Avatar Expanded Edition in Theaters, August

[Kanastrous]

Most people feel that films, and, indeed, most entertainment are motivated by artistic purposes, or at least should be.

I'm sure that 'most people' are free to view the purpose and nature of films however they choose. So what? What relevance does that feeling have to a studio's right to do as they please with the works that they financed, created, and own?

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.

Well, in order for it to be a betrayal of trust we need to define exactly what 'most people' were trusting the studio to do. I'm going to guess that maybe you mean that the audience is trusting that any re-release of a given film will be different in a particular degree from the initial release version. Well, in this case Fox is advertising not only how much the change represents in terms of run time (about nine minutes) but also the outline of the additional content (more battle footage, more on Na'vi...uh, naughtyness, more back story regarding Grace etc) and putting up a new trailer displaying some of the new material.

So where is the 'betrayal of trust?' You're being told pretty much exactly what to expect, so you have pretty much all of the information that you need in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not you wish to see the re-release.

Or maybe the 'trust' is that the initial release cut would be the only cut of the film, for ever and ever, amen. Since revised edits of films are released constantly to video, and since revised edits have been re-released in the past, there's no reason for anyone to expect that the 2009 cut was the final version and therefore no violation of trust since no one ever said that it would be, anyway.

As for 'money-grabbing' - if you feel like buying a ticket, buy one. If you don't, don't. No one is 'grabbing' your money; they are offering you a chance to spend it on a product which they hope will attract your interest. If you choose not to, there's no penalty, no pressure, no reproach, no imaginable consequences of any kind at all in your life.

Or maybe you feel that a business holding a property with the potential to earn them further $$$ in addition to its first run should just sit on it and pass up the opportunity out of some sense of...I don't know. Asceticism? A distaste for filthy lucre? A feeling that it's nobler to ignore an entirely legitimate business opportunity, in order to...what? Feel good about themselves because people who pass up opportunities to earn money by entirely legal and righteous means are somehow 'better' than people who don't? What about the company's obligations to its shareholders (yes, I know that around here we don't care about shareholders but alas people actually responsible for managing companies don't generally get to think that way)? I don't know about your personal views on business but do you really think corporate decision-makers blow off opportunities for profit when there is no harm of any kind being done to anyone at all, by pursuing the opportunity? Why should they? To satisfy the self-righteousness of people outside their industry who don't even have any kind of stake in the matter, one way or the other?

If the nine minutes is valuable to the film, it should have been on the original DVD/Bluray.

Since we managed to arrive at an acceptable release cut without it, the new material is clearly not critical to the narrative. It does add some extra dimension, though, but the salient point is that the video release - which was contractually scheduled - came too early for full rendering of all of the new material being included. Pushing back the release date was not an option because of the contractual obligations on the participants' parts.

And in any case, no one was defrauded, ripped off, deceived or in any way at all badly done to: anyone purchasing a DVD or bluRay got precisely what they were told to expect: a digital media copy of the film in the same editorial configuration they saw it in the theater. Since it was publicized before the DVD release that there would be a theatrical re-release of a new cut, anyone who bought the initial-cut DVD had every right and opportunity to wait and see what the new cut would turn out to be.

And to anyone in that position: you liked the initial cut well enough to purchase a copy. Do you suddenly not like it anymore, simply because there is a different cut coming out? You haven't even seen the new cut. What makes you sure that you won't prefer the cut you own, that you liked well enough to purchase in the first place?

If it isn't, then it's pure paff that shouldn't be trumpeted as anything more than generic deleted scenes.

'Generic' scenes? They're not 'generic;' they're part of a specific work and fit in specific ways into that work. There's a middle ground between scenes that contribute absolutely nothing to a work, and scenes whose removal would cripple it, and that's where this material falls. There was a lot of pressure regarding the film's running time, which exhibitors thought was over-long even as it was released; this is to a degree the re-insertion of material that had to be sacrificed as part of the release process. Now that the film has done as well as it has, its director has the clout to put that material back in. Because as writer and director it's an opportunity to put it back up on the big screen in a form closer to what he had originally hoped for. There's no reason that a director should be guaranteed that opportunity, but there is zero reason he should reject it, should it present.

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.

I'm agnostic as to whether or not Fox will do well with the re-release (although I expect they'll probably do okay). But what I'm objecting to is not the validity of re-releasing a film as a business model; I'm objecting the what smells like this sense of outraged pissed-off done-wrong entitlement and moral outrage over a studio's decision to see if they can extract some additional revenue from a property that they own, and which they are re-releasing at their own expense without harming anyone at all. In part so that its writer and director can present the audience (which was in the main quite enthusiastic about the film to begin with) with an expanded version which hopefully they may enjoy a bit more. If they voluntarily and under no pressure at all choose to view it. It's as though there's a perception that there is an actual social or economic benefit to avoiding the re-release of a film whose ticket sales will if nothing else kick some useful $$$ back into the tax base.

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.

I'm not entirely following you here. A full theatrical release of an expanded version of the same feature <> cheap 'n' cheerful straight-to-video low production value sequel to an entirely separate work. How does a raft of cheapass videos undermining the Disney animation brand relate to a singular theatrical release of an expanded feature film? If your point is that Disney trying to make some extra $$$ off a property=Fox trying to make some extra $$$ off a property, you have to go a bit further and actually compare the format, qualities, and numbers of the follow-up products. Avatar with a few extra minutes' content <> Jafaar Spends an Afternoon at the Whorehouse or whatever lame video follow-ups to theatrical pictures you have in mind.

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.

Customers have a great deal more power than that. They have the power to stay home and not buy tickets. And the 'right' to bitch is predicated upon actually understanding what's going on. People who bitch about nefarious plans to screw them by pre-planning a re-release and 'tricking' them into buying copies of the original cut when there's a 'better' cut coming do not understand that no one talks re-release until seeing how the first release pans out; in November/December 2009 there was actually some degree of pessimism regarding Avatar and people were mostly hoping that it would just earn out, forget about huge sales and records broken and fanpersons in blue body paint and all the rest. People who bitch that the initial DVD release should have included the 'restored' material do not understand that much of it was not rendered in time for the DVD release, and that legal obligations between Lightstorm, Fox, and their distribution arms were damned inflexible, meaning that holding the release was not an option. And in any case the director would certainly prefer that new material be seen as part of a theatrical viewing, just as the film was primarily intended for theatrical viewing to begin with, which is his prerogative. People who bitch that 'the studio just wants to make money -' well, fucking duh. Any business making their money via legal means and legitimate products without harming anyone at all is a good business. Particularly when that business is offering a product without which anyone who disapproves can live in perfect safety and comfort and can easily avoid if they so choose.

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.

Fox listened to the long-lasting buzz surrounding Avatar and that buzz suggested to them that the audience would be receptive to the re-release. Considering the degree of test-marketing, test-viewings, re-edits, fine-tunings etc that studios pursue in the hope of nailing a given audience's tastes, I find it kind of peculiar that you think studios are disinterested in what their customers have to say. Will studios take their marching orders from consumers? Fuck, no. But they are certainly interested in trying to figure out what said customers want to pay their $$$, to see. Which makes it strange how widely studios seem to persist in missing the mark, but thankfully audience research is not my department.

The people who dislike the practice, whether they complain or not have every right to not-see whatever it is that they prefer not to see. Hopefully there will be something out there that they would like to see. If not, there's always books, chess, and maybe going outside and getting some nice fresh air and exercise.

If you feel that films are made for profit

I don't feel that commercial films are made for-profit; it's a stone fact. Even people making small independent 'art' films may hope that their film will get at least limited distribution in order to just earn back the considerable expense of making them, profit welcome should it actually happen. As for folks making films without an interest in commercial distribution, or even earning back their investment, good for them. That's as legitimate field of film making as any and serves as an invaluable incubator for talent and exploration of novel concepts and techniques.

and not for storytelling or other artistic purposes,

Why should there be a binary solution set? If you wish to make a film in certain genres to a certain degree of finish and make some money while you're at it, that doesn't mean that you have ditched any interest in telling a story or pursuing an artistic goal. That's the tension on virtually every project I've done: the director wants Shakespeare, the Cinematographer wants Ansel Adams, the Production Designer wants Rembrandt, and the producers organizing and financing the project want Mister Monopoly Moneybags. Since they all need one another to get anything done, the final product will be whatever emerges from that tug-of war. Remember that saying about seeing how sausages are made? Yeah,just like that. The dichotomy between we want to make money and we want to make something of artistic merit is entirely false. Do you really think any given producer doesn't want both the big box-office money and the little golden statue?

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.

In the specific case of the ship's layout it's in part because I'm personally a freak for technical accuracy wherever possible and in part because members of the ship's crew begged me to 'make the ship look real for a change' and having promised that I would do whatever I could, I'm not going to back off. People in my department frequently get into fights over that sort of thing. Which raises another issue: the professional team that creates a film or tv show is extremely diverse in terms of skills, personality, and philosophy. I've seen creative differences lead to actual fistfights (of course the subtext was about power but that argument itself is over creative differences).

But anyway the question again reflects the false dichotomy suggesting that it has to be about money, or about storytelling, one to the exclusion of the other.

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

Depends upon what you mean. Do I broadly, considering the total of available moviegoers or tv-watchers, care what they think? Sure I do. Do I care what any specific given person on this board thinks? It depends upon whether or not what they think is underwritten by anything worthwhile in terms of an informed argument (so far...no, not really). I'm not here as some kind of studio rep laying down the company's line; this is what I happen to think myself based upon my experience in the industry. So really you're talking about the various studios' customers, not mine in any personal sense.

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.

How do you anticipate the Avatar re-release backfiring? This is not the first time a film has had a second theatrical release, and it's not the first time a film has been theatrically released in a new cut. Since examples of re-releases and re-edits damaging studios by virtue of being re-releases or re-edits would provide really good support to your argument, I'd like to see them.

I guess the re-release could backfire in terms of widespread disinterest and no one coming to theaters. But that's no worse that any other film failing to perform up to expectations, and that's something the studios have clearly incorporated into their business model with relatively little discomfort.

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.

No one suggested that you ought to be grateful. I'm suggesting that the outrage is misplaced and foolish. No one 'deigned' to give you anything; the studio is putting the product out there in the hopes that you will deign to give them some of your hard-earned $$$, to watch it. And you haven't actually shown how it is in any way a bad idea for the studio to do it (save that it annoys some people who by their own account are going to exercise their freedom to avoid the product; since it's tough to imagine anything easier than not-going-to-a-movie it's unclear how these people find themselves to have been harmed, or even what rational cause they have to take offense). Likewise you have not explained how it is in any way abusive for a studio to offer audiences a revised theatrical re-release, considering that (a) the re-release was publicized long ago and no one was deceived regarding plans for its release, (b) the contents of the re-release have been described sufficiently well that any person may make in informed choice as to whether or not the re-cut interests them and (c) we all, every last one of us, have full freedom to decline purchasing a ticket.

Do you have any experience with customer service or interaction at all?

I've worked a few retail jobs, in which the only enjoyable, non-soul-deadening part was interacting with customers. I have not worked specifically in customer service a la 1-800-type call-center help-type stuff.

[Kanastrous]

I want to make something very clear to you Kanastrous. I didn't steal your precious movie that you worked on.

It's hardly 'my movie.' It's Jim Cameron's movie. And 20th Century Fox's. As you observed, I just worked on it.

I watched it in the threaters twice. Once in 2d, once in 3d (god 3d sucks ass).

Okay, you paid for your tickets and each time you got the value out of your tickets by sitting in the theater and watching the movie. You don't think that buying two tickets for two screenings entitles you to anything more or less than those two screenings, do you?

Sorry to hear the 3D didn't work for you. Weirdly enough it worked very well for me despite previous 3D movies being just awful for me, to watch.

I then purchased it on Blu-Ray.

Which entitles you to have and own your copy on the bluRay (and actually I agree with you that acquiring an additional copy of something that you already legitimately own on commercial media is fair and should not be problematic).

So don't get all bent out of shape acting like I am threatening your existence.

I'm bent out of shape about your avowed intention to steal yourself access to the new release of the film, which is not merely a backup copy of media that you already own. Doubtless you will argue that the additional nine minutes' content is insufficient to qualify it as a 'different' film. Well, if it wasn't different, you wouldn't be interested in acquiring it, would you? You already have a legitimate copy, so if you steal access to the new cut it's obviously in the interest of obtaining new material.

I have paid for the movie three times and spent $40 on it.

And that $40 entitles you to the two tickets and the contents of the purchased bluRay, and nothing else besides. You've already had as much value for that $40 as you're entitled to. Unless on the backs of the tickets or in the bluRay packaging it states that your $40 entitles you to more. Scan that part of the tickets or label and shoot it my way and we'll have no more argument between us on the subject.

I am considering a Copyright Violation, but I damned well didn't steal it.

Copyright Violation DOES NOT equal theft. You already have my money. I simply have no desire to give it to you again because some company pulled a dick move. Just because it is their legal right does not make it morally right.

Well, to begin with *I* don't have your money. You never gave it to me. And you yourself indicated that in exchange for your money you received two theater tickets - which is all your $$$ entitled you to, when you bought them - and a bluRay, which is all that your $$$ entitled you to, when you bought *that*. There's no implied or explicit open-ended commitment saying that Alyeska gets all he wants of every cut or release into the future because he bought two tickets and a bluRay, receipt of which means that he is owed nothing further.

As for the 'dick move' business I guess the fiction that you were in some way cheated is so cemented in your head that anything I point out to you regarding publicity etc won't have any more impact than the efforts of all the other people in this thread who have tried to point out to you that you were never lied to, never mis-led, never cheated, and that your failure to notice that future re-release was bring publicized is unfortunate but absolutely no one else's responsibility.

[Kanastrous]

All arguments aside, Kanastrous has convinced me not to purchase a ticket. I see where he's coming from, I don't have a problem with his arguments. However, the revelation that I'd be buying 9 minutes of new content distributed in a way where I probably wouldn't even be able to tell where exactly I was seeing new material for the cost of taking myself and my fiance to the movies? Hah, no way.

This is that sort of exercise of freedom I'm talking about. See? No hard feelings, no moral outrage, no butt-hurted-ness, just...doesn't sound worthwhile, so no, won't be buying a ticket. I believe that this is how adults behave. I sincerely hope that if you choose to see some other movie, you enjoy the heck out of it and go home agreeing that it was a better choice for you to have made.

That's what I think is bugging people here, Kanastrous. It takes alot of balls to call 9 minutes of footage that was left on the cutting room floor being stuck back in a movie "An Expanded Version". Doesn't sound like its "expanding" anything, from your description.

I've already forgotten if 'expanded version' is what Fox is calling it, or if I coughed up the phrase myself. And if by my description - which was more or less exactly what you'll find on Fox's site, so effectively it's the studio's description too - you think 'expanded' or whatever is the wrong word - well, the very studio whose use of the word you dislike told you just what they meant by it! So no one can even claim an attempt at deception: really it's fluster over a word choice: Doesn't look very 'expanded' to me! Well, what do you know: the studio using the word (if they did) gave you all the information you needed to decide whether or not you find the word appropriate, or misleading!

Like I said, without checking the site I don't recall whether I introduced the 'E' word myself, or not. So you may have to blame that on me, rather than on the studio.

While slight edits can dramatically effect the tone of a scene (witness "Troy" or "Kingdom of Heaven", where the Director's Cut is a radically different animal), that doesn't sound like what happened here.

So...on the one hand 'slight edits' can make a dramatic difference...but without having seen them or how they fit into the film you've basically concluded that in Avatar's case, they won't. Okay, that's your call to make. I don't see what underwrites that call, or what leads you to any degree of actual certainty about it but it's definitely your call, to make.

What's NEW that they are adding? They should probably advertise that, because calling it an "expanded" edition implies you are getting something new added that dramatically affects the viewing of the movie.

Well, they *are* advertising it; I certainly would not post anything on a public board that the studio had not themselves already decided to publicize (legal departments can get major vicious about that sort of thing and it's tough to anticipate what exceedingly minor thing will set them off). There's a trailer including new shots, there's text descriptions of some of the new content. I think really it's tough to fault them on that particular point.

For my part I certainly missed some of the material that I read on the page that didn't show up come screening time. It didn't cripple or wreck the story but the reintroduced stuff does flesh out the characters and backstory a bit more, so if one liked the first cut it's possible that one would enjoy the additional content as a bit more of the same, adding a little depth, showing off some more kewl stuff.

For my own part I am rarely interested in re-release and/or directors' cuts. This one interested me because I happened to know about some of the 'new' material from pre-production and was curious to see how it fit in. But by the same token I'm not prone to fulminating shit-fits of self-righteous affronted blather when a re-release or revised edit of something comes out, either.* I just shrug, and go do something that doesn't involve buying a ticket.

If they are just putting back bits of scenes and scenes that were cut for the sake of time, they can't possibly actually be adding anything important back in. The title is dishonest, it implies that the viewer is getting something that they won't.

Like I said, the 'expanded' business might have just been my own word choice. In fact I stand by it because it's technically accurate but I also understand your discomfort with it based upon your post.

And, from an editorial point of view I disagree. You pointed out yourself that relatively minor alterations to Kingdom of Heaven and Troy yielded noticeable positive results. I'm not trying to talk you into anything but I don't see any reason to conclude that Avatar could not possibly benefit from similar minor alterations.

*EDIT* Fox is calling it a Special Edition. So if there are objections to 'expanded' throw 'em at me, because for whatever reason I thought 'expanded -' I guess because the running time is after all expanded - was a good word to use.




*I save the fulminating shit-fits of self-righteous affronted blather for other topics.

[Gil Hamilton]

So...on the one hand 'slight edits' can make a dramatic difference...but without having seen them or how they fit into the film you've basically concluded that in Avatar's case, they won't. Okay, that's your call to make. I don't see what underwrites that call, or what leads you to any degree of actual certainty about it but it's definitely your call, to make.

You did. You were the one that said that the material being released with this was stuff that was left on the editting room floor for no other reason other time concerns. You were the one that said that it padded some on Na'vi anatomy, which was removed entirely for potential squick reasons and other stuff that was removed because it made the pacing of the scene clunky. All of it, as you said, was completely not critical to the movie. That doesn't sound like they are putting back anything of real meat to the movie.

Well, they *are* advertising it; I certainly would not post anything on a public board that the studio had not themselves already decided to publicize (legal departments can get major vicious about that sort of thing and it's tough to anticipate what exceedingly minor thing will set them off). There's a trailer including new shots, there's text descriptions of some of the new content. I think really it's tough to fault them on that particular point.

I've seen nothing at all except information coming from you as to the changes they made to this version. I thought it was going to be something more like the LotR Extended editions. They certainly aren't advertising that this edition is only a minor alteration from the original.

For my part I certainly missed some of the material that I read on the page that didn't show up come screening time. It didn't cripple or wreck the story but the reintroduced stuff does flesh out the characters and backstory a bit more, so if one liked the first cut it's possible that one would enjoy the additional content as a bit more of the same, adding a little depth, showing off some more kewl stuff.

The problem is is that seems like a fairly trivial change. I certainly didn't agree with all the changes that George Lucas made to his special editions (Jabba the Hutt Musical Number? Really?), but at least we got some serious overhauls in places (the space battles were MUCH improved).

For my own part I am rarely interested in re-release and/or directors' cuts. This one interested me because I happened to know about some of the 'new' material from pre-production and was curious to see how it fit in. But by the same token I'm not prone to fulminating shit-fits of self-righteous affronted blather when a re-release or revised edit of something comes out, either.* I just shrug, and go do something that doesn't involve buying a ticket.

I don't have shit fits either and I'm not going to spend money on it. But at the same time, it's worth saying that adding nine minutes of editing room scrap and calling it a special edition is kind of baloney.

Like I said, the 'expanded' business might have just been my own word choice. In fact I stand by it because it's technically accurate but I also understand your discomfort with it based upon your post.

That strikes me like textbook manufactures who release new editions of textbooks that have identical content but new graphics and scrambled just enough of the problems to call it a new edition. Technically, it IS a new edition, but it's the same textbook.

And, from an editorial point of view I disagree. You pointed out yourself that relatively minor alterations to Kingdom of Heaven and Troy yielded noticeable positive results. I'm not trying to talk you into anything but I don't see any reason to conclude that Avatar could not possibly benefit from similar minor alterations.

The changes to Troy and Kingdom of Heaven managed to completely change the tone of some scenes. YOU said that the changes to Avatar were completely not critical and were excised for the sake of screen time (unlike the changes to Troy, for instance, which were altered for other reasons).

*EDIT* Fox is calling it a Special Edition. So if there are objections to 'expanded' throw 'em at me, because for whatever reason I thought 'expanded -' I guess because the running time is after all expanded - was a good word to use.

Special seems particularly dishonest, since by your own description, it added nothing really that significant to the movie. It's not like StarWars where they updated the graphics on the starfighters and cleaned up many of the clunky special effects. Yeah, adding more critters to Tatooine didn't add that much, but it made those scenes alot cooler looking. What is so special about Avatar in this edition over the original?

[Kanastrous]

I think you underestimate how painful it is to pull out material for 'time concerns.' The fact that you can remove something without entirely wrecking the film does not mean that the omitted material can't have a noticeable effect. Make-it-into-a-new-movie-type noticeable? No, I don't think so. Make it into a slightly different path through the story, perspective on the characters, more viscerally-impactful (are those real words?) understanding of the film's world-type noticeable? Yes, I thought so.

In any case, you don't plan to see it, which is fine, and I'm not up for a text-intensive blow-by-blow of what went where and had which effect upon whatever, which I hope is okay with you. I'm content to differ on the matter.

[Stofsk]

This is interesting news. If they're going to re-release Avatar I might go see it again with my nephews. I might even buy the blu-ray... oh wait, I don't have a blu-ray player.



Thanks Aly, I really needed a laugh.

[Phantasee]

I'm not gonna lie, Alyeska's complaints make it sound like Fox cheated on him with his best friend or something. Nobody is forcing him to do anything, I knew about the rerelease and I never knew anything about the movie other than that it wasn't about the last airbender like I thought it was.

And to be honest, downloading the rerelease to see the extra nine minutes? That wouldn't count as fair use, no matter what your ridiculous math says.

[aieeegrunt]

You don't like it, don't buy it or pay to see it. Vote with your wallet. Problem solved. But you can't be a nerd without the drama I guess.

[Uraniun235]

Downloading something you already own is not piracy. I have spent Forty Fucking Dollars on Avatar already. Two theater showings and the Blu-Ray (I don't even HAVE a BR player). I don't give a flying fuck what the law says. Morally I am covered. I paid my fucking dues and I want fair value in return. This isn't even nickle and dimming. Its outright tricking people to buy the fucking movie a 2nd time when they already own it. I do not download movies to avoid paying for them. I don't pirate video games because I can't afford them. I don't download TV shows to avoid cable. I pay for what I consume. But when a company tries to fuck with me after I've already paid them, I stop playing by the rules. I already paid my value into them and I am not costing them a cent.

Hey, suppose a guy went to see Wrath Of Khan twice in theaters, bought the VHS, then bought the DVD when it first came out - you think he's entitled to download a rip of the Director's Cut? I'm pretty sure the WOK director's cut has less than nine minutes of additional footage.

[Kanastrous]

Uh...just want to point out that 'Expanded Edition' was my phrase, so any problems with that are problems with *my* word choice. The studio is calling it a 'Special Edition.' Which some people may find equally objectionable, but at least object to what the studio is saying, not my choice of a phrase since I do not represent the studio...

[Knife]

You don't like it, don't buy it or pay to see it. Vote with your wallet. Problem solved. But you can't be a nerd without the drama I guess.

Pretty sure that's exactly what he's saying he's going to do, I guess the drama can come from all corners though.

[General Zod]

I'm not gonna lie, Alyeska's complaints make it sound like Fox cheated on him with his best friend or something. Nobody is forcing him to do anything, I knew about the rerelease and I never knew anything about the movie other than that it wasn't about the last airbender like I thought it was.

And to be honest, downloading the rerelease to see the extra nine minutes? That wouldn't count as fair use, no matter what your ridiculous math says.

I'm pretty sure most legal interpretations regarding "backups" preclude downloading movies off the internet considering how many people used this as a flimsy rationalization to pirate things.

[Alyeska]

Downloading something you already own is not piracy. I have spent Forty Fucking Dollars on Avatar already. Two theater showings and the Blu-Ray (I don't even HAVE a BR player). I don't give a flying fuck what the law says. Morally I am covered. I paid my fucking dues and I want fair value in return. This isn't even nickle and dimming. Its outright tricking people to buy the fucking movie a 2nd time when they already own it. I do not download movies to avoid paying for them. I don't pirate video games because I can't afford them. I don't download TV shows to avoid cable. I pay for what I consume. But when a company tries to fuck with me after I've already paid them, I stop playing by the rules. I already paid my value into them and I am not costing them a cent.

Hey, suppose a guy went to see Wrath Of Khan twice in theaters, bought the VHS, then bought the DVD when it first came out - you think he's entitled to download a rip of the Director's Cut? I'm pretty sure the WOK director's cut has less than nine minutes of additional footage.

Director cut comes out years later, yeah I'd buy it. Directors cut comes out 5 months after the initial release? No, I wouldn't. They ought to have released them at the same time.

[Kanastrous]

They ought to have released them at the same time.

Your ideas regarding what people "ought to do" does not mesh with the reality of the process. Perhaps you feel that any process not tuned to your personal preferences and convenience is an inherently bad one, but that's the reality we're stuck with.

[Sarevok]

Why not put up the extra nine minutes on youtube legally ? :p

People who already has paid a ticket price or bought the DVD should not have to pay same price once more for only nine extra minutes.

[Werrf]

Why not put up the extra nine minutes on youtube legally ? :p

Because it's their property and they chose to make money from it - why is that immoral?

People who already has paid a ticket price or bought the DVD should not have to pay same price once more for only nine extra minutes.

What do you think a fair price would be for nine minutes of footage?

[Batman]

People ROUTINELY pay ticket price for the EXACT SAME movie REPEATEDLY because they think the movie is worth it, and THEN go on to buy the DVD. If you DON'T think the extra 9 minutes are worth paying ticket price again, DON'T DO IT.
Is this an attempt to milk a franchise for all it's worth with little effort to provide extra content? Hell yes.
SO WHAT?
If nobody has a problem with watching the same movie in theaters several times, every time at ticket price, if they deem the movie worth it, what's the problem with paying ticket price for movie plus 9 extra minutes IF you want to see the new version?
Nobody's MAKING you go watch it.

[Kanastrous]

Why not put up the extra nine minutes on youtube legally ? :p

People who already has paid a ticket price or bought the DVD should not have to pay same price once more for only nine extra minutes.

Well, you're right in that they shouldn't have to pay anything, if they don't feel like it. Of course that also means that they are not entitled to see anything, either.

[Alyeska]

Hey, suppose a guy went to see Wrath Of Khan twice in theaters, bought the VHS, then bought the DVD when it first came out - you think he's entitled to download a rip of the Director's Cut? I'm pretty sure the WOK director's cut has less than nine minutes of additional footage.

You know what, your right. I am not entitled to them. And FYI, I never believed I was entitled to them. I just don't give a rats ass. But I won't download it either. My answer to their dickish move is outright boycott until it hits bargain bin prices.

[Kanastrous]

My answer to their dickish move is outright boycott until it hits bargain bin prices.

"Dickish" nonsense aside, that sounds perfectly reasonable.

[Terralthra]

Hey, suppose a guy went to see Wrath Of Khan twice in theaters, bought the VHS, then bought the DVD when it first came out - you think he's entitled to download a rip of the Director's Cut? I'm pretty sure the WOK director's cut has less than nine minutes of additional footage.

You know what, your right. I am not entitled to them. And FYI, I never believed I was entitled to them. I just don't give a rats ass. But I won't download it either. My answer to their dickish move is outright boycott until it hits bargain bin prices.

Whee, another person who thinks no one can scroll.

[Alyeska]

Whee, another person who thinks no one can scroll.

I haven't a clue what that statement is supposed to mean.

[Kanastrous]

I think that means that "And FYI, I never believed I was entitled to them" looks very strange when one scrolls back to your earlier posts on the thread.

I think.

[Terralthra]

Hey, suppose a guy went to see Wrath Of Khan twice in theaters, bought the VHS, then bought the DVD when it first came out - you think he's entitled to download a rip of the Director's Cut? I'm pretty sure the WOK director's cut has less than nine minutes of additional footage.

You know what, your right. I am not entitled to them. And FYI, I never believed I was entitled to them. I just don't give a rats ass. But I won't download it either. My answer to their dickish move is outright boycott until it hits bargain bin prices.

Downloading something you already own is not piracy. I have spent Forty Fucking Dollars on Avatar already. Two theater showings and the Blu-Ray (I don't even HAVE a BR player). I don't give a flying fuck what the law says. Morally I am covered. I paid my fucking dues and I want fair value in return. This isn't even nickle and dimming. Its outright tricking people to buy the fucking movie a 2nd time when they already own it. I do not download movies to avoid paying for them. I don't pirate video games because I can't afford them. I don't download TV shows to avoid cable. I pay for what I consume. But when a company tries to fuck with me after I've already paid them, I stop playing by the rules. I already paid my value into them and I am not costing them a cent.

Alyeska, a page ago, sure seemed to think that he was entitled to the new edition. He had already paid his dues, and since he already owns it, and thinks it's fair value for him to get the new stuff for free. Alyeska now says he never felt like he was entitled to it. I wonder which Alyeska is telling the truth.

[Phantasee]

If he didn't mind paying twice to see it in theatres before, what's his beef with paying to see it for a third time, with the addition of nine minutes of footage? What's anyone's beef with that?

If anything, this is a case of cognitive dissonance on Aly's part, where he bought something, and instead of telling himself he got a good deal, is now convinced he got ripped off.