Avatar Expanded Edition in Theaters, August

[Alyeska]

I damned well know I am not entitled to them. Doesn't change the fact that I just don't really give a shit. I never said I was entitled to them. I never said I felt entitled to them. I have a level of desire to download them as a "Fuck you" attitude to the studio. Not the same thing.

[adam_grif]

I'm pretty sure we have a "don't flounder the law" rule on this board, no? Regardless, a few minnutes of extra content isn't going to change my mind when I don't think it's worth buying in the first place.

[Sarevok]

On the other hand if Avatar Expanded Edition actually was like Kingdom of Heavens directors cut there would be a solid case for buying. Kingdom of Heaven became a different and much better movie in the director cut. Now if Avatar is a fine film but there is lots of story problems that could be fixed with extra few minutes of exposition. The background and causes of Pandora mining mission is very unreasonable in the movie. If the expanded edition fixed that then it would be very much worth buying.

[Thanas]

Alright Kanastrous - you want to claim there is no trust between customers and studios. You are right that there is no legal obligation. But when a company has put out a movie, customers of that movie are expecting that there is not going to be a new version released in theaters. Unless said version was better but could not be released at the time because the studio screwed the director over or something. 9 minutes of additional footage for a special edition is freaking laughable, especially if they do not change the narrative. You may think differently, fine, but you are not exactly objective here.

I can only tell you what I think of a company that decides to sell me something and then pumps out a special edition of that stuff 5 minutes later without making it widespread knowledge that they will do so. To make an analogy - when I go to buy a car from my trusted car dealer, let us say a 2000 BMW in 2002, the car dealer will tell me that a facelift is coming in about two months and that maybe I should wait. Or he'll give me a discount. Either way, he is acting from more information than I do but does not use this to screw me over.

With Avatar, I have a bit of the opposite reaction. I think that I should not be expected to check the internet if they make a new special edition. Nor should I be expected to think they'll pump out anything other than a directors cut in the future. Now, when you see them releasing a movie with trivial ease nearly immediately after the original one was released....yeah, this sounds like they immediately had the plan to do that.

Thus my decision not to give them my business again. Unless it is the usual 3 movies for 6 bucks deal you see in every store around here.

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.

If the effects are really so noticeable, surely it would not hurt to give one or two examples? Use spoiler boxes if you like.


******************

On another issue, still waiting for you to back up your claim of the board condoning piracy.

[SylasGaunt]

Quite frankly I can't see why it's such a big deal for some people. I can see a bit of annoyance but with the way some people are reacting you'd think that the studio had done this just to spite them personally.

I just can't work up that level of vitriol considering that in this case the studio was actually rather less dickish than most of them tend to be since they actually announced both this theatrical rerelease and thus the fact that there would inevitably be a new edition of the home video release BEFORE the initial home video release. Most of the time studios don't even bother with that, just releasing the DVD and then announcing the new version months or years later.

Now of course they're doing this for the money, Cameron basically said in an interview that the reason they're rereleasing because it was still selling out IMAX shows right up until they had to switch out the movie due to contractual obligations but they did release a warning that they were doing it.

[Kanastrous]

I wonder which Alyeska is telling the truth.

The one without the goatee. Never trust the one with the goatee.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I believe Mike has admitted to using CD cracks for games he already purchased, actually a believe there are a number of members on here the have admitted to using CD cracks for softaware they own. Mind you that's more circumventing dumbass intrusive DRM that only hassles legitimate users, not exactly what most people tend to think of as piracy, but it probably counts in legal terms (studip as our copyright system is). Certainly the software publishers want that to be considered the same as posting the files on a filesharing service or torrent site. Regardless, I too would like to see his source for those claims.

[Thanas]

I believe Mike has admitted to using CD cracks for games he already purchased, actually a believe there are a number of members on here the have admitted to using CD cracks for softaware they own. Mind you that's more circumventing dumbass intrusive DRM that only hassles legitimate users, not exactly what most people tend to think of as piracy, but it probably counts in legal terms (studip as our copyright system is). Certainly the software publishers want that to be considered the same as posting the files on a filesharing service or torrent site. Regardless, I too would like to see his source for those claims.

THis does not even rate as piracy in most parts of the worlds. Heck, by law you are entitled to make a private copy of software you own over here - and you may even lend that copy to your friends if you want to.

[Kanastrous]

Alright Kanastrous - you want to claim there is no trust between customers and studios.

Please quote me where I wrote that.

On the subject of trust, I replied to Bakustra that where the re-release is concerned there is no breach of any trust because there is no violation of any promise made to anyone, there was no pre-conceived plan to deceive or cheat anybody, the re-release was being publicly discussed before the video release and the advertising campaign for the re-release is built around the number of minutes added to the cut and an outline of the content, meaning that no one is being bait-and-switched with a false idea of the new content.

If no promise was violated, no 'tricks' pulled in the re-release plans, there was no secrecy concerning the re-release, no secrecy surrounding the new content, then what trust was broken? What exactly were you 'trusting' the studio to avoid doing?

In any case, observing that there is no discernable breach of trust in this re-release business <> stating that there is no trust, in the first place, at all. I don't know how you derived the one from the other.

You are right that there is no legal obligation.

Well, sure. I think that was always something upon which we agreed.

But when a company has put out a movie, customers of that movie are expecting that there is not going to be a new version released in theaters.

I don't know what would underwrite such an expectation. Sure, it's unusual for a film to end its theatrical run and then return to theaters - except in the case of unusually successful films like Avatar. And there is nothing unusual about the release of a director's cut a la Troy etcetera. So why is to the release of a director's cut in theaters problematic?

Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, The Abyss, Alien, the Star Wars films and other features have been re-released to theaters in revised and expanded edits, as well. Should people who enjoyed those films on their first releases be pissed that they had opportunity to see them in theaters again in cuts preferred by the directors? Why? What harm has been done, to these viewers? They bought a ticket, they saw a movie, which is what one expects in exchange for buying a ticket. In fact, most theater tickets even have fine print right on them delineating what your money has bought you, when your purchased 'em. I doubt you find language promising that no future theatrical release will ever take place, anywhere on that ticket.

This is a film that's meant to be seen on a big theater screen; why should a director who wants to present what he believes is an improved cut of the film satisfy himself with distributing it to small screens when he has the opportunity to show it in its intended format? Releasing it in this form in the initial theatrical run was not an option. Releasing this cut as the initial DVD was not an option. It's as though it makes you feel bad that the director having to compromise in the initial release, and now being able to show a less-compromised cut is somehow a calculated effort to hurt you. It's paranoid territory. I don't get it.

And again, because it apparently can't be repeated frequently enough to sink in: this is a piece of entertainment media that everybody has the freedom to view if they want to and ignore if they don't. Not one penny of yours has been spent on it: the studio is financing this themselves. If you don't find that a ticket is worth your money - don't buy one. It's like any other product that you're not interested in; don't want? Don't purchase! And your life goes on, unimpeded.

Unless said version was better but could not be released at the time because the studio screwed the director over or something.

...and this is where I begin to just fucking despair because I am clearly writing all this stuff out and you just aren't reading it.*

One last time: The studio and distributors agreed in 2009 that Jim's preferred edit of the film was too long to satisfy their commercial requirements. This is not a cut with a bunch of extraneous 'generic' pointless waste in it, this was the version that the writer-director wanted to present to audiences. But there are compromises made at every level of production and distribution and in order to meet the studio and theaters' running-time concerns some scenes were abbreviated or removed. Having read these scenes on the page it was disappointing to miss them in the release cut; their omission did not wreck the narrative but you don't have to wreck it in order to miss some of the additional depth that had been there.

Now, my own definition - which is a professional one - of the studio screwed the director over or something pretty well encompasses the above narrative. To which I will testify, having been there and having seen the same basic scenario play itself out in the course of bringing other features to screen.

Now the same director has a major hit property on his hands - an advantage he lacked in 2009 when negotiating with the studio - and therefore has the ability to un-screw the matter and present what he had hoped audiences would see, first time around. Which for some reason outrages you.

9 minutes of additional footage for a special edition is freaking laughable, especially if they do not change the narrative. You may think differently, fine, but you are not exactly objective here.

I think that the use of phrases like 'special edition' are only problematic when they are intentionally misleading. Now, I'm pretty much agnostic as to whether or not 'special edition' is a good choice (I'm sure 'director's cut' would be less controversial) but it is painfully obvious that there is no intention to mislead anybody because at the same time the studio is promoting the whole 'special edition' thing they are advertising that the new material amounts to nine minutes. Fine, you look at nine minutes and say 'not very special,' which is of course entirely your right. But to come off all butt hurt like you were deceived is plain stupid. Who deceived you? The people who used the words 'special edition' and then immediately told you just exactly what they meant they were offering, by it?

And on what grounds do you challenge my objectivity? I am not a compensated spokesperson for any of the individuals or entities involved. Heck, I am not presently even employed by any entity involved with Avatar; I'm presently happy to be employed by their competition. As it happens I will acknowledge that I enjoyed the film, but so what? We are not talking about any viewer's subjective experience of the film, or even whether or not it was a "good" film, we are talking about whether or not anyone was fooled, defrauded, mis-led, or cheated. And it's not necessary to resort to subjective or colored arguments, there; either you were deliberately mis-led or you weren't. And I'm offering arguments as to why you weren't.

I can only tell you what I think of a company that decides to sell me something and then pumps out a special edition of that stuff 5 minutes later without making it widespread knowledge that they will do so.

...and apparently anybody else on this thread who has repeatedly pointed out the advance publicity surrounding the re-release can also despair, because you haven't bothered to read their posts, either.

To start with, let's drop the 'five minutes' nonsense; it's been months. Avatar was released on December 16, 2009 and stayed in fairly widespread theatrical exhibition until about April 2010. That's about five months in theatrical release, and that's not counting the second- and third-tier exhibitors who kept running it even longer. So in your mind 'five minutes' = five months. Really? Do you need a kick to bring you back up to this layer, with the rest of us?

Or perhaps you mean relative to the DVD release. Well, plans to put a new cut in theaters were made public before the DVD went to market. If the studio announcing it to the press isn't sufficiently 'widespread' for you, then you are an unreasonably difficult person to satisfy. There are people posting in this thread who weren't even interested in the movie and didn't see it in the theater first time around who knew about the re-release. This suggests to me that if you missed the news it is not due to some failing in the campaign that the rest of us seem to have registered, just fine. The same web sites and magazines that inform everybody about whatever media news they're after carried the news regarding the re-release. What more do you want? An ad on the Goodyear blimp? Personalized mailings? Jim Cameron in a sandwich board at the corner of Sunset and Highland?

To make an analogy - when I go to buy a car from my trusted car dealer, let us say a 2000 BMW in 2002, the car dealer will tell me that a facelift is coming in about two months and that maybe I should wait. Or he'll give me a discount. Either way, he is acting from more information than I do but does not use this to screw me over.

The analogy is faulty because (a) when offering tickets to see Avatar in its initial release neither the studio nor the director knew that there would be opportunity to put a revised cut in theaters. Jim is a writer-director-producer, not a gods-damned Guild Steersman: it was not known at the time that a re-release was in the future. So there's no congruity with your car dealer who in fact does have advance knowledge of what's coming in the next couple of months. The analogy is faulty because (b) the information that there would be a new theatrical cut WAS made available before the DVD sales began. The fact that you and Alyeska missed that news is unfortunate but the fact that so many other people have chimed in to say that they *did* hear about it suggests that this is a matter of people missing some news, not a studio misleading - much less lying - to anybody.

With Avatar, I have a bit of the opposite reaction. I think that I should not be expected to check the internet if they make a new special edition.

How did all these other people learn about it? How is it that it's widespread public knowledge for so many people and you keep insisting that somehow the information just wasn't available? Guess what, having worked on the project the first official sort of word that I heard about the new cut was via some commercial channel or other; prior to that I'd just been hearing rumblings and chatter. That is to say, I heard about it neither form the internet nor from any particular professional connection: the information was out there and getting pissy because you missed it just makes you look childish.

Nor should I be expected to think they'll pump out anything other than a directors cut in the future.

So...do you mean to say that if they were using the phrase Director's Cut rather than Special Edition you wouldn't be all upset about it? Really? They tell you up-front precisely what to expect in terms of the run-time and basic nature of the new material, everything you need to form an accurate picture of what they're offering...and your toga's up your crack over the use of the words 'Director's Cut' versus 'Special Edition?' Please, Thanas, tell me you're not that childish.

Now, when you see them releasing a movie with trivial ease nearly immediately after the original one was released....yeah, this sounds like they immediately had the plan to do that.

I wonder what your degree of participation in the actual work was, that you are qualified to dismiss it as 'trivial ease.'

And again if you find that eight months is 'nearly immediately,' we need to tip you into a tub of water or something and get you up here on real-time with the rest of us.

I'm tired of endlessly repetitively explaining the time-line, the decision-making constraints, and the process that all deflate conspiracy theories and evil 'immediate plans' to do whatever. Repeatedly ignoring the information I'm presenting to you is really more ill-mannered than just coming out and calling me a liar if that's what you think, so if that's what you think at least do me the basic courtesy of plainly saying so and being done with it.

I think you underestimate how painful it is to pull out material for 'time concerns.' <snip>

If the effects are really so noticeable, surely it would not hurt to give one or two examples? Use spoiler boxes if you like.

I'm not going to publicize anything more than what is on the studio's site. Spoiler boxes don't protect me from Fox Legal and in any case no part of my argument actually rests upon the specifics of the new content: this whole argument has been over truth-in-advertising and audience expectations.

Thanas, I don't know if this has been clear from this or any other series of posts we've exchanged but your general intellectual sophistication and breadth of education has long been apparent to me and is worthy of respect. I'm really puzzled at your reaction to a simple re-cut re-release of a commercial motion picture, and apparent reluctance to acknowledge any of the constraints upon the people releasing it and insistence upon painting everything as a malicious conspiracy aimed at the audience.

******************

On another issue, still waiting for you to back up your claim of the board condoning piracy.

I haven't succeeded in tracking down a particular thread that's bright in my memory. Best clue is that it's the source of the bit about the guy who writes the episode of 'Full House' in Shep's sig.


* and this is the last post wherein I'm just going to repeat myself. I someone brings up a new angle I guess I'll address it but writing effectively the same post again and again is just a waste of time.

[Kanastrous]

Oh, and I would like to point out that whatever my personal response to the Nine Minutes might be, it doesn't matter.

If I were to tell you that "Avatar is a great film, best ever, nothing can beat it" and your response is..."Nope, it sucked," well, so what? Your experience of the film as suckage is as valid as my experience of the film as Great Stuff (part of the reason that I avoid the usual it's-good-no-it-sucked-neener-neener sort of film discussions one sees on the web).

Some number of people - of their own free will - will choose to go see the new cut and will raptly enthuse that every second of newly-released footage is a shining diamond of cinematic brilliance and the new film is just *ever* so much better. Some number of people are certain to find that the revised cut is inferior, and that the pacing was spoiled, and the rhythm ruined, and etc, etc, etc. Some number will find a nine-minute-longer film, and that will be about it.

Now, do I hope that people will enjoy the new edit? Sure I do, why wouldn't I hope that an audience would respond well to a work in whose creation I participated? But even my own personal response to a film that I have worked on is not privileged: if I tell you that I found some revision satisfying if not earth-shaking, why would you seize upon that as though it were some kind of factual statement rather than a subjective one that you would recognizde as such in virtually any other context?

[Thanas]

On the subject of trust, I replied to Bakustra that where the re-release is concerned there is no breach of any trust because there is no violation of any promise made to anyone, there was no pre-conceived plan to deceive or cheat anybody, the re-release was being publicly discussed before the video release and the advertising campaign for the re-release is built around the number of minutes added to the cut and an outline of the content, meaning that no one is being bait-and-switched with a false idea of the new content.

If no promise was violated, no 'tricks' pulled in the re-release plans, there was no secrecy concerning the re-release, no secrecy surrounding the new content, then what trust was broken? What exactly were you 'trusting' the studio to avoid doing?

In any case, observing that there is no discernable breach of trust in this re-release business <> stating that there is no trust, in the first place, at all. I don't know how you derived the one from the other.

I think my beef is mainly that this is way too soon for a rerelease. This seems like an overtly greedy move on their part. Note that I am not alone in that opinion - this was the overwhelming reaction among my friends as well. It is not as if they announced the plans to rerelease immediately with the movie being planned.

So to me - and many of my friends - this reads like the studio pulled a fast one on us especially with the DVD sales. It is simply the reaction to believing the DVD release would be the definite for a while, only to find out that the fans of the movie who bought the DVD in good faith and when it was released because they wanted to show support to the movie now finding out that they logically should have waited for a few months because then they would have gotten more for their money.

And it is not as if the Amazon page spelled out that the movie was being rereleased in five months. So that is the reason people are pissed (including me) - because those who purchased the DVD immediately now feel like they got screwed. And all the talk about "you might prefer the old one" is not going to change that.

Heck, if I could, I would exchange the DVD for the new version. But I can't, so either shell out the money again or don't own it. So yeah, I am a tad bitter about that.

I don't know what would underwrite such an expectation. Sure, it's unusual for a film to end its theatrical run and then return to theaters - except in the case of unusually successful films like Avatar. And there is nothing unusual about the release of a director's cut a la Troy etcetera. So why is to the release of a director's cut in theaters problematic?

Is it even a Director's cut?

Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, The Abyss, Alien, the Star Wars films and other features have been re-released to theaters in revised and expanded edits, as well. Should people who enjoyed those films on their first releases be pissed that they had opportunity to see them in theaters again in cuts preferred by the directors? Why? What harm has been done, to these viewers? They bought a ticket, they saw a movie, which is what one expects in exchange for buying a ticket.

They did not get rereleases five months after the original run. Five, ten years down the line, maybe. But not five months.

So...do you mean to say that if they were using the phrase Director's Cut rather than Special Edition you wouldn't be all upset about it? Really? They tell you up-front precisely what to expect in terms of the run-time and basic nature of the new material, everything you need to form an accurate picture of what they're offering...and your toga's up your crack over the use of the words 'Director's Cut' versus 'Special Edition?' Please, Thanas, tell me you're not that childish.

To be honest, nowhere before this was it made clear that Cameron was involved in that. It sounded pretty much like the studio deciding to add a few more minutes to the movie, not Cameron.

Thanas, I don't know if this has been clear from this or any other series of posts we've exchanged but your general intellectual sophistication and breadth of education has long been apparent to me and is worthy of respect. I'm really puzzled at your reaction to a simple re-cut re-release of a commercial motion picture, and apparent reluctance to acknowledge any of the constraints upon the people releasing it and insistence upon painting everything as a malicious conspiracy aimed at the audience.

I honestly do not know how to react to this. If you think it makes me look childish to expect something more of a warning than the internet that the studio is putting out another version in five months - which honestly, was not reported on in German mass media, nor advertised on the shopping pages etc - than yes, maybe I am childish in this regards.

On another issue, still waiting for you to back up your claim of the board condoning piracy.

I haven't succeeded in tracking down a particular thread that's bright in my memory. Best clue is that it's the source of the bit about the guy who writes the episode of 'Full House' in Shep's sig.


* and this is the last post wherein I'm just going to repeat myself. I someone brings up a new angle I guess I'll address it but writing effectively the same post again and again is just a waste of time.

Found the thread, so you can now prove were the board administration condoned piracy.

[Kanastrous]

I think my beef is mainly that this is way too soon for a rerelease. This seems like an overtly greedy move on their part. Note that I am not alone in that opinion - this was the overwhelming reaction among my friends as well. It is not as if they announced the plans to rerelease immediately with the movie being planned.

So to me - and many of my friends - this reads like the studio pulled a fast one on us especially with the DVD sales. It is simply the reaction to believing the DVD release would be the definite for a while, only to find out that the fans of the movie who bought the DVD in good faith and when it was released because they wanted to show support to the movie now finding out that they logically should have waited for a few months because then they would have gotten more for their money.

It's tough to address the 'greed' angle because there's no question that ultimately this is a business-driven decision; were there no reasonable expectations of doing some good box-office numbers it's likely that a theatrical reissue would have come somewhere further down the road if ever. But I'm left again questioning whether it's a realistic or indeed reasonable expectation that a company set up for the express purpose of turning a profit ignore a legal and ethical opportunity to extract further revenue from one of their properties via a re-edit and/or re-release.

And it seems to me that you see the ethical issue in terms of a certain sort of implied transaction between fans and the studio based upon then fans' acquisition of the DVDs - the purchase was more than adding a title to the buyers' libraries and was also an expression of support or loyalty to the film itself.

I have to admit that this is a pretty novel concept, for me. From my perspective buying a DVD doesn't really mean anything beyond wanting to have it in my library (I don't buy many...) and I don't have much sense that the studio owes me anything beyond a technically satisfactory piece of media with the content on it, as advertised or that I owe the studio anything more than the purchase price paid to whatever vendor I got it at. Neither do I feel that the purchase establishes any particular relationship between me and the studio...

I honestly don't know exactly what to do with the idea. I guess I have to chew on it for a while.

And it is not as if the Amazon page spelled out that the movie was being rereleased in five months. So that is the reason people are pissed (including me) - because those who purchased the DVD immediately now feel like they got screwed.

I'm not sure that the Amazon page would have been the usual sort of place to put that information...I haven't bought enough from them to know if they normally put that sort of thing in that sort of place, or not.

I know wishing makes no difference but I wish that you didn't feel screwed. If you liked the movie well enough to want to own a copy, that DVD movie is still the same story etc as the movie that you liked. It hasn't changed or lost anything by virtue of having been followed by a new cut - I mean, I get the sort of 'next year's model knocking the shine off this year's model' dynamic. But everything that you found appealing in the initial cut is still there...

And all the talk about "you might prefer the old one" is not going to change that.

If it were to make you feel better, I would kind of hope you prefer the initial cut.

Heck, if I could, I would exchange the DVD for the new version. But I can't, so either shell out the money again or don't own it. So yeah, I am a tad bitter about that.

You know, consumer pressure upon Apple led to them adjusting prices and offering rebates, etc when the release and pricing schedule irritated early adopters of some of their phones. If there are enough people displeased with Fox's approach to the DVDs and this release, maybe Fox would be amenable to the same kind of persuasion. I'm just saying.

Is it even a Director's cut?

Yes; whatever they're calling it the alterations are Jim Cameron's call (with whatever degree of input Fox had, which for all I know could be anything from minimal to none-at-all).

To be honest, nowhere before this was it made clear that Cameron was involved in that. It sounded pretty much like the studio deciding to add a few more minutes to the movie, not Cameron.

I had not realized that this was unclear: his relationship with Fox is not such that they can re-edit his films to their satisfaction, without his participation or at least express approval. Seriously, you want to see the wrath of God moving out with a fresh bucket of thunderbolts, just watch Jim on his way to a studio meeting. He wasn't involved with it; he directed it. This implies poor clarity in marketing: I'd expect it to be clear in the promotion that this is specifically what the director wanted to do with the film, not the studio (though I imagine they're happy to be along on the ride...)

If you think it makes me look childish to expect something more of a warning than the internet that the studio is putting out another version in five months - which honestly, was not reported on in German mass media, nor advertised on the shopping pages etc - than yes, maybe I am childish in this regards.

I don't know how any of this was promoted or marketed in Germany, so in fact I don't know when news of one release or another was scheduled. While I still don't believe that anyone intentionally conspired to screw you over I don't have first-hand knowledge that the news was released in a timely manner in your market, or not.

Found the thread, so you can now prove were the board administration condoned piracy.[/quote]

...and there it is. Thank you.

[General Zod]

On the other hand if Avatar Expanded Edition actually was like Kingdom of Heavens directors cut there would be a solid case for buying. Kingdom of Heaven became a different and much better movie in the director cut. Now if Avatar is a fine film but there is lots of story problems that could be fixed with extra few minutes of exposition. The background and causes of Pandora mining mission is very unreasonable in the movie. If the expanded edition fixed that then it would be very much worth buying.

Nothing can get rid of the stupid "unobtanium" nonsense. Or the fact that it's basically James Cameron does Ferngully without the music. There were a lot of problems that a few extra minutes can't fix.

[Bakustra]

You know, up until now, I thought people who complained about breaking up replies into sentence-by-sentence fragments were being too whiny. Then I saw paragraphs- paragraphs, by God!- in response to individual sentences. Now I feel that urge myself, and I have acted upon it. Damn you, Kanastrous, for bringing me to this level. Damn you.

Your response seems a little bizarre to me. I am trying to explain to you why people might be angry, or at least displeased about this move by 20th Century Fox. You respond with nonsensical, paranoid rantings about how we're trying to take creative control away from the studios. One guy was mad enough to consider protest piracy. He was then jumped upon for it by a horde of people, and piracy is only an attempt to seize creative control in the loosest sense of the word. I mean, nobody is suggesting even picketing, let alone a half-baked attempt at a cinematic commune in LA. People still have a right to bitch and say that "they shouldn't do stuff like that", because, as you admit, that is their opinion.

It's not like I, for example, have the ability to control your mind and make you pick up that pen right there. You know the one. This may seem repetitive, but so much of your post consists of this misunderstanding, and I felt that I should address all of it.

The trust issue was explained by Thanas far more eloquently than I could do so, and I thank him for it. Suffice it to say that it is possible for something to be a legitimate business decision, and still be perceived by people as an attempt by the company to fuck them over, simultaneously.

When it comes to the import of the scenes, if they were chopped for runtime, then as other people have said, they could not have been particularly important. Hand-wringing about the holistic nature of film ignores that Cameron and the studio conceded on that ground, and not on any particular others. Do you get this worked up about all deleted scenes? Objecting to my description of them as "paff" and "generic"... well, perhaps that was a little harsh, but I find that I cannot modify my statement without it becoming sarcastic, so I will stand by those descriptors.

Going on about how everybody is so outraged... well, I must admit that your attitude is more than a little infuriating to me, but that is for different reasons entirely, unrelated to the thread. I am fairly calm about this, and there is one person mad enough to consider piracy in protest, and there are a few other calm people. There is also a large population of proselytizing apathetics, who care enough that other people care about something that they feel compelled to tell them not too. You're far more outraged about this than I am, and I am curious why you think people are threatening your creative control.

The analogy I used could have been 3D movies, or any other gimmick that flared and burned out. The point is that these practices dominated for a brief period, and then caused a crash that damaged the industry. It took years before 3D was reintroduced widely, and I bet that it will crash too. Disney essentially shut its animation departments down entirely. The reason I object is not necessarily on the grounds of one. I object because follow-the-leader is so ingrained in you jerks that you do it again and again and drive straight off a cliff each time. These were all efforts to make a quick buck. This is an effort to make a quick buck. If it succeeds, and I think it will, then other people will start doing it. Eventually, people will get fed up, and the practice, and the industry will crash, and I mislike that, as it will make the industry far more conservative for a while, and less likely to fund smaller films or bring over foreign films that I find myself interested in more and more.

Essentially, I object because I feel the practice stands to harm me as a consumer by denying me a choice of products thanks to the shortsightedness of the industry, rather than any efforts of my own. If this effort fails, then less harm done until its revival in forty years. If it succeeds, and prospers, then the world would have so radically changed that I suspect I would have other preoccupations. But the potential is what I object to, and the excessiveness of Hollywood. So while I cannot change much, and protesting a mental state is foolhardy, at least I can protest the likely victims of the mental state and hope to arrest the progress of the disease in some small way.

I am sure this will be twisted into a belief that I feel entitled to... something (Perhaps quality films, so that you can continue the trend of unintentional comedy in this thread by asserting the right to crappiness). I, however, believe that this is no different than people complaining about discontinued cars, or any other business decision they don't like.

[Kanastrous]

For a number of reasons including friendly advice from a mod whom I respect I'm going to drop the matter re: endorsement of piracy.

And since I am doing that I'm also going to have to fully retract the charges I made earlier in this thread, and offer an apology to Mike Wong and the other mods for having made them, and to the board's members who were reading the thread for having wasted the time it took to read the posts in question.

If any part of this adds up to a violation of policy I'll acknowledge that too, and the admins' authority to do whatever they feel they properly ought to do about it.

[NecronLord]

So, I actually went to see this. The added content is good. Whether it justifies going to a re-release would probably depend on how much you enjoyed the film originally, but a few things of note:
Spoiler

There's a scene of the school they set up for the Na'vi which is still standing, if full of bullet-holes. The scenes with the Na'vi are somewhat extended, including a scene of them hunting space-bison (which consequently also appear in the battle too, and there's an earlier scene introducing them, and are tough enough that the only way the Na'vi seem to kill them is to shoot them through their breathing-holes), that unobtanium is a room-temperature superconductor is mentioned when they arrive at the Hallelujah Mountains and a 'maglev effect' keeps them up. Sully mentions this in a way that indicates he doesn't have anything like a full understanding of how it works. The're also a scene where Tsu'tey asks (and gets) Jake to kill him as he's dying after that fall.

Overall I did enjoy the additions. There were some others I'm not sure about.

There are some other bits and pieces too such as extended scenes here and there. I can see why most of these were cut, either depicting content that isn't essential or is liable to annoy some people Spoiler

more hunting, euthanasia

. You're not missing much unless you're a fan of the film really.

[Srelex]

How many people were there in the theater?

[NecronLord]

How many people were there in the theater?

I was in an extra-expensive gallery with a bar, lounge and complimentary cinema-snacks and it was angled so I didn't actually have to look upon the ordinary people, so I couldn't really tell you.

Though from where I was and what I saw going out I'd say it was maybe 1/3rd full or so. But it's near the end of the run now I think.

[Kanastrous]

I'm pretty sure we have a "don't flounder the law" rule on this board, no?

I feel compelled to share that this line leaves me with a near-indelible mental image of someone smacking a judge across the face with a live flounder.

Carry on.