice because it does not require any kind of defense. There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with it. Well, okay, why don't you list all the things that *are* wrong with the practice? I expect it will be interesting to read.

There seems to be this bizarre idea floating around that if one has a valuable property that can generate some revenue, one should demonstrate one's moral rectitude or something by just sitting on it and passing up a perfectly legitimate opportunity to get it out there again and let it earn some more of a return. If people aren't interested, they won't bother to go and see it again. No one's rights, freedoms, opportunities or beliefs are being infringed by a studio re-releasing a picture...

Turns out consumers aren't motivated by shareholder benefit?

What's the relevance of that? The consumer doesn't make the decision to release or re-release anything. The consumer decides whether they liked the product enough to be interested in seeing it in a theater again. If they did, they can buy a ticket if they like. If not, no one is forcing them into anything, at all. And if they did like the product well enough to see it again but don't happen to feel like buying a ticket, they can heroically strike a blow for freedom and goodness everywhere by stealing a viewing via whatever method suits them, at the vanishingly minor risk of winding up on the wrong end of an insanely overbloated lawsuit. Which would be funny, and I would laugh, but now we're getting into what entertains me...

Anyway, what leads you to the conclusion that there is not overlap between shareholders and audience? You think that people who in one way or another hold an interest in 20th Century Fox, or its subsidiaries, or a fund including their stock don't ever watch movies? You think the Australian economy does not benefit from Fox's Australian operation, which is more likely to do increased business, employ more Australian citizens, and pay more tax revenue into Australia's treasury if the company as a whole does better via purely legitimate means like re-releasing a movie?

Somebody's succeeding! Someone's making some money! Fuck Them! They're *bad* people, for doing that! And I'll cement my moral righteousness by stealing some of their product, just to *show* them!

Infantile. Well, really, calling it 'infantile' is unfair to actual infants.

[D.Turtle]

To get back on topic: How much and what kind of footage is added?

[Kanastrous]

+/- nine minutes. What I like is that it restores one particular scene (a very brief one - actually, a part on one particular scene) that gets into some fun elements of Na'vi physiology...

There's also some material that expands a bit on the back story concerning Grace and the Na'vi and how things started to go really wrong, a follow-up to the attack on Home Tree plus some more action and battle stuff.

It's not like it becomes a different story, or anything. It's just a bit more fleshed-out. People who enjoyed it will still enjoy it, and people who didn't are not going to like it any better.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah, heaven forbid that a company holding a valuable property make best use of it to earn the $$$. Why, if I were a 20th Century Fox stockholder, I would be positively enraged! How dare those sonsabitches do any more business with that movie! The nerve!

Well, since downloading crap for free is so great for the studios' bottom line (people keep claiming) why would you reward them by doing them the favor of downloading it?

I saw the movie in the theaters twice and I bought the Blu-Ray/DVD combo. I have more then paid for the privilege to see this movie. Not releasing the special edition or even releasing news of it during the initial release purely to trick people into buying it on disc twice is fucking dishonest.

So no, I am not going to reward the company for being two timed fucking assholes with my money.

You make it sound as though the re-release is some kind of vital medical asset without which you will fucking die. As though you're owed something. As though your free choice to see the movie twice in theaters grants you some sort of stake and entitlement to special consideration, or means anything more than the fact that you purchased a couple of tickets. You already got your value-for-money, when you saw the movie using the tickets (and it was apparently a reasonable value to you, or I doubt you would have paid twice.)

And the idea that there's 'trickery' involved is pathetic, and laughable. Have you failed to notice the frequency with which large-scale films are re-released in various 'special edition' formats either to-theater, to-DVD, or both? Thought that could never ever happen with the 'top grossing movie of all time?' Really, you couldn't anticipate that happening? How's that for not paying fucking attention? Did some studio rep promise you that there would never, ever be an expanded edition that you would have the option to see or buy, if you chose to? And the talk of the 'special edition' began while the first release was still in theaters, so if you missed that save your vitriol for yourself, because that's where it's due. You obviously enjoyed the original theatrical cut well enough to buy a copy, so what has the re-release got to do with your enjoyment of the version you already own?

Yeah, Fox are the assholes, because they didn't build their schedule around your own personal convenience. It's that despicable fucking infantilism, again. Waaaah! WAAAAAAH!

Somebody needs to change your diapers before you break with some kind of fucking rash.

[Kanastrous]

The company has every right (one might say the DUTY as they're answerable to the shareholders) to milk the franchise for all it's worth. Alyeska in turn has the right to give them the finger as the customers are NOT required to actually FALL for it.

Yes. Exactly. Although I don't think that right extends to self-righteous whinging about it, or stealing access to content in which he's interested but prefers not to pay for, as though it's a heroic and righteous act.

[Eldy]

I saw the movie in the theaters twice and I bought the Blu-Ray/DVD combo. I have more then paid for the privilege to see this movie. Not releasing the special edition or even releasing news of it during the initial release purely to trick people into buying it on disc twice is fucking dishonest.

Most of this was already addressed, but I'd like to point out that news of the re-release has been circulating since March of this year. It's not the studio's fault if people weren't paying attention; they weren't exactly keeping it a secret.

[Stravo]

Am I reading this right? We're supposed to pay $16-17 (price of 3Dadmission in NYC) to see 9 minutes of additional footage? Say what you want about the LOTR extended editions - they actually were worth a separate price of admission. Same for the Kingdom of Heaven director's cut and to some extent the Troy special edition because the additional footage changed those movies tremendously and in some cases like the ROTK Extended edition were far superior than the original release. Hell I don't watch the cinematic releases of LOTR anymore. But this. This is bullshit.

[Werrf]

I saw the movie in the theaters twice and I bought the Blu-Ray/DVD combo. I have more then paid for the privilege to see this movie. Not releasing the special edition or even releasing news of it during the initial release purely to trick people into buying it on disc twice is fucking dishonest.

Most of this was already addressed, but I'd like to point out that news of the re-release has been circulating since March of this year. It's not the studio's fault if people weren't paying attention; they weren't exactly keeping it a secret.

This. I would find it somewhat reprehensible if the studios were planning ahead of time to have multiple releases and then hyping each one as the only chance to see it in the cinema/on DVD/on Blu-ray/whatever, because that would indeed be dishonest. But this? This is a non-issue. People who want to see it in the cinema can see it in the cinema, even if for any reason *coughkidscough* they didn't see it before. People who want to see it again can see it again. People who don't...don't have to. I honestly don't see a problem here.

[Uraniun235]

I didn't actually see Avatar in the theater, so I might actually check out the extended edition if it gets shown out here.

[Kanastrous]

Am I reading this right? We're supposed to pay $16-17 (price of 3Dadmission in NYC) to see 9 minutes of additional footage?

Not if you don't feel like it, no. What the fuck is it with all the outrage? Don't find it appealing? Don't spend your fucking money. Does it *get* any simpler, than that?

[Bakustra]

That you're seriously defending the practice of releasing movies as many times as possible simply because it makes you money is pretty hilarious.

I wouldn't say that I'm really defending the practice because it does not require any kind of defense. There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with it. Well, okay, why don't you list all the things that *are* wrong with the practice? I expect it will be interesting to read.

There seems to be this bizarre idea floating around that if one has a valuable property that can generate some revenue, one should demonstrate one's moral rectitude or something by just sitting on it and passing up a perfectly legitimate opportunity to get it out there again and let it earn some more of a return. If people aren't interested, they won't bother to go and see it again. No one's rights, freedoms, opportunities or beliefs are being infringed by a studio re-releasing a picture...

Most people feel that films, and, indeed, most entertainment are motivated by artistic purposes, or at least should be. So rereleasing a film with minor additions in a brief period of time after its initial becomes seen as a betrayal of trust and naked money-grabbing. If the nine minutes is valuable to the film, it should have been on the original DVD/Bluray. If it isn't, then it's pure paff that shouldn't be trumpeted as anything more than generic deleted scenes. Imagine, say, if the Beatles had released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band without the hidden track after A Day in the Life... and seven months later released the historical album, at the same price. Alternatively, imagine that they cut out Good Morning Good Morning instead, for a "valuable to the film" analogy. In both cases, the albums would both have sold well, but now imagine that every band started doing this. Suddenly, the advantage disappears as people start waiting for inevitable rereleases or refuse to buy the slightly-changed rereleases, excepting obsessive music nerds. The same thing happened to Disney with their horde of DTV sequels to older movies. They started selling less and less as time went on and people noticed that they sucked. As a result, they have been barred from rerelease for a long time, and Disney's animation departments are in serious trouble.

While companies do have the right to overexpose brands and run them into the ground, customers also have the right to bitch about the film industry adopting one of the more noxious practices of the comic-book industry. Companies should also maybe listen to customers if they value them... but I suppose that you're assured that the people who complain are the only ones who disagree with this practice.

If you feel that films are made for profit and not for storytelling or other artistic purposes, I must question why you ask questions about the layout of ships for the films you're involved in. If the purpose is to make money, why pay that much attention to detail? After all, the audience that doesn't notice is larger than the one which does.

Turns out consumers aren't motivated by shareholder benefit?

What's the relevance of that? The consumer doesn't make the decision to release or re-release anything. The consumer decides whether they liked the product enough to be interested in seeing it in a theater again. If they did, they can buy a ticket if they like. If not, no one is forcing them into anything, at all. And if they did like the product well enough to see it again but don't happen to feel like buying a ticket, they can heroically strike a blow for freedom and goodness everywhere by stealing a viewing via whatever method suits them, at the vanishingly minor risk of winding up on the wrong end of an insanely overbloated lawsuit. Which would be funny, and I would laugh, but now we're getting into what entertains me...

Anyway, what leads you to the conclusion that there is not overlap between shareholders and audience? You think that people who in one way or another hold an interest in 20th Century Fox, or its subsidiaries, or a fund including their stock don't ever watch movies? You think the Australian economy does not benefit from Fox's Australian operation, which is more likely to do increased business, employ more Australian citizens, and pay more tax revenue into Australia's treasury if the company as a whole does better via purely legitimate means like re-releasing a movie?

Somebody's succeeding! Someone's making some money! Fuck Them! They're *bad* people, for doing that! And I'll cement my moral righteousness by stealing some of their product, just to *show* them!

Infantile. Well, really, calling it 'infantile' is unfair to actual infants.

Ha ha! It's funny because you don't care about what your customers think!

The reason that I object is not "fuck you, imma communist sir", but rather more along the lines of an intervention on a friend doing something stupid. Shortsighted attempts to increase revenue along these lines tend to peter out or even backfire, and since I love film as a medium, I do not like that prospect.

Meanwhile, using "it increases economic prosperity" is hollow because you could use that for any abusive but legal business practice, and in the long run, I doubt that it will. Of course, now I'm confused, because you seem to be arguing on terms of inevitability rather than morality. But no doubt you will clarify.

Am I reading this right? We're supposed to pay $16-17 (price of 3Dadmission in NYC) to see 9 minutes of additional footage?

Not if you don't feel like it, no. What the fuck is it with all the outrage? Don't find it appealing? Don't spend your fucking money. Does it *get* any simpler, than that?

Yes, let's not complain about company practices. We should be grateful to corporations for deigning to give us this rerelease, and never be convinced that it's a bad idea and somewhat abusive of its customers in any way. Do you have any experience with customer service or interaction at all?

[Uraniun235]

Fucking greedy studios. I ain't buying the movie on Blu-Ray again. You can kiss my ass. I will download the special edition.

This is kind of a funny reversal from the guy who banned discussion of the 2009 Star Trek film before the official release because you didn't want to "encourage piracy".