Avatar Expanded Edition in Theaters, August

[Kanastrous]

'Funny reversal' is the neologism for hypocrisy...?

Bakustra, I'll write a proper response when I have a bit more time.

That means any of us who manage to watch it before May 7th has likely pirated the movie. Such discussions would encourage piracy, which is against board rules.

In fact I had not known, and am startled to learn that piracy (or discussions of) are against the rules here. How could such a heroic, world-saving, evil-corporation-defying act be against the rules here? Going by the discussions on the subject, and considering the expressed views of the management, maybe the idea is that piracy is marvelous and just...but please don't get anyone here in trouble, for doing that marvelous, just and heroic thing in such a way that it could be tracked back here...

[Vympel]

I'll be really surprised if a significant number of people actually shell out so much money to go watch a movie they've already seen in a cinema for a mere 9 minutes of extra footage that won't change the movie in any significant way.

I can understand stuff like 'I missed it in 3D' (well, sort of - I despise 3D and hate everything about watching a movie in 3D, and yes, that includes Avatar) but just to see those 9 minutes? Bugger that.

[Vympel]

Oh, and furthermore - I feel the movie was overlong as it is. I don't think 9 more minutes are going to make it go any faster. If it does though, I'll be impressed. Its all a question of pacing and editing, after all.

[Kanastrous]

Well, these *are* about nine minutes that were mostly cut in the interest of pacing, plus a little bit of material that wasn't cut in because of some minor concern over rating and 'ick factor.'

[Uraniun235]

In fact I had not known, and am startled to learn that piracy (or discussions of) are against the rules here. How could such a heroic, world-saving, evil-corporation-defying act be against the rules here? Going by the discussions on the subject, and considering the expressed views of the management, maybe the idea is that piracy is marvelous and just...but please don't get anyone here in trouble, for doing that marvelous, just and heroic thing in such a way that it could be tracked back here...

It's not that discussions about piracy (e.g. what are the effects of piracy, is piracy moral, etc.) are banned, but rather that discussion of how to commit piracy (like a link to a torrent tracker) or whether one has committed piracy is typically considered forbidden.

[Kanastrous]

Ah. Board management finds that piracy is great, piracy is moral, piracy is just and proper...

...but don't discuss the how to's because then there's perhaps a risk of getting into some trouble over assisting people in their pursuit of this noble and laudable hobby that can hamstring the evil corporations and save the world.

How absolutely courageous.

[General Zod]

I'll be really surprised if a significant number of people actually shell out so much money to go watch a movie they've already seen in a cinema for a mere 9 minutes of extra footage that won't change the movie in any significant way.

I can understand stuff like 'I missed it in 3D' (well, sort of - I despise 3D and hate everything about watching a movie in 3D, and yes, that includes Avatar) but just to see those 9 minutes? Bugger that.

I rented the movie on bluray and found it boring and horribly cliche. I wouldn't be surprised if "zomg 3deee" was responsible for more than half of Avatar's ticket sales.

[Kanastrous]

I don't know about gross seats but it's a virtual certainty that the 3D presentations had a big bottom-line impact since the 3D venues tended toward pricier tickets.

For my part I didn't find it to be a much different viewing experience in 2D vs 3D. I did like the 3D effect - first time a 3D movie has done anything but give me a headache - but it didn't make the movie, for me.

[Havok]

Quick question.

I haven't seen Avatar at all. What would be the best version to buy (not download) to get the best effort of the film?

[General Zod]

Quick question.

I haven't seen Avatar at all. What would be the best version to buy (not download) to get the best effort of the film?

I wouldn't waste money buying it, I'd suggest renting the standard bluray. But there's about half a dozen movies that do the standard "White soldier befriends savages, rebels against his own people" storyline better, Last Samurai included.

[Thanas]

Ah. Board management finds that piracy is great, piracy is moral, piracy is just and proper...

You are an absolute imbecile and someone without any kind of manners for even insinuating this. Why don't you ask Dalton what he thinks about your reasoning here?

...but don't discuss the how to's because then there's perhaps a risk of getting into some trouble over assisting people in their pursuit of this noble and laudable hobby that can hamstring the evil corporations and save the world.

How absolutely courageous.

Why the heck should we not be allowed to say, debate the impact of piracy on the enterainment media? Or the effect of anti-piracy measures on civil liberties? You do realize that if we could not discuss piracy, that would be a ban that would go far beyond any anti-piracy measure?

Let me recap it for you because apparently you are either too angry or unable or too high on your mighty horse that you have somehow shut off your common sense:

Statement 1: Allowed by the rules.

The new anti-piracy measures are completely laughable as pirates will just use encrypted connections.

Statement 2: Disallowed by the rules:

THe new anti-piracy measures are worthless. Here is how you easily defeat them [insert technical explanation here]

Really, if you think they are the same you are a bit of an idiot.


***************
As for the original topic, I will remember this dickish move and not purchase any DVD from that studio from now on until they land in the bargain bin (I only watch 2-3 movies a year in the theater anyway and most of them tend to be not mainstream stuff). Otherwise I'll just risk them turning this into a business model.

Not that avatar was that good of a movie anyway. Rather mediocre in fact.

[Kanastrous]

I'd see it on a large-format screen before I'd buy or rent a DVD or bluRay, if best effect is what you're after. If for whatever reason you don't want to see it theatrically I'd go with Zod's advice.

[Knife]

I'm confused Kanastrous, consumers aren't allowed to bitch about the business practices and services of companies they frequent? I often get mad if I get charged an extra dime for the cup my dollar soda goes in; cranky when the chair I bought needs a separate tool that I have to buy, or a radio that doesn't come with a pair of batteries. Why shouldn't I get mad at a company that releases a 'incomplete' movie in hopes I turn around and buy a 'more complete' one a month later, and another 'ultimate' one a month after that?

You said you don't get the rage at the companies for just making money, but you seem rather anger about it yourself. Why are you so mad that people get pissed at being milked by a company?

[Kanastrous]

Ah. Board management finds that piracy is great, piracy is moral, piracy is just and proper...

You are an absolute imbecile and someone without any kind of manners for even insinuating this. Why don't you ask Dalton what he thinks about your reasoning here?

In fact I was thinking about Mike Wong's declared stance on the matter. Mike is about as 'management' as I believe it's possible to be, here. And I was not 'insinuating' anything. It's a statement of fact that by their own posts Mike and other mods here have indicated just that. Which is obviously totally their right, within their authority, however you want to put it, to do.

...but don't discuss the how to's because then there's perhaps a risk of getting into some trouble over assisting people in their pursuit of this noble and laudable hobby that can hamstring the evil corporations and save the world.

How absolutely courageous.

Why the heck should we not be allowed to say, debate the impact of piracy on the enterainment media? Or the effect of anti-piracy measures on civil liberties? You do realize that if we could not discuss piracy, that would be a ban that would go far beyond any anti-piracy measure?

I did not suggest that no one be permitted to discuss the matter. I suggest that on a board where the top manager advertises his approval of piracy (or at any rate his disapproval of any measure to discourage it, and of any assertion that piracy is undesirable) along with a vocal cadre of members and mods, and the moral superiority of content-thieves over content creators and owners who try to protect their property, it's odd that there's an unwillingness to support and assist people in that pursuit, since on a web board nothing could be easier. Except that - oh, one might actually get in trouble for assisting people in this wonderful and morally upright endeavor. So much for co-locating one's $$$ with one's food-hole.

Let me recap it for you because apparently you are either too angry or unable or too high on your mighty horse that you have somehow shut off your common sense:

Frequent falls from the mighty horse have left some residual brain injuries. You'll just have to be patient.

Statement 1: Allowed by the rules.

The new anti-piracy measures are completely laughable as pirates will just use encrypted connections.

Statement 2: Disallowed by the rules:

THe new anti-piracy measures are worthless. Here is how you easily defeat them [insert technical explanation here]

Really, if you think they are the same you are a bit of an idiot.

Of course they're not interchangeable statements. But the first statement is an inadequate representation of what appears to be a prevalent attitude here: anti-piracy measures aren't just laughable, they're morally wrong since people have the right to take whatever content they please, wherever they can find it. Running to pages and pages and pages of the same. That's way beyond an observation concerning the efficacy of the anti-piracy measures, it's open endorsement of the practice.

As for the original topic, I will remember this dickish move and not purchase any DVD from that studio from now on until they land in the bargain bin (I only watch 2-3 movies a year in the theater anyway and most of them tend to be not mainstream stuff). Otherwise I'll just risk them turning this into a business model.

Not that avatar was that good of a movie anyway. Rather mediocre in fact.

It already is part of the business model. And I'd like you to expand upon how re-releasing a film in a different cut is a 'dickish move.' Do you think you're owed something in some way by the studio, and that they've dicked you out of something that's properly yours? Please also elaborate upon how buying a DVD from the bargain bin vs. buying it off the 'new arrivals shelf' has any impact upon or even relationship to the practice of releasing 'second cuts' of features to the theaters.

[Ghost Rider]

Quick question.

I haven't seen Avatar at all. What would be the best version to buy (not download) to get the best effort of the film?

Buy at a Best Buy(or wherever) sale at 9.99. Cheaper then a ticket and with a big enough screen, all you'd want out of it.

[Srelex]

I thought Avatar was a solid movie, if nothing that'll revolutionize the medium, but having already got the DVD I'll wait for descriptions of what this extra content exactly entails before I consider forking out for a new one (well, I guess I could Amazon the old one, but I'll see).

[Dalton]

Ah. Board management finds that piracy is great, piracy is moral, piracy is just and proper...

You are an absolute imbecile and someone without any kind of manners for even insinuating this. Why don't you ask Dalton what he thinks about your reasoning here?

Not very highly, as it happens. To be clear, discussions about piracy and the legal and moral implications thereof are fine, but remember PR2: Do Not Flout the Law. That includes bragging about or inciting criminal activity, which includes piracy. That means no talking about how to break encryption, download rips, find torrents, et cetera.

Just because Mike has an opinion on it, that doesn't mean he's going to encourage the sort of discussion that would get the MPAA's attention within a nanosecond.

[Kanastrous]

I'm confused Kanastrous, consumers aren't allowed to bitch about the business practices and services of companies they frequent?

Everyone's allowed to bitch about anything they like, so far as I understand it. And if the bitching is silly and uninformed and mostly just self-righteous pointlessness, anyone who cares to has equal privileges to say so.

I often get mad if I get charged an extra dime for the cup my dollar soda goes in; cranky when the chair I bought needs a separate tool that I have to buy, or a radio that doesn't come with a pair of batteries. Why shouldn't I get mad at a company that releases a 'incomplete' movie in hopes I turn around and buy a 'more complete' one a month later, and another 'ultimate' one a month after that?

You make it sound as though this was all planned out before the theatrical release in December even happened. That's not how it works, or at least, that's not how it worked in Avatar's case. The film's success in its first run is what cemented plans to theatrically release an expanded cut. So no, there was never a release of an 'incomplete' movie, with dastardly plans to rope poor moviegoers into *having* to pay to see another cut that was somehow more complete. Sure, there's additional material. Does it make Avatar + into a different film than you saw already? No. You don't have to see the re-release in order to get the story etc. So it's nothing like missing batteries that you *have* to have in order for your radio to function, it's nothing like a chair that comes missing an integral part, or a surcharge for a cup to put your soda in.

Sacrifices are part of the film making process, especially in editing. Pre-release Avatar had to be cut around run-time concerns; exhibitors were already uncomfortable with its running time. Now that the film has cut the swathe it has (regardless of any of our individual opinions regarding its quality) its producer has the clout (and willing cooperation of exhibitors) to cut in material that was left out before.

I'm sure glad I'm not saddled with the kind of world-view where the only explanation for anything is some fundamentally malicious person trying to screw you. That must be a sucky way to experience the world.

You said you don't get the rage at the companies for just making money, but you seem rather anger about it yourself. Why are you so mad that people get pissed at being milked by a company?

It depends what a given company is doing in the pursuit of 'just making money.' If you're dumping poisoned milk products in African markets or skipping vital safety steps while drilling for oil or hawking useless quack medications, etc etc etc to make your money, you are a pig and you should be punished. But releasing an altered cut of a movie? You think that's corporate misconduct, that should draw people's rage? Get a life.

And no one is 'milking' anyone. You don't have any kind of obligation or pressure AT ALL to go see the new cut! So if you don't feel like it...don't!

[Dalton]

You are an absolute imbecile and someone without any kind of manners for even insinuating this. Why don't you ask Dalton what he thinks about your reasoning here?

In fact I was thinking about Mike Wong's declared stance on the matter. Mike is about as 'management' as I believe it's possible to be, here. And I was not 'insinuating' anything. It's a statement of fact that by their own posts Mike and other mods here have indicated just that. Which is obviously totally their right, within their authority, however you want to put it, to do.

You are confusing personal opinion with board policy.

[Kanastrous]

Just because Mike has an opinion on it, that doesn't mean he's going to encourage the sort of discussion that would get the MPAA's attention within a nanosecond.

Sure. We'll push every possible effort to encourage the practice on what we perceive as moral and ethical grounds - we just ask that you go elsewhere for the actual tools required to do the job. We don't want to get entangled in any of the possible ->consequences<- for what we encourage.

You are confusing personal opinion with board policy.

I'm perceiving the creator and owner of the board utilizing it to advance his perspective on the matter, in a way designed - or sure to, if not designed to - encourage and lend moral cover to the practice.

Which is his absolute right, I'm not questioning that. It's his board!

[Dalton]

Just because Mike has an opinion on it, that doesn't mean he's going to encourage the sort of discussion that would get the MPAA's attention within a nanosecond.

Sure. We'll push every possible effort to encourage the practice on what we perceive as moral and ethical grounds - we just ask that you go elsewhere for the actual tools required to do the job.

I fail to see that in the rules. Maybe you can point it out for me? Or provide some examples of what you're claiming? I mean, if you're going to put words in Mike's mouth and take a moral high-ground stance, it follows that you have something with which to back up your claim.

You are confusing personal opinion with board policy.

I'm perceiving the creator and owner of the board utilizing it to advance his perspective on the matter, in a way designed - or sure to, if not designed to - encourage the practice.

Which is his absolute right, I'm not questioning that. It's his board!

While it is true that this is Mike's board and the rules reflect his beliefs and opinions, I am still having difficulty making sense of your particular complaint. Are you accusing us of hypocrisy? You keep going on about "us" encouraging piracy without ever going into how to actually commit such an act.

[Thanas]

In fact I was thinking about Mike Wong's declared stance on the matter. Mike is about as 'management' as I believe it's possible to be, here. And I was not 'insinuating' anything. It's a statement of fact that by their own posts Mike and other mods here have indicated just that. Which is obviously totally their right, within their authority, however you want to put it, to do.

BS. Nowhere does Mike think Piracy is just fine and dandy. What he explicitly is in favor of is limiting the copyright on media to the same level as patents. Not the same thing.

I really would like you to produce the statement where Mike favors piracy.

I did not suggest that no one be permitted to discuss the matter. I suggest that on a board where the top manager advertises his approval of piracy (or at any rate his disapproval of any measure to discourage it, and of any assertion that piracy is undesirable) along with a vocal cadre of members and mods, and the moral superiority of content-thieves over content creators and owners who try to protect their property, it's odd that there's an unwillingness to support and assist people in that pursuit, since on a web board nothing could be easier. Except that - oh, one might actually get in trouble for assisting people in this wonderful and morally upright endeavor. So much for co-locating one's $$$ with one's food-hole.

Again, produce the statements by Mike and the mods advocating piracy and saying it is just fine and dandy.

Of course they're not interchangeable statements. But the first statement is an inadequate representation of what appears to be a prevalent attitude here: anti-piracy measures aren't just laughable, they're morally wrong since people have the right to take whatever content they please, wherever they can find it. Running to pages and pages and pages of the same. That's way beyond an observation concerning the efficacy of the anti-piracy measures, it's open endorsement of the practice.

BS. I can critizice the Patriot Act or DOMA all I want. I can also discuss the equivocation of theft and copying, which is not the same thing. Does not mean I am in favor of piracy.

It already is part of the business model. And I'd like you to expand upon how re-releasing a film in a different cut is a 'dickish move.' Do you think you're owed something in some way by the studio, and that they've dicked you out of something that's properly yours? Please also elaborate upon how buying a DVD from the bargain bin vs. buying it off the 'new arrivals shelf' has any impact upon or even relationship to the practice of releasing 'second cuts' of features to the theaters.

I am not going to shell out any money to companies that think I am somewhat gullible or easily fooled and who think they got the right to pull a fast one on me. Do you pay the same price for an inferior car as you would for a better one made by the same company? As for the bargain bin, I don't care if it has an impact or not. They want to dick me around, I can just not purchase their products or do so for a vastly reduced price, which will cut into their products. Oh, and as well as telling all my friends not to see this ripoff. (Not that many of them will be fooled anyway).

[Kanastrous]

Thanas, as I indicated the re-release is not the culmination of some pre-planned dastardly campaign to first release an incomplete film, and then rope poor unsuspecting viewers into paying extra to see what needed to be there to begin with. That's neither the time line nor the process. Again, I find it interesting how eager some people are to rush to the conclusion that re-releasing a film is just a malicious screw-job planned from day one. You are plumb ignorant on this matter, being neither in this industry nor specifically involved with production of this film, and contrary to your wonderful sig line you seem to enjoy wallowing in it.

The initial release was not a purposefully 'inferior' cut made with the intent of a later, more inclusive one to make more $$$. The initial release cut was driven in large part by studio and exhibitor concerns over its length; now that the film has done as well as it has - and a re-release was not even a given back in 2009 because no one was sure how the film would even do - there's opportunity to put it out again with some more content that couldn't make it in before, for whoever feels like seeing it. For people who were satisfied with the original cut (or who weren't, and therefore wouldn't want to see any cut again, anyway) there's full uninfringed freedom to not see it.

[Thanas]

Thanas, as I indicated the re-release is not the culmination of some pre-planned dastardly campaign to first release an incomplete film, and then rope poor unsuspecting viewers into paying extra to see what needed to be there to begin with. That's neither the time line nor the process. Again, I find it interesting how eager some people are to rush to the conclusion that re-releasing a film is just a malicious screw-job planned from day one.

Where the heck have I ever claimed that? I am saying that releasing a movie with 9 additional minutes is not worth the price of admission again. Expecting people to pay for mediocre movie + 9 minutes when they have already paid for mediocre movie is the expectation of dickishness. It is like a company selling a car and then selling the same car with additional features and expecting people who originally bought the first car to purchasing it again.

So, dare to tell me again how I am wrong in thinking this is a pretty dickish move, especially with regards to the DVD releases?

[Kanastrous]

You're wrong because (a) news of plans for an expanded and re-released cut was circulated before the DVD became available. In other words, anyone who preferred to put off their DVD purchase until they could choose between the original and expanded cuts had the opportunity to do so, and (b) you make it sound as though the studio is attempting to lay some kind of obligation upon people, to buy the new cut. Which is bullshit. You're interested, and you want a copy? Fine, buy it. You're not interested, and you don't? Fine, don't buy it. There's just no grounds at all for moral outrage (or any other kind) because no one is pulling any kind of fast one, no one deceived you, and no one is trying to corral you into anything that you don't feel like doing.

You don't feel that nine extra minutes are worth the price of admission? That's totally fine. Don't buy a ticket. See how easy that is? If someone else decides that they *are* interested, well, they can buy their ticket without having the slightest impact upon you, at all. So how are *you* harmed, or even affected? How is anyone who decides they're not interested going to be affected? It will be just one more film they choose not to see, along with all of the other films they choose not to go and see.

Now, if there was some kind of effort - or even some kind of method - try try and pressure or force people to see a re-release, then that would be dickish, all right. But simply putting something in theaters for people to view or not-view completely and totally at their discretion without any threat or pressure at all is not 'dickish,' at all. Not one bit.