The Energon Pub

So Fox is going to continue to milk the Avatar movie phenomenon. The version of Avatar that they are releasing is a bare-bones-no-frills version with zero extra features. The special edition of the movie will be released later this year around the holiday season. The 3D version of the film is apparently going to be released in 2011.

What a crock! I guess they're not going to get my money until 2011. Hopefully I'm still interested in watching it in 3D by then or else I guess they'll miss out on my money.

Info from: http://blog.boxofficespy.com/2010/03/of ... lease.html

Seibertron wrote:So Fox is going to continue to milk the Avatar movie phenomenon. The version of Avatar that they are releasing is a bare-bones-no-frills version with zero extra features. The special edition of the movie will be released later this year around the holiday season. The 3D version of the film is apparently going to be released in 2011.

What a crock! I guess they're not going to get my money until 2011. Hopefully I'm still interested in watching it in 3D by then or else I guess they'll miss out on my money.

Dude, seriously.

First off, I read somewhere that they're doing this in order to make sure the picture is of the best quality they can get without having to sacrifice it. Yeah, they could probably have done a second disc with features, but these days, most movies don't really even get that, and if they do, that edition is usually out of print within a year.

Second off, the thing made a kajillion dollars at the box office, and, as far as I know, is still in certain theaters. Holding out until the holiday season might get the best edition possible, but I don't think people are really going to give two [word I can't say] about what version of it gets released on home video first, so long as they can get a version.

Third, even if they do care, they'll just plonk down the money later on to get the super-fantastical-deluxe edition with all the bells and whistles it contains, because fans are idiots like that.

Darth Bombshell wrote:

Seibertron wrote:So Fox is going to continue to milk the Avatar movie phenomenon. The version of Avatar that they are releasing is a bare-bones-no-frills version with zero extra features. The special edition of the movie will be released later this year around the holiday season. The 3D version of the film is apparently going to be released in 2011.

What a crock! I guess they're not going to get my money until 2011. Hopefully I'm still interested in watching it in 3D by then or else I guess they'll miss out on my money.

Dude, seriously.

First off, I read somewhere that they're doing this in order to make sure the picture is of the best quality they can get without having to sacrifice it. Yeah, they could probably have done a second disc with features, but these days, most movies don't really even get that, and if they do, that edition is usually out of print within a year.

Second off, the thing made a kajillion dollars at the box office, and, as far as I know, is still in certain theaters. Holding out until the holiday season might get the best edition possible, but I don't think people are really going to give two [word I can't say] about what version of it gets released on home video first, so long as they can get a version.

Third, even if they do care, they'll just plonk down the money later on to get the super-fantastical-deluxe edition with all the bells and whistles it contains, because fans are idiots like that.

Right. Hence ... milking us pions for more and more money. And I wasn't really much of a fan of the film all that much. It was a fun movie, but not the world's best movie. I'm itching to try out the 3D on my TV that I bought 3 years ago and was looking forward to finally having an excuse to try it out and wear my 3D glasses at home. Guess we have to wait another year.

Seibertron wrote:And I wasn't really much of a fan of the film all that much. It was a fun movie, but not the world's best movie. I'm itching to try out the 3D on my TV that I bought 3 years ago and was looking forward to finally having an excuse to try it out and wear my 3D glasses at home. Guess we have to wait another year.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You weren't a superfan of the movie, so you're not going to be putting up the cash to buy it on Thursday, a substandard version that, while not perfect, is clearly the best we're going to get at the moment.

So this really leaves me with only one question to ask.

What, exactly, is the problem?

Darth Bombshell wrote:

Seibertron wrote:And I wasn't really much of a fan of the film all that much. It was a fun movie, but not the world's best movie. I'm itching to try out the 3D on my TV that I bought 3 years ago and was looking forward to finally having an excuse to try it out and wear my 3D glasses at home. Guess we have to wait another year.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You weren't a superfan of the movie, so you're not going to be putting up the cash to buy it on Thursday, a substandard version that, while not perfect, is clearly the best we're going to get at the moment.

So this really leaves me with only one question to ask.

What, exactly, is the problem?

I'm confused by why you're giving me a hard time about voicing my opinion about Fox's marketing scam. I don't have to be a huge fan to want to watch a movie again. I thought it was an OK movie. I want to watch it in 3D at my own house with my own setup so that I can see it again and see what I missed out on. I had a really sour attitude when I first saw it because I thought it was absurd that my fiancee and I paid $45 for two movie tickets to see it in 3D at Muvico.

I'm complaining that Fox is milking the consumer market even more by releasing a sub-standard version of the film first, a special edition of the film approximately 7 months later, then releasing a 3D version next year. From Fox's financial perspective, it's genius, because a lot of people will want to see it again when it comes out in 3D on DVD. However, from a consumer standpoint, it's not very friendly and really takes advantage of us. I see the brilliance of it from Fox's perspective but as a consumer, I think it's utter crap.

Darth Bombshell wrote:So let me see if I understand you correctly. You weren't a superfan of the movie, so you're not going to be putting up the cash to buy it on Thursday, a substandard version that, while not perfect, is clearly the best we're going to get at the moment.

So this really leaves me with only one question to ask.

What, exactly, is the problem?

Yeah, I don't want to watch the movie again in a substandard version. I want to watch it, and own it, in 3D. I was really looking forward to it until I found out tonight that it's not going to be in 3D. I think it sucks that I have to wait until next year to own it in 3D on DVD.

And to be honest, I think it's weird that you're arguing with me about my reasoning for thinking this is crap. Are you just looking to be argumentative tonight? Seriously, what's the deal?

I really, really dislike "Bare Bones" editions. For goodnes sakes, Special Features were one of the things that made DVD's superior to VHS back in the day. These days your lucky to find even one special feature on a single disc edition(well, besides the obligatory commentary on newer films).

Then you get those really, really idiotic "Two Disc Digital Copy Editions". If I am wrong, someone feel free to correct me, but: According to the back of the Alien vs. Predator: Requium box Disc 1 had quite a few special features, and the Second Disc only contained the digital copy. Well when I got the movie it was on sale and only $6 or so new, so I got the single disc version figuring all the special features were there. Wrong. Oh, it did have a few special features, but not as many as was touted on the 2 disc edition. Yet all those features were on ONE DISC, according to the box. Therefore, they pulled features from the disc for no reason other than to make the consumer buy a digital copy which they may not be intersted in. Do I miss the special features? Yeah, they would have made a crappy movie purchase at least more bearable, but since the movie is pretty much crap I have no desire to get another version just for those features.

Oh, and while on the subject, how much content was on the 2-Disc of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra? I'll admit I only got the single disc for that movie because the back of the box only listed two measly featurettes that didn't look like they were worth the extra cash, specially since I got the movie on Black Friday for cheap.

Oh yeah, you can't even get deleted scenes anymore on single discs....

Sorry if I derailed a bit, but it is slightly on topic.

Also, reading your last post(which came up as I was typing), but I didn't realize when I first replied there would be 3 versions of the film released, on three different dates(I thought it was just two seperate dates). I agree that is a buncha crap. I suppose the only thing we can do is protest by not buying it on launch day. I wasn't planning to anyway, so that might not mean too much....

Seibertron wrote:I'm confused by why you're giving me a hard time about voicing my opinion about Fox's marketing scam.

Seibertron wrote:And to be honest, I think it's weird that you're arguing with me about my reasoning for thinking this is crap. Are you just looking to be argumentative tonight? Seriously, what's the deal?

I'm not in an argumentative mood. I'm just looking at the situation realistically. Like I said, the movie made a lot of money, and was a globalwide phenomenon. I would think that, given that, it would make sense to get it out onto home video as soon as possible so as to capitalize on that. Hardcore fans and techno buffs would no doubt hold out of any special edition releases or 3D versions, but as I said before, no one's going to care what version they own, so long as they own a version.

And besides, 3D TV is a new thing. It's going to take them time to remaster the movie for that market. You really can't blame anyone for that.

Ever since my wife and I walked out of the theater and she turned to me and said, "So...that was Fern Gully, 2009/2010 edition." I can't look at the film the same way.

BS! The only reason I liked the movie was because of the 3D! They're probobly trying to advertise those new 3D TVs. "Go out and buy these $10000000000 TVs to watch Avatar in 3D"

I don't see how this is a scam, after all they said how they'll release it. It would be a scam if they wouldn't have said anything and just released the standard version now ten later a 2 disc version and next year the ultimate version in 3D.

But they informed the customers beforehand, it's just going to take a while.

I usually always go for special versions with lots of bonus content especially for movies I really like.

That's why I'm waiting for Tf3 to come out on home-video in a special trilogy box before I buy the TF movies separately.

Counterpunch wrote:Ever since my wife and I walked out of the theater and she turned to me and said, "So...that was Fern Gully, 2009/2010 edition." I can't look at the film the same way.

Fern Gully? Try Pocohontas. I had the same feeling going into the movie after someone said that to me.

Seibertron wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:Ever since my wife and I walked out of the theater and she turned to me and said, "So...that was Fern Gully, 2009/2010 edition." I can't look at the film the same way.

Fern Gully? Try Pocohontas. I had the same feeling going into the movie after someone said that to me.

Personally, I think it's a little from column A, a little from column B.

Darth Bombshell wrote:

Seibertron wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:Ever since my wife and I walked out of the theater and she turned to me and said, "So...that was Fern Gully, 2009/2010 edition." I can't look at the film the same way.

Fern Gully? Try Pocohontas. I had the same feeling going into the movie after someone said that to me.

Personally, I think it's a little from column A, a little from column B.

Well, it was the altered form yelling into the camera on top of the construction vehicle that pushed the point for her. That and the whole, "Save the big tree" aspect.

Saw it in the theaters, which honestly was the best way to see this film, and while I'm not gonna run Avatar down as its a decent if somewhat retread and predictable story. The true selling point was the effects.

So I can wait for 2011...hell I'll likely wait until it even comes down in price a bit before grabbing any version of the film.

Counterpunch wrote:Ever since my wife and I walked out of the theater and she turned to me and said, "So...that was Fern Gully, 2009/2010 edition." I can't look at the film the same way.

My oldest daughter said the exact same thing comparing it to FernGully.

Honestly, I'm not that surprised by this. This gives more consumers the opportunity to purchase true 120hz TV's/Monitors and electronic 3D glasses.

I'm not sure I'm buying into all of that though...since traditional 3d always looked like crap.

This statement is of course void if I am misunderstanding the new 3d or Avatar 3d is released with red/blue lines...

Gutter Bunny wrote:Honestly, I'm not that surprised by this. This gives more consumers the opportunity to purchase true 120hz TV's/Monitors and electronic 3D glasses.

I'm not sure I'm buying into all of that though...since traditional 3d always looked like crap.

This statement is of course void if I am misunderstanding the new 3d or Avatar 3d is released with red/blue lines...

Did you see Avatar at the theatres? It's not old school 3D. No more red / blue lines.

Seibertron wrote:

Gutter Bunny wrote:Honestly, I'm not that surprised by this. This gives more consumers the opportunity to purchase true 120hz TV's/Monitors and electronic 3D glasses.

I'm not sure I'm buying into all of that though...since traditional 3d always looked like crap.

This statement is of course void if I am misunderstanding the new 3d or Avatar 3d is released with red/blue lines...

Did you see Avatar at the theatres? It's not old school 3D. No more red / blue lines.

Unfortunately, the wife and I couldn't get a night off together to even see the 2D version. However, I assumed that it wasn't the traditional 3d.

This however further justifies my theory that they want to get the shutter style glasses/120hz tv combos in full swing before releasing such a popular 3d picture.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in these being necessary for a home 3d setup. The last 3d picture that i saw at home was my bloody valentine and it was the traditional red/blue. Believing that 3D is simply a passing fad like it was before, I haven't exactly been in a hurry to rush out and buy new equipment.

I've got a 3 year old TV that is compatible with the 3D technology so I imagine a lot of people already have this capability ... or don't know that they already have it.

Seibertron wrote:I've got a 3 year old TV that is compatible with the 3D technology so I imagine a lot of people already have this capability ... or don't know that they already have it.

Have you actually tried it? If so i'm interested in hearing your opinion on it.

The list of true 120hz tv's(not converted from 60hz to 120 or higher) is actually quite small from what i've read. You are, of course, correct that many Samsung and Mitsubishi tv's from back in 2007 are actually compatible. However, with sony releasing its 3D bravias this year (and I'm sure many other companies to follow), it only makes since to hold off on the release.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been released so those that already have 3D ready televisions and computers could enjoy it. However, from a business standpoint i understand why they want to hold off until 3d is in the forefront of the average consumer's mind.

Maybe I'm a caveman, or someone who doesn't care for change, or perhaps a caveman who doesn't care for change, but I can't be the only person who wishes 3D would just keel over and die already, can I?

I've heard people say this is the "innovation" the movie industry needed. I say, no it isn't. The innovation it needs is to focus less on adaptations and remakes and more on storytelling and original thought. If you need your characters to jump out at the audience to get their attention, then you need to try harder.

Shadowman wrote:Maybe I'm a caveman, or someone who doesn't care for change, or perhaps a caveman who doesn't care for change, but I can't be the only person who wishes 3D would just keel over and die already, can I?

I've heard people say this is the "innovation" the movie industry needed. I say, no it isn't. The innovation it needs is to focus less on adaptations and remakes and more on storytelling and original thought. If you need your characters to jump out at the audience to get their attention, then you need to try harder.

I'm about 70% with you on that. The variance stems only from my love of change. 3D is hardly innovation. In my opinion 3D has never been anything more than a way to make a dull movie slightly less dull. It is for this reason I am not rushing out to purchase new equipment(unlike seibs, my 3 year old tv is NOT compatible). I'll give it a chance eventually, mainly because I already wanted to buy a bigger tv and another monitor...but i'm in no rush. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said earlier the last 3D movies I saw were Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine. Perhaps Avatar truely was an innovation...

Wishing more people would weigh in on this subject. Be it solely to discuss avatar or 3D innovation in general.

Gutter Bunny wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Maybe I'm a caveman, or someone who doesn't care for change, or perhaps a caveman who doesn't care for change, but I can't be the only person who wishes 3D would just keel over and die already, can I?

I've heard people say this is the "innovation" the movie industry needed. I say, no it isn't. The innovation it needs is to focus less on adaptations and remakes and more on storytelling and original thought. If you need your characters to jump out at the audience to get their attention, then you need to try harder.

I'm about 70% with you on that. The variance stems only from my love of change. 3D is hardly innovation. In my opinion 3D has never been anything more than a way to make a dull movie slightly less dull. It is for this reason I am not rushing out to purchase new equipment(unlike seibs, my 3 year old tv is NOT compatible). I'll give it a chance eventually, mainly because I already wanted to buy a bigger tv and another monitor...but i'm in no rush. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said earlier the last 3D movies I saw were Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine. Perhaps Avatar truely was an innovation...

Wishing more people would weigh in on this subject. Be it solely to discuss avatar or 3D innovation in general.

The best about Avatar was that the 3D wasn't used to throw shite at the audience but actually gave the movie picture some depth. Plus the moving objects didn't flicker during action sequences like they do in every other 3D movie I have ever seen before and after Avatar.
No matter how good the 3D in Avatar was, it didn't add much to the enjoyment of the movie, I think I would have liked it just as much if I had seen it in 2D.

I can't wait for 3D to finally turn over and die again, like it has been doing for the past 100 years.

Dead Metal wrote:

Gutter Bunny wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Maybe I'm a caveman, or someone who doesn't care for change, or perhaps a caveman who doesn't care for change, but I can't be the only person who wishes 3D would just keel over and die already, can I?

I've heard people say this is the "innovation" the movie industry needed. I say, no it isn't. The innovation it needs is to focus less on adaptations and remakes and more on storytelling and original thought. If you need your characters to jump out at the audience to get their attention, then you need to try harder.

I'm about 70% with you on that. The variance stems only from my love of change. 3D is hardly innovation. In my opinion 3D has never been anything more than a way to make a dull movie slightly less dull. It is for this reason I am not rushing out to purchase new equipment(unlike seibs, my 3 year old tv is NOT compatible). I'll give it a chance eventually, mainly because I already wanted to buy a bigger tv and another monitor...but i'm in no rush. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said earlier the last 3D movies I saw were Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine. Perhaps Avatar truely was an innovation...

Wishing more people would weigh in on this subject. Be it solely to discuss avatar or 3D innovation in general.

The best about Avatar was that the 3D wasn't used to throw shite at the audience but actually gave the movie picture some depth. Plus the moving objects didn't flicker during action sequences like they do in every other 3D movie I have ever seen before and after Avatar.
No matter how good the 3D in Avatar was, it didn't add much to the enjoyment of the movie, I think I would have liked it just as much if I had seen it in 2D.

I can't wait for 3D to finally turn over and die again, like it has been doing for the past 100 years.

So were classic 3D films like the orginal House of Wax, Hondo, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, Revenge of the Creature, and It Came from Outer Space they didn't throw crap at the screen to be innovative. They played with that aspect sure, but the 3D was basically used to show depth and perspective which is what Cameron did with Avatar.

Since the 1950s 3D is a gimmick that comes back about every 30 years there was a brief resurgence in the 80s with films like Jaws 3-D and Friday the 13th part 3D, and The Final Nightmare: Freddy's Dead then it died out again.

It's 30 years again, and Hollywood once again thinks 3D "will finally revolutionize the film industery" the only problems is that 3D never has really worked on the home video market and given the state of the economy I doubt many people can afford to buy a new HD/3D TV for to see a few films in 3D.

Also given that seeing Avatar in the "Real 3D" format cost me and my dad about $35 (In IMAX 3D it would have closer to $50) for our tickets. I don't see the this current 3D craze doing any better than last couple 3D crazes, even if the technology and the process have been improved and are better in the end the price to consumers will ultimately work against it.

While Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were box office hits both had high-profile directors (James Cameron and Tim Burton respectfully) with their own fanbase. If Avatar was NOT directed by Cameron I would never bothered with it. Burton's films I tend too buy on DVD and/or BRD.

I'm sure films like Toy Story 3 and Tron Legacy will be both be box office hits but lets remember that both of them are sequels that have a big fan bases to support them and chances are it wouldn't matter if they were released in 2D, 3D, or shown exclusively IMAX screens, they will make money because fans that will support them regardless of the format they were released in or on.