backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Hieyeck.. on Mar 24 at 12:13 PM


Avatar fanatics can get their paws on a minimalist release April 22, but will have to wait till November to get bonus features, and next year to buy a 3-D version. We're guessing they'll buy them all.  (Source: FilmDrunk)
First release will come on Earth Day to celebrate Avatar's eco-leanings

When it comes to the retail release of the top grossing movie Avatar, Fox has unveiled elaborate plans to mine customers' wallets with multiple releases.

Twentieth Century Fox hit solid gold when it released the film, which was directed by James Cameron.  Critically acclaimed -- winning multiple Academy Awards (3) and Golden Globes (2) -- the picture has grossed an unbelievable $2.638B USD worldwide to date. It has far surpassed the previous record holder, Cameron's 
Titanic, which had a $1.843B USD international gross.  The film's success comes in part thanks to the lack of recent science fiction blockbusters and a carefully crafted storyline that echoes past hits like Braveheart, PocahontasDances With Wolves, and Ferngully: The Last Rainforest.

The first retail release of 
Avatar will perhaps appropriately land on Earth Day -- April 22.  The film will be released in the U.S. and Canada in minimalist Blu-ray and DVD forms, according to Reuters.

Unfortunately for 
Avatar fans, the film will have no special features.  That's right; there will be no deleted scenes, no trailers and no behind-the-scenes footage bundled with the top release.  

Fans wanting to get that will have to wait for the "Ultimate" edition, which will come in November, just in time for the holiday season.  Those hoping to view the movie in 3-D will have to wait even longer, until a third release, which is tentatively planned for next year.

Avatar was among the highest profile movies to date to push the 3-D movie experience in theaters.  With television set makers pushing out new 3-D sets this year, many in the industry are hoping that Avatar could help customers appreciate the new tech and boost sales of models carrying it.  They'll have to wait until next year to get that boost, as Fox is waiting until at least a fair number of customers get their paws on 3-D sets.

The news of three separate releases is enough to infuriate bargain hunters, but is not uncommon for blockbusters of this magnitude.  
The Lord of the Rings trilogy by Peter Jackson (which collectively grossed $2.9B USD) received similar treatment from New Line Cinema.  We're guessing that Avatar fans won't begrudge the extra expenses -- after all, some saw the movie 10 times or more.

James Cameron previously announced that sequels are planned in the 
Avatar universe.  That means that there could be even more releases and repackaging in the not-so-distant future.  Fox's $300M USD bet on Avatar sure did pay off, and the franchise will likely continue to make news in months to come.

Not everyone is in love with it, though.  Conservative columnist John Podhoretz of the Weekly Standard accuses it of "hatred of the military and American institutions" for its depiction of a group of mercenaries that closely resemble the U.S. Marines (Cameron has said he never meant to insult the USMC, and points out that the movie's hero is a former marine).




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You know...
By DEVGRU on 3/17/2010 2:14:11 PM , Rating: 5
Although I consider myself right-of-center, the negative connotations parodying a faux US military didnt bother me as much as... "Unobtanium". Really? In a film that sets a few hallmarks for creativity, thats a friggin' cop-out. That was the best Cameron could do? I mean common. Tiberium would have been a better choice, and that took me all of 10 seconds to recall what the C&C mineral was.




RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 2:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that "Unobtanium" is the official name of Element 114.

Although I agree, even Element 114 would have been a better name.


RE: You know...
By porkpie on 3/17/2010 2:27:52 PM , Rating: 5
That's Ununquadium.

Unobtanium is just a decades-old colloquialism for a substance or material virtually impossible to obtain.


RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 2:35:31 PM , Rating: 3
It was meant as a joke, but seriously tell me just how "virtually impossible to obtain" an element that hasn't even been produced in a laboratory actually is.

Anyway "Ununquadium" is just a copout its self (one-one-four in Latin) for not wanting to give a name to something that has yet to be discovered - who ever discovers it has the right to name it whatever they choose - including "Unobtanium" if they happen to feel particularly cruel.


RE: You know...
By nstott on 3/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
I hadn't expected anyone to take my clearly tounge-in-cheek assertion that "Unobtanium" was the official name for anything so seriously. If I had I would have actually researched my post more in depth.

But I thank you for the kind and civil manner you used in pointing out my mistake. (And yes, now I'm just joking again.)


RE: You know...
By nstott on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 4:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
I really have to give credit to a guy who comes up with my joke before I do. Clearly a genius.


RE: You know...
By nstott on 3/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: You know...
By FaceMaster on 3/17/2010 7:35:05 PM , Rating: 5
Wow nstott, you're a total prat.


RE: You know...
By nstott on 3/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/18/2010 3:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I wouldn't have rated you down so far. After all I did make a mistake. I wrongly assumed that if element 112 had just been discovered that 114 hadn't yet. I was quite wrong, Element 114 had been created as far back as December of 1998. I also should have made it more clear in my original post that I was not serious in any way, but I personally detest the use of fake sarcasm/humor tags.

Jokes should be able to stand on their own, this one obviously did not. What should have come across as tongue-in-cheek humor with a touch of sarcasm ended up coming off as ill-informed misinformation. Misinformation is never my intent despite my frequent ill-informedness.


RE: You know...
By nstott on 3/18/2010 4:02:49 PM , Rating: 1
If you say, "Group hug!" next, I'm gonna barf.


RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/18/2010 4:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Of course not, this is DT, the standard method of reconciliation is character assassination and name-calling.

The facts you threw into your original post were simply uncalled for, not to mention recklessly verifiable.


RE: You know...
By JediJeb on 3/17/2010 3:22:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
- who ever discovers it has the right to name it whatever they choose -


Actually they don't. Chemical names are given out by IUPAC ( International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry)http://www.iupac.org/ Ununquadium us a placeholder assigned to Element 114 until it is discovered then it will be given an official name based on who discovers it. Also for it to be official they have to produce it twice I believe. This allows for proper recognition to the actual person or team that discovers the element and helps to prevent fraudulent claims of discovery, such as what happened in early claims of discovery of Element 112 http://www.dailytech.com/Copernicum+is+the+Newest+...


RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 4:28:40 PM , Rating: 3
The IUPAC has to approve of the name before it becomes official. The discoverer generally has "the right to suggest names." The naming guidelines state:
quote:
Elements can be named after a mythological concept, a mineral, a place or country, a property, or a scientist.

http://www.iupac.org/objID/Article/pac7405x0787

As ridiculous as it would be, "Unobtanium" could be considered a "mythological concept."


RE: You know...
By marvdmartian on 3/18/2010 8:59:37 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, it would be MUCH easier to discover a new asteroid, and name it!

quote:
Karl: Sir, I'm retired navy, I know all about classified. But one more thing. The person that finds her gets to name her right?
Dan: Yes-yes that's right, that's right.
Karl: I wanna name her Dottie after my wife. She's a vicious life-sucking bitch from which there is no escape.


;)


RE: You know...
By JediJeb on 3/18/2010 10:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
True, just wanted to let people know it isn't just a random assignment of a name, there is a purpose behind it.


RE: You know...
By Samus on 3/19/2010 2:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
In the end, they weren't able to obtain it. So the name couldn't be more appropriate from pure veridicality.


RE: You know...
By PAPutzback on 3/17/2010 2:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
I vote for Element 114 to be used in the sequel. Good find.

I liked the movie but it doesn't justify buying 3 versions. I'll rent it on Netflix and maybe buy the 3d version when I get a 3d TV in 5-10 years.


RE: You know...
By Keeir on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: You know...
By Hieyeck on 3/17/2010 3:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
... Unless you know anything about history and geography and realize that the river Tiber was the primary source of fresh water and trade (essentially life and power) for an ancient tiny little settlement on the Italian peninsula that went to control Europe and parts of Africa and Asia. Which if you don't know about the Roman Empire, I need to ask which rock you've been living under so I can sell it to the army as impervious body armor. Not only that, but as a proper name, Tiber as a representation of life and power translates well across languages, unlike that silly Avatar thing.

Or maybe I expect too much out of the US education system. No child too ahead.


RE: You know...
By VaultDweller on 3/17/2010 3:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
So, what part of that tells the audience that the material is superior, exceptionally difficult to obtain, and/or possesses properties that border on defying the laws of science?

Knowing the history of the Tiber doesn't suggest anything about the element other than that it was named after a historically significant river.


RE: You know...
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 4:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, what part of that tells the audience that the material is superior, exceptionally difficult to obtain, and/or possesses properties that border on defying the laws of science?

That would be the part of the movie where the mountains were floating and it was implied that this "unobtanium" was the cause of it. It's okay if you missed that part. In the movie they could have called it anything and the point would have been clear.


RE: You know...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/17/2010 6:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
I am pretty sure, in the 3 times I saw it, that the floating mountains AKA Hallelujah Mountains , never were referred to in regards to the unobtanium. The deposit they were after was under the Tree of Life if I remember correctly, not sure how that would relate to the Hallelujah Mountains in anyway.


RE: You know...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: You know...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/17/2010 7:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
/me shrugs

I thought the movie was absolutely amazing.


RE: You know...
By whiskerwill on 3/17/2010 7:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
You're also named "Cheesewiz". Go figure.


RE: You know...
By ClownPuncher on 3/17/2010 7:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
And your name is whiskerkisses, wanna dyke out?


RE: You know...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/17/2010 8:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
And your point?


RE: You know...
By theendofallsongs on 3/18/2010 10:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
That a person named Cheesewiz might like cheesy movies??

Just a guess.


RE: You know...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2010 6:14:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Or maybe I expect too much out of the US education system. No child too ahead.


NO offense but I rather students learn American history and important world events before stressing obscure facts about a river in Europe with, honestly, very little historical importance.

I agree students should learn more about the world.. but this isn't Jeopardy. We can't cram their brains with EVERY trivial fact.


RE: You know...
By Keeir on 3/17/2010 6:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
Errr...

So

Nilesium
Thamesium
Yangtzeium
Nigerium
Potomacium

All these should mean the same thing right?

So Avatar should have used a possibly trademarked name for a minerial to harken back to a transiet Empire from Thousands of year ago? (oh excuse me 1600 years) instead of an existing term used professionally, academically, and in science fiction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

Sorry, no dice.

quote:
Tiber as a representation of life and power translates well across cultures desended from Roman


Fixed it for you. A consquence of living in the global world? Peoples and culture that NEVER encountered the Romans and thus really no reason to associate anything positive with connocations of Rome.


RE: You know...
By JediJeb on 3/18/2010 10:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
That, or someone named it Tiberium after Captain Kirk lol.


RE: You know...
By omgwtf8888 on 3/19/2010 11:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
Dear Uppity Non U.S. person,

The United States is a wonderful societal experiment. We are attempting to raise the education level of the entire populace. We keep hearing how India and China are producing more engineers and their math and science skills are superior. These gains they are posting are short lived if they continue to leave half of their populations uneducated and below poverty. The wonderful roman empire you speak of, was crushed by far less educated armies. The U.S. will evolve as one of the few countries with a fully educated populace, and will endure and prosper.


RE: You know...
By Hieyeck on 3/24/2010 12:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
OECD hosts PISA, a world-wide evaluation of student performance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_Interna...

Reading/Math/Science for the US: 15/24/21

Spectacular results there Sherlock. Forget India and China, you can't even live up to liberal countries like my uppity Canada (Ranked 2/5/2 btw). Thanks, but no thanks. The US isn't all that great, and the only reason immigrants want to live and work there is because they want to make easy money off your sloth and ignorance.

Yes, I'm stereotyping - but stereotyping is alot like chemistry, it works fine as long as you remember there's exceptions to every rule and exercise caution.


RE: You know...
By artemicion on 3/17/2010 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'll admit that when I first heard "unobtanium," I thought it was a cheesy and half-a**ed effort to name a minerial. Like "awesome-anium" or "indestructable-ite". I didn't know it was commonly used.

Based on my own ignorance, and my unscientific assumption that there are many others in the U.S. who are just as ignorant as I am, I think it's preferable to go with mineral names that sound awesome but don't sound as cheesy. Like kryptonite, vibranium, mithril, adamantium, etc.


RE: You know...
By Keeir on 3/17/2010 6:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree to a certain point.

It cheapens Unobtainium to be associated with Avatar, not the other way around.


RE: You know...
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2010 9:52:58 PM , Rating: 3
I kind of like awesomeanium....

Q: "Whats that minerals properties?"
A: "Pure awesomeness"


RE: You know...
By smokedturkey on 3/18/2010 7:14:40 AM , Rating: 2
unobtainium = unobtainable = your money. damn you ppl are dumb


RE: You know...
By MozeeToby on 3/18/2010 11:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
See, when I watched it, I assumed that the corporate guy was simply calling it Unobtanium to emphasize it's value. As in the real, scientific name is something else, but all that matters to the bottom line is how rare and expensive it is. I saw it as leaving the ultra-valuable substance unnamed and undescribed (other than it's apparent room temperature super-conducting abilities, which would indeed make it very valuable), rather than trying to come up with some pseudo-scientific bunk that would have just pissed off half their audience anyway.


I still have not seen this movie...
By MrBlastman on 3/17/2010 2:18:45 PM , Rating: 5
I don't really have a fascination with CGI these days. It has ruined cinema.

Instead of brilliant plot and acting we get graphical and auditory filler to trick us into believing we are watching literary masterpiece painted onto the screen. Instead, we get Norman Rockwell without the meaning behind it.

Quite dry and empty I must say.

BUT

I haven't seen Avatar yet so I don't know if it applies. I do know that friends of mine who I have talked to that have seen the film do say the plot is quite weak.

Somehow, I don't think this is on the societally and film changing level that Star Wars was back in 1977. However, with that said, if they can find people to milk money out of on this film repeatedly, let them do so. Capitalism at its finest and I'm proud to be a part of it. :)




RE: I still have not seen this movie...
By Ammohunt on 3/17/2010 2:33:46 PM , Rating: 4
I agree take a look at the movie Bladerunner from 1981 NO CGI! still looks beautiful even by todays standards. CGI can have a negative effect of covering up lack of cinematic talent.


RE: I still have not seen this movie...
By MrBlastman on 3/17/2010 2:53:39 PM , Rating: 3
I was just noticing that a few months ago when I was watching Blade Runner with my wife. She apparently had never seen the film before so I had to show it to her. The effects in that movie are jaw-dropping amazing.


By Jellodyne on 3/17/2010 5:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
The documentaries on the recent multi-disc Blade Runner set make the effects even more impressive. The level of dedication and artistry from the team to create these effects in camera is simply epic.

I like that they used super bright fiber optic light points on the models to produce those crazy lens flares to help cover up the 'model' look.

Back on topic, I really think the 3D CGI work on Avatar reflects a similar level of dedication and artistry, and that the motion/facial capture techniques used allow the actors to shine through the CGI overlay.


RE: I still have not seen this movie...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2010 3:47:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't really have a fascination with CGI these days. It has ruined cinema.


I agree. Although there are rare exceptions like District 9. Especially impressive considering their budget. Cameron spent ten times more, but manages to make a movie much worst.


By shin0bi272 on 3/17/2010 4:51:17 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah well he also spent what was is 10 months designing the perfect CG breasts? Wonder where all the money went *cough* hookers and blow *cough*


RE: I still have not seen this movie...
By consumerwhore on 3/17/2010 4:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I haven't seen Avatar yet


Don't.

Don't waste your time. Don't waste your money. Go see another movie released in 3D and you'll experience all the 3D goodness and enjoy yourself not waiting for a piss-poor plot to come to its predictable end.

I don't get it. Most of the reviews on RottenTomatoes from "professional" journalist/reviewers go essentially like this: "Yeah, sure the characters are 1-dimensional and the storyline is the most tired one ever but OGM 3D!!!!111!!11"

Then, I'm like "WTF? What are you reviewing here? The movie? Or a movie viewing technology THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE?" I had seen "Up" in 3D some time before. After coming out of the theater watching Avatar, I wanted my 25$ back.

Oh, and of course, the Oscars, not any smarter, prized Avatar for its "visual effects". How retarded. We've seen CGI before? Haven't they?


By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2010 4:25:21 PM , Rating: 3
Not just the characters, but my god, have you heard the dialogue ?? Cheese.


RE: I still have not seen this movie...
By Lanister on 3/17/2010 6:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I dont even get the 3D. I've read that a small percentage of the population has trouble viewing 3D and I guess me and my family all count as we all left the theatre not being impressed and on top of it we all had headaches.

We are going to watch Alice this weekend and will be going to see the non 3d version.


By Oregonian2 on 3/18/2010 5:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
What you say is true (and some can't see color either). Some also have trouble with fast movement (which Avatar has), causing headaches and odd effects. Possibly the 3D increases sensitivity to that effect (I'm just guessing).

Note that Alice was only made as a 2D film, the 3D version is a "fake" conversion which limits its quality.


By geekgod on 3/19/2010 10:14:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think you should give it one more try.

I watched "UP" in 3D and hated it. I decided never to watch a movie in 3D again, but my wife insisted on watching Alice the day it was released, and I could only get the tickets for the 3D version. I was very sure that I was going to hate this one as well, but to my surprise, it was a wonderful experience.

Now I regret I didn’t see Avatar in 3D...


By Chocobollz on 3/17/2010 8:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've seen CGI before? Haven't they?

If you've seen pretty girls somewhere, that doesn't means there'll be no Miss Universe next year :P


RE: I still have not seen this movie...
By Oregonian2 on 3/18/2010 5:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
You paid $25? My wife and I each paid $9.50 for 3D Avatar, and we kept the RealD glasses.

I thought it was magnificent. Plot not terribly complex, but ten times more complex than Star Wars which had basically none at all and was purely an effects show.

P.S. - Isaac Asimov once said that books should have complex plots or a lot of character development, not both at the same time. One or the other. Star Wars and Avatar were mostly character development "books". So was the wizard of Oz (one of the best movies ever made, IMO).


By consumerwhore on 3/18/2010 5:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You paid $25? My wife and I each paid $9.50 for 3D Avatar
Er... Good for you?
quote:
and we kept the RealD glasses
How nice. So now you can do what we did and bring them back for next time. (Though the clerk won't give you a discount. It's not like they give a crap or have the freedom to do so.)
quote:
but ten times more complex than Star Wars
We obviously don't live on the same planet.


By theendofallsongs on 3/18/2010 10:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One or the other. Star Wars and Avatar were mostly character development
You're either 13 or brain damaged from sniffing glue at age 13.

Avatar was terrible, Star Wars was great...but both of them had nothing but the thinnest of thin cardboard characters.

quote:
My wife and I each paid $9.50 for 3D Avatar, and we kept the RealD glasses.
And you brag about stealing trivial items too? What a prat.


By tdawg on 3/17/2010 9:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
I think District 9 deserved to be recognized well above Avatar. That movie had a superbly told story, genuine emotion and great acting. And it's CGI effects worked perfectly (not saying Avatar's effects didn't match up/surpass it). As a whole, District 9 was a better sci-fi movie and easily one of the best movies of the year overall.


By sxr7171 on 3/18/2010 6:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
SIX STARS RIGHT HERE. I too am sick of these cheap thrills. There's nothing wrong with having both CGI and a good plot but this sort of thing is all show for nothing. The whole thing was done to create home 3D hysteria. Now everyone wants to buy a new TV for 3D. Oh boy. We're going to see a lot of crap pointless movies in 3D now.


Best use of Satire EVER!
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...carefully crafted storyline that echoes past hits like Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, and Ferngully: The Last Rainforest.

Praise the movie's plotline and then immediately point out all the other works of art that it blatantly rips off! Good one Jason!




RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By BBeltrami on 3/17/2010 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 5
And Ferngully wasn't a hit by any measure... The worldwide take was barely $30 million: A disaster by today's standards. Even in '92 it was only good enough to generate a direct-to-video sequel.

Beyond the visual appeal, there is almost nothing original, much less unique or even creative in the plot of Avatar. I thought it was ridiculous and juvenile, with characters as deep as a pie tin.

While Cameron may not have meant to insult marines, he has stated, openly, that Avatar was designed to present a subversive attack on corporations in the guise of a fun movie. So, while not meaning to insult them, he was blatantly using them to forward his agenda.

Personally, I saw the natives as the conservatives, fighting against what amounted to an imminent domain battle. But the liberal corporation is going through with its plans even if the natives don't want their "help". Stupid natives don't even know what's good for them, right? Where else have I heard that lately?


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By chagrinnin on 3/17/2010 4:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
Liberal like a Fox. Rupert would be proud of you.


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By thepalinator on 3/17/2010 5:44:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
he has stated, openly, that Avatar was designed to present a subversive attack on corporations in the guise of a fun movie.
He's also a hypocrite, since he's the CEO of Lightstorm, a hugely profitable production corporation.

Of course, in his liberal-addled mind, I'm sure the only "bad" corporations are ones that produce things we actually need, like computers, cars, energy, and the like.


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2010 9:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Being a hypocrite is a prerequisite for being a Liberal.


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By Keeir on 3/17/2010 2:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
I especially like it that 2/3 of those movies are meant for the child market.


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By pizan on 3/17/2010 3:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised no one said Braveheart. there is that big speech to get them motivated to fight and they are blue. I was waiting for "They may take ou lives, but they will never take... OUR FREEDOM!!!!!!!111"


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By Iaiken on 3/17/2010 4:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
And the Oscar for best Blue Side-boob goes to?

AVATAR!!!


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 5:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be pissed if I were the Orion girl from Star Trek.

A clear case of discrimination by the academy.


RE: Best use of Satire EVER!
By Jalek on 3/17/2010 6:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
I only had to hear the actors doing their guest appearances saying "most people won't understand the message" to know the movie would be contrived crap.

Turns out, it's another greed-is-evil movie with smurfs.


Encouraging piracy?
By BernardP on 3/17/2010 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why would a rational consumer buy the minimalist version, knowing full well that the ultimate edition is coming before the end of the year?

Many people will simply rent or torrent the minimalist version to tide themselves over until the product they are willing to pay for comes out. It will make for a nice Christmas gift too.




RE: Encouraging piracy?
By DCstewieG on 3/17/2010 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think most people keep track of such things. How many people really read about DVD release dates online? And it's not like there's a sticker on the DVD "There will be a new version in November with bonus features, you may not want to buy this now! This helpful message brought to you by the MPAA."


RE: Encouraging piracy?
By ilostmypen on 3/17/2010 2:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rational consumer


HAHAHAHA

I hope you don't mean the same people that buy every other shiny piece of crap they see on TV. Very few consumers are rational about products they buy. The majority just get it because it's shiny or marketed well, Apple for example.


RE: Encouraging piracy?
By CurseTheSky on 3/17/2010 2:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
The rational (or, I should say, "average") consumer doesn't read DailyTech, or similar bits of news like this. They'll simply see the standard DVD / Blu-ray available at their local mall or on Amazon and buy it simply because ZOMG IT'S AVATAR THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER AND I MUST HAVE IT!!111!11!

Yes, they'll say the ones too.

Then, nearing the holiday season, they'll see the ultimate edition and feel inclined to buy it for their friends or family members that don't already have a copy. Chances are, at least one person will buy it for them, too, since all they have is the standard edition.

Finally, when the 3D version is released, people - the same people that already own a standard and ultimate version - will reminisce about how awesome the seeds of Eywa looked floating by your face or how they jumped when an arrow when whizzing past their eyes and seemed to strike somewhere by their head (just making that part up). Sure enough, they'll buy a copy of that too, and will attempt to happily relive their fondest theatrical memories, donning their cardboard (or, if expensive enough, plastic) 3D glasses.

That's just one possible scenario, of course. But that is a good example of how multi-version releases like this make loads of cash. People will buy whatever's available when it comes out simply because they must have it, and then upgrade to better versions because they feel that they're missing out on something. I'd even bet that a majority of the people that buy the ultimate edition won't watch the deleted scenes and extra features.

As far as piracy and torrents, the number of people that will be pissed about this multi-version release and pirate it as a result is a drop in the bucket compared to your average uninformed consumer that'll just grab it off the shelf.


RE: Encouraging piracy?
By BernardP on 3/17/2010 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
On second thought, I must agree with you. Case in point, my sister owns four different versions of Blade Runner.


RE: Encouraging piracy?
By consumerwhore on 3/17/2010 4:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if serious... but...

Given it was *DECADES* between releases of Blade Runner it's just a teeny weeny more excusable than buying Avatar three times in six months. (And, on top of it, in the same form factor!)


RE: Encouraging piracy?
By Lazarus Dark on 3/18/2010 8:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
I realize most people are impatient... But I can wait for the 3D version. I consider the 3D to be OAR, and I will never watch the 2d version (I've seen the 2d trailer and it's like a trailer for a whole different movie, it's not the same Avatar I saw)

I've never bought any version of LOTR, in fact I have not seen any of them since the theater release. I just refuse to watch them until I have the Extended Edition on Bluray.

I realize I am in a seriously small minority (heck, I may be the only one in this group.) Maybe I'm just to demanding? (don't sing please)


Thank you FOX!
By Ammohunt on 3/17/2010 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
fans, the film will have no special features. That's right; there will be no deleted scenes, no trailers and no behind-the-scenes footage bundled with the top release.


Thats great! i never watch that crap anyway wish that was an option with all blu-rays.




RE: Thank you FOX!
By Drag0nFire on 3/17/2010 2:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. More features means waiting even longer for the blue ray to load on my player. BDLive? Forget about it.


RE: Thank you FOX!
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 2:41:09 PM , Rating: 4
I would agree if it resulted in a lower retail price point, but I very much doubt that the movie will be any cheaper on release day.

If they really want to milk the customer they will also heavily compress the film and give it a crappy transfer, that way they can sell a "remastered version" later. Just like Cameron did with Terminator 2 and its 75 different versions.


RE: Thank you FOX!
By Strunf on 3/18/2010 8:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, you pay premium every time it gets released, first cause it's the only thing available, then cause of the deleted scenes and the last one cause of the 3D.


RE: Thank you FOX!
By Lazarus Dark on 3/18/2010 8:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
Normally... I would agree. I rarely used special features, I never use the stupid digital copy, and more often would just prefer a barebones disc with lossless audio.

But...
This is a James Cameron movie. And I have watched all the special features on his various dvds, The Abyss, Aliens, T2 Super-Mega Edition. And they were all worth it, some I watched multiple times. And I look forward to seeing all the behind the scenes and how-they-did-it featurettes for Avatar.


what?
By PorreKaj on 3/17/2010 4:02:47 PM , Rating: 3
Carefully crafted storyline...

The storyline is a copy of pocahontas :S
Take a look at this:
http://uptill1.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Poca...




RE: what?
By chagrinnin on 3/17/2010 4:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert!


RE: what?
By darkweasel on 3/17/2010 4:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
I read that as tounge-in-cheek or satire.


RE: what?
By mmntech on 3/17/2010 6:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Avatar isn't a copy of Pocahontas, or Fern Gully, or Dances With Wolves. Yet it's all three. That's because it's such a clichéd, overused storyline.


RE: what?
By xsilver on 3/18/2010 12:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
yes, but thats just the problem no? 300million buys a recycled unoriginal storyline?

at least those other movies have the excuse of being made almost 20 years ago.


Avatar
By Danish1 on 3/18/2010 6:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Is a politically loaded PoS movie.

How convenient of Cameron to ignore the indians were happily slaugthering eachother before the white man arrived.

Humans are all the same.




RE: Avatar
By porkpie on 3/18/2010 8:41:04 AM , Rating: 3
As I always say, the only people to treat the American Indians worse than European settlers were the American Indians themselves.

A point sadly lost on the historical revisionists of today.


RE: Avatar
By thurston on 3/18/2010 9:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you say that?


Not news.
By Motoman on 3/17/2010 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 3
Having multiple versions of the movie on disk is de reguer these days. Happens all the time.

Also, I'd like to point out that the value of any "additional features" on any movie, ever, has always been the same: zero.




RE: Not news.
By lightfoot on 3/17/2010 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I'd like to point out that the value of any "additional features" on any movie, ever, has always been the same: zero.

If that were true they wouldn't produce them. Releasing a Standard Version and a Special Edition and selling the Special Edition at a premium price isn't a problem (some people will pay for the extras that you don't value) but intentionally trying to get your hard core fans to purchase the movie multiple times is misleading and deceptive.


Why bring up the neocons?
By Belard on 3/17/2010 11:51:10 PM , Rating: 1
What part of this article on the release dates of Avatar that required a commenting on a stupid neo-con?

Only a retard would come up wit the concept thats its a good idea to invade another country or planet (even fictional) for there own needs. Steal the land, kill their people... that is the American way?! (Well, kind of)

So with that concept, it would be okay for North Korea to invade the USA?

The bad guy humans were mercenaries, nothing more than a Blackwater. Not an Earth or US gov. Space Marines. The guys are ex-military, solider of fortune types, etc.

In the end... what part of pollution and death is better than health and life? Sorry retards, I do want my son to live a good healthy live and if the air & water we have are poison, then that is a major problem. Duuuuh!




RE: Why bring up the neocons?
By thurston on 3/18/2010 9:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
What?


By theendofallsongs on 3/18/2010 10:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Don't feed the troll.


retarded fans
By MadMan007 on 3/18/2010 6:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
Is the picture of those fans real and genuine? It sure looks that way. What a couple of complete morons.




RE: retarded fans
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/18/2010 8:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Check out the file name on that image:
"13960_large_ Avatards -with-their-tickets.png"

LMAO, nice one Jason.


3d Tech
By coolhand1313 on 3/18/2010 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so I don't know a lot about 3D tech.

Why do you need a 3D compatible TV to watch this stuff? Can't they just release a Blu-Ray pre-rendered with the video required to do the 3D effect with the required glasses? At the theater it didn't look like there was any kind of live processing going on. It just looked like Fox sent a copy of the digital film with the effect pre-applied to it.

What am I missing?




RE: 3d Tech
By delphinus100 on 3/20/2010 2:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
The 3-D technologies (note the plural) of the theaters isn't the same as the 3-D technologies (note the plural) for television.

And that TV had better have at least a 120hz refresh rate.


By Smartless on 3/17/2010 2:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Can't wait for the sequels. Don't you love how movies like Harry Potter and Twilight release the 2-pack, 3-pack steel edition, 4-pack etc. Then the digital version, the limited edition with t-shirt and bobble head. The Transforming DVD case that doesn't fit on a dvd shelf.

You know with the amount of editions, accessories, and limited edition along with the 3D crap they can sell with this movie (and people WILL buy), this thing could end up grossing what China invested in North Korea.




By gorehound on 3/17/2010 3:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
this release is going to be unobtanium for me.i will just wait and buy it used someday.more greed from the biggest pirates in the world.hollywood and the mapaa and the riaa too.




Deleted Scenes
By Shadowmaster625 on 3/19/2010 7:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Out of the last 500 dvds I have watched over a period of 4 years, I have only watched a couple deleted scenes. (One was for the movie Role Models). Extras are pretty dumb. Who really has time to go through all that crap?




I would have called it...
By DigitalFreak on 3/17/2010 4:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
Idontgiveashitium




Sensationalized
By bighairycamel on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton




Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM










botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki