Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

Remember what Lucas did to Indiana Jones on that episode of South Park? That's what he did to my childhood memories, to the film that more than any other propelled me towards film as a career, with his butchery of the Star Wars movies. Next to that I don't even care what he has to say or whether he keeps his word with regard to what he releases.

But I understand what you're saying and I agree.
 
Sad Max said:
You know, there's an interesting - and acrimonious - conversation going on at another board regarding the whole 'milking' angle.

Do you mean to suggest that a studio holding a successful film with potential for worthwhile earnings is in some way doing something wrong by re-releasing that property that they created, and that they own, in order to make some more on it?

Are they supposed to say well, we *could* re-release and earn some more but instead we'll just sit on the film because...

...why?

Asceticism? Some sense that it's nobler to pass up a chance for a for-profit company - that is to say an enterprise whose purpose is to generate revenue - to avoid turning profit wherever they legitimately and legally can? How would you like to be a shareholder in a company that deliberately avoids opportunities to earn a profit by 100% legal and ethical means?

Was it 'milking' to keep the film in theaters as long as it was in its first release? Would Fox have been somehow morally superior if they had decided you know, one month in theaters is plenty, let's pull it now because... once again, why?

If you have some kind of problem with a studio re-releasing a film in the hopes of (shudder) making some more money on their investment (outrageous!) - don't buy a ticket.
Click to expand...

I don't fault anyone for making a buck. If millions want to pay $10 to see the extra 10 min, great. It just reminds me of all those K-tel records back in the day. After Elvis died they kept re-releasing new compilations of all his old hits with one "never released recording" to squeeze out every last dollar... unrealeased=artist cut it because it was JUNK... I don't fault K-tel either, but I would expect a higher standard out of Cameron.
 
well i think its a good because you know not everyone has seen avatar... so to see it in theater again, this is their chance but for 3D i mean. i know one guy who couldnt see it because his wife. now he might because shes out of town for a bit lol.
 
azharrison said:
After Elvis died they kept re-releasing new compilations of all his old hits with one "never released recording" to squeeze out every last dollar... unrealeased=artist cut it because it was JUNK... I don't fault K-tel either, but I would expect a higher standard out of Cameron.
Click to expand...

So you have decided that the newly-inserted material in Avatar was unreleased before because Cameron decided it was 'junk,' and cut it.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion without seeing the material at issue or having been participant in the process, but you're welcome to it.
 
spidey said:
well i think its a good because you know not everyone has seen avatar... so to see it in theater again, this is their chance but for 3D i mean. i know one guy who couldnt see it because his wife. now he might because shes out of town for a bit lol.
Click to expand...


goodtimes !
 
azharrison said:
I don't fault anyone for making a buck. If millions want to pay $10 to see the extra 10 min, great. It just reminds me of all those K-tel records back in the day. After Elvis died they kept re-releasing new compilations of all his old hits with one "never released recording" to squeeze out every last dollar... unrealeased=artist cut it because it was JUNK... I don't fault K-tel either, but I would expect a higher standard out of Cameron.
Click to expand...

Get ready to see all that again with Michael Jackson stuff...
 
...blue nine-foot-tall Michael Jackson with pointy ears and a tail stuff.

I smell crossover. And all that cosmetic surgery had him about halfway there already.
 
Cameron has said there was about 45 minutes of Avatar that was cut/Not used. So I would imagine this is going to go on for quite some time. I'll Buy the Blu Ray in 2013 for the " Final Special Directors Edition". Then They'll drop 5 more minutes of footage in before the release of the sequel.
 
My friends who are like, convention-going, costume-wearing fan types tell me of this horrible thing called fannish entitlement. I'm pretty sure that's what we're seeing, there.
 
Sad Max said:
So you have decided that the newly-inserted material in Avatar was unreleased before because Cameron decided it was 'junk,' and cut it.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion without seeing the material at issue or having been participant in the process, but you're welcome to it.
Click to expand...

In this thread (FILM DISCUSSION), I am speaking ONLY as a movie consumer just like the rest of you! I also have an OPINION! Am I required to be a qualified insiders?... privey to Cameron's personal diary to voice my opinion here?

If Cameron had more to say with the first release, why would he take scraps from the cutting room floor and re-released THE SAME MOVIE?!?! If this is an entirely different film, then I graciously apologize for being ill informed.

I know a few film lovers that have never seen this film may be drawn to the re-release but, if they weren't MOTIVATED to see it the FIRST time, then the unreleased footage isn't gonna cause a stampede of NEW Avatar viewers! I personally saw it 3 times in the theater and own the Blu-ray! But, I still roll my eyes when they do sh*+ like this.... I just feels cheap(IMO!!!). I guess I must again qualify: This is ONLY the opinion of a dumb-ass consumer who knows nothing of the dynamics of film makin', but I got's PLENTY experience as bein' a consumer...
 
Last edited:
My understanding of the reasoning is that Avatar was superseded from theaters by other films, like Alice In Wonderland which replaced it in IMAX, due to pre-arranged release dates long before it was known how successful it would be. So Fox decided to re-release so that it would "end it's run" without being "cut off". To which the addition of some new footage seems like a great idea to both get the footage out there (Cameron probably has a *little* more leverage over how the film is released now), and to bring something new to attract those viewers who are on the fence about seeing in the theater a 2nd (or 3rd ... or 11th) time.

- Mikko
 
The film's running time was an issue at the first release date; the studio and exhibitors wanted it shortened. So some material had to be sacrificed out of what Cameron regarded as the cut he wanted to release.

The material in the upcoming release is not 'scraps from the cutting room floor,' it's material that was intended to be seen but had to be cut for run-time reasons. Now that the film is, well, what it is there was the opportunity to re-insert the material and put it back on theater screens in a form closer to the director's original intent.

aharrison, I recognize that you are as entitled to an opinion as anyone here; what puzzles me is what inspires you to formulate a negative opinion based upon...

...well, what?

This idea that either material was cut in and is therefore absolutely vital and that other material that was edited out must therefore be entirely extraneous does not reflect a realistic grasp of the editorial process, particularly for a commercial film with running-time and content constraints. There's a middle ground wherein resides content that the director may very much want to include because he feels it's important but has to sacrifice because the story won't be crippled without it and, well, more minutes have to be cut from somewhere.

And if you find that there is an ethical basis upon which to argue that it is a morally superior act to refrain from re-releasing a property that you own, in total compliance with the law rather than allow it an opportunity to generate further revenues for the shareholders to whom you are responsible - I'd sure like to read it.

Once you advance an opinion, please don't go all cow-eyed oh I'm just a consumer and have no need to base my statements in reality. There's probably some reasoning behind your conclusions; why not share it?
 
Sad Max said:
SNIP...

aharrison, I recognize that you are as entitled to an opinion as anyone here; what puzzles me is what inspires you to formulate a negative opinion based upon...

...well, what?

Once you advance an opinion, please don't go all cow-eyed oh I'm just a consumer and have no need to base my statements in reality. There's probably some reasoning behind your conclusions; why not share it?
Click to expand...

Well, I have only the unprecedented nature of his decision to re-release in theaters a year later and not just include them on a "directors cut" blu-ray.

Not cow-eyed... I'm just sayin' I'm not a big movie expert like many of the folks here. I have not even completed my first screenplay. Just putting things in perspective.
 
Do you think perhaps a desire to screen an expanded cut of a film designed for large format exhibition in large-format venues might have something to do with it?

Would you suppose it possible that an unusually successful property like Avatar might likewise offer the possibility of an unusual release and re-release schedule?

Might you consider it realistic to suggest that when a director is obliged to cut material that he considers desirable for run-time constraints, he would want to re-insert said material for theatrical exhibition when said unusually successful film's performance grants him that opportunity?

I'm not sure what perspective you're putting things in. Your own, I guess. To which I have to admit you are entitled.
 
Sad Max said:
Do you think perhaps a desire to screen an expanded cut of a film designed for large format exhibition in large-format venues might have something to do with it?

Would you suppose it possible that an unusually successful property like Avatar might likewise offer the possibility of an unusual release and re-release schedule?

Might you consider it realistic to suggest that when a director is obliged to cut material that he considers desirable for run-time constraints, he would want to re-insert said material for theatrical exhibition when said unusually successful film's performance grants him that opportunity?

I'm not sure what perspective you're putting things in. Your own, I guess. To which I have to admit you are entitled.
Click to expand...

I don't KNOW what motivates Cameron or his studio to re-release the movie... As you said, I don't work for the man and I'm not privey to his decision making process. Do you think the redub is purely for motivated by artistic expression or are you being rhetorical? If art is the answer, perhaps there are COUNTLESS movies that should be re-released as well.

Cameron has had a string of HUGE successes... He is "King of the world". No question about it, he is one of the most talented people in the industry. Terminator is legendary, and one of my favorite films... Titanic was amazing and unimaginably accurate down to table place settings, an awe-inspiring film that launched my ex-girlfriend into a quest for all things "Titanic".

AVATAR IS an incredible movie and took CGI to another level. The first time I saw it, I couldn't believe the magnitude of the events on the screen. Seemless CGI, visionary technology, Na'vi concept was brilliant, etc.... now THAT is ART!

The decision to re-release the movie for no apparent reason other than a few extra scenes, feels (JMO!!!) PROFIT motivated rather than ART motivated... If AVATAR II were hitting theaters this winter, then I would totally understand it.

Sorry to bog down this thread... :lipsrseal
 
You've got this really strange I'm telling you that I don't really know anything about it but I have arrived at some pretty definitive conclusions about it thing going. It's confusing as all hell.

My point is that the only reason that you say is 'apparent' to you is a money-grab (which, this being a business, is indeed a natural part of it) and you seem to be quite resistant to conceptualizing any reasons outside of that. And since you were told point-blank about some of the history and reasoning behind the deletion and re-insertion of material and the re-release, it's weird that you continue on as though it was never pointed out to you.

I'll never understand this it's gotta be all art or it's gotta be all business nonsense that I keep running into. Why are so many people incapable of grasping the fact that both art and profit exert influence on a project?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top