So whos goin to the Avatar re-release

Outkast_IRE

My mind isnt made up yet , i remember enjoying it so much in the cinema but then i think its a lot of money to watch basically the same film again (with a few added minutes)
This weekend will be avatar or scott pilgrim cant make mind up

Diabhal_Glas

Might go again, was really blown away seeing it the first time. Hiking up the price to see it the first time was a bit scummy.

Otis Driftwood

This is one of the most cynical movie cash ins of all time and proof that Cameron is as big a whore as anyone in Hollywood.

mikhail

nedtheshed wrote: »

This is one of the most cynical movie cash ins of all time and proof that Cameron is as big a whore as anyone in Hollywood.

There's no reason why a film shouldn't be re-released if people will go see it. I resent the film's runaway success in spite of it's much analysed mediocrity (if I want to watch a pretty film with a ho-hum storyline, I'll watch The Fall, thanksmuchly), but I don't see this as any particular reason to hate on it. I mean, here's hoping that one man and his dog go see it and Hollywood regrets the decision, but whatever.

Basq

Nah.. it was a load of muck!

I'd rather watch my avatar for 3 and a half hours..

Dman001

I have yet to see it but I might go and see it now, I heard it looked great in 3D but I don't buy into all that 3D gimmick. I still don't think it will be as good as it is made out to be.

sprinkles

basquille wrote: »

Nah.. it was a load of muck!

I'd rather watch my avatar for 3 and a half hours..

Any chance you could do a 3D version and charge us a bit more to see it?

Basq

sprinkles wrote: »

Any chance you could do a 3D version and charge us a bit more to see it?

That'll be €14, plus €1.50 for glasses. And drop the shi*ty glasses in the bin at the end of the showing please!

titan18

I'll probably go see it again.Whilst not a great film, I think it's breathtaking to watch.When I first saw it I was blown away

sprinkles

basquille wrote: »

That'll be €14, plus €1.50 for glasses. And drop the shi*ty glasses in the bin at the end of the showing please!

lmao

you have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands!!

CokaColumbo

If I want to watch an anti-Capitalist, anti-US military, basically an anti-American diatribe, I'll just watch some Sean Penn interviews on YouTube for free. No need to pay €7.00 for the pleasure.

Nerdkiller1991

Is it actually being re-released in this country? Because I didn't see Ireland in the countries where the movies are being re-released. If it is, I might go and see it, because I've yet to see it in 3D.

Brendog

james cameron....







basquille.....

AnonoBoy

basquille wrote: »

That'll be €14, plus €1.50 for glasses. And drop the shi*ty glasses in the bin at the end of the showing please!

I totally preferred the 8 hour 2D director's cut.

Cause I'm a real film fan!

Sad Professor

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Is it actually being re-released in this country? Because I didn't see Ireland in the countries where the movies are being re-released.

Yeah, it's out on Friday.

Nerdkiller1991

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, it's out on Friday.

Yeah, I just checked the website on my cinema. Its definatly coming out on Friday over here.

BlitzKrieg

honestly its only 9 minutes extra


all of it is cgi

from wiki:

The re-release includes an additional 9 minutes of footage, all of which is CG,[255] including an extension of the sex scene[256] and various other scenes that were cut from the original theatrical film.[255] Cameron stated that the 9 minutes of added scenes cost more than $1 million a minute to produce and finish.[257]

9 minutes?

That wont change the mind of anyone who were not fans to start with and those who enjoyed it enough it might not be enough to entice another visit (I know I'm not interested to go again.)

Big fans go ahead knock yourselves out.

But 9 minutes...where the big selling point is na'avi sex scene


a bit creepy

its like furries...for really really rich people who can afford to have cgi porno done instead of some carpet and some googly eyes.

Nerdkiller1991

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

honestly its only 9 minutes extra


all of it is cgi

from wiki:




9 minutes?

That wont change the mind of anyone who were not fans to start with and those who enjoyed it enough it might not be enough to entice another visit (I know I'm not interested to go again.)

Big fans go ahead knock yourselves out.

But 9 minutes...where the big selling point is na'avi sex scene


a bit creepy

its like furries...for really really rich people who can afford to have cgi porno done instead of some carpet and some googly eyes.

Well from where I've heard of, that scene is only gonna be 20 seconds extra, so don't expect to see them stick each others ponytails in a knot.

BlitzKrieg

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Well from where I've heard of, that scene is only gonna be 20 seconds extra, so don't expect to see them stick each others ponytails in a knot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D8IRIYBSnk

Nerdkiller1991

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D8IRIYBSnk

Yeah, yeah, I've seen that one too. I was gonna post that, but I thought it mightn't be appropriate.

humanji

I thought the film was muck, but I might bring my folks to go see it as they missed it the first time round (probably because I told them it was muck). It's an experience more than a film.

filmfan

I actually only saw this on DVD, is it worth going to the cinema to see in all it's glory??

Warper

This release shows the disrespect shown to the general public by the movie powerhouses. It thinks it can just re-release practically the same film with a couple of mins of new material and the braindead drone public will go see it again. The sad thing is there are a lot of people who will go to see this over-hyped computer game again. The first one was bad but this is just taking the piss.

Galvasean

Might check it out if there is absolutely nothing else of interest on and my Cineworld card will get me in for free.

Anakin.S

filmfan wrote: »

I actually only saw this on DVD, is it worth going to the cinema to see in all it's glory??

Some of the 3d is fantastic, I'd say go watch it in 3d and sit as far back in the cinema as you can (3d has less blurred effect when you sit further back)

Basq

Kids,

Do yourself a favour and go see 'Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World' instead.

titan18

basquille wrote: »

Kids,

Do yourself a favour and go see 'Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World' instead.

Or both

speedboatchase

Might go again, the 3D was fantastic and there's nothing out I want to see, or has been for much of the summer

humanji

filmfan wrote: »

I actually only saw this on DVD, is it worth going to the cinema to see in all it's glory??

This is the pinnicle of 3D movies. So after this, you won't have to watch another one!

Warper wrote: »

This release shows the disrespect shown to the general public by the movie powerhouses. It thinks it can just re-release practically the same film with a couple of mins of new material and the braindead drone public will go see it again. The sad thing is there are a lot of people who will go to see this over-hyped computer game again. The first one was bad but this is just taking the piss.

Nobody is being forced to watch it (well possibly in North Korea or somewhere like that), so if people go to it, it means there's a market for it. Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to. Lots of people loved it.

Renn

Nah this is taking the p*ss, and people will stupidly fall for it and go again. It just gives them an incentive to pull sh*t like this again if people flock to see it.

You've got nine minutes of additional footage? Yeah, put it on the f*cking dvd.

titan18

Renn wrote: »

Nah this is taking the p*ss, and people will stupidly fall for it and go again. It just gives them an incentive to pull sh*t like this again if people flock to see it.

You've got nine minutes of additional footage? Yeah, put it on the f*cking dvd.

I don't care about the additional footage.I just want to see in 3D in the cinema again.It's much better seeing it in the cinema than on DVD or Blu-Ray.If the Matrix was released again,I'd go see it.Same with a bunch of films.

gandalf

Its unbelievable that this pile of over-hyped crud is getting a re-release because they have added 9 minutes.

Save yourselves the money and time and avoid this rubbish like the plague if you haven't been unfortunate enough already to have it soil your grey matter.

Minstrel27

Absolutely no way that I will be going to see this again. I bored senseless the first time.

ArPharazon

I hope it does well to reach the $3 Billion dollar mark

filmfan

I think they should re-release Jurassic Park but in 3d instead, I'd go see that in the cinema again in a heartbeat:D

A-Trak

I really don't understand the hate?
It's not like it's the leaving cert or a driving test, something that must be endured and you're obliged to see/do . People choose to pay their money and see it.

As a film it was mildly entertaining, combined with 3D and a huge cinema screen it was definitely worth experiencing.

When I left the cinema, I felt I got my moneys worth, but would never ever again watch it on a home display, blueray, HD or otherwise.
But faced with a spare few hours again next weekend and vs. whats with on in the cinema at present, I'll probably pay my €9 and have another view.

jaykhunter

I wonder if the sequel will do better business than the first. Might be impossible since everyone has seen AVATAR....

I'm not trying to slate it, but for me the 2nd half really dragged. I think the film would be overall much better if they cut 40 minutes from the film, rather than adding to it.

bonerm

I'd defo go see it again. Leonard DiCaprio gives an amazing performance as Howard Hughes. Possibly my favourite Scorcese movie at this point.

CokaColumbo

A-Trak wrote: »

It's not like it's the leaving cert or a driving test, something that must be endured and you're obliged to see/do.

Mandatory driving tests for everyone!

Renn

A-Trak wrote: »

I really don't understand the hate?
It's not like it's the leaving cert or a driving test, something that must be endured and you're obliged to see/do . People choose to pay their money and see it.

As a film it was mildly entertaining, combined with 3D and a huge cinema screen it was definitely worth experiencing.

When I left the cinema, I felt I got my moneys worth, but would never ever again watch it on a home display, blueray, HD or otherwise.
But faced with a spare few hours again next weekend and vs. whats with on in the cinema at present, I'll probably pay my €9 and have another view.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67661832&postcount=30

JP Liz V1

It was way overrated before and still is imo so no for me

monkeyfudge

A-Trak wrote: »

I really don't understand the hate?
It's not like it's the leaving cert or a driving test, something that must be endured and you're obliged to see/do . People choose to pay their money and see it.

As a film it was mildly entertaining, combined with 3D and a huge cinema screen it was definitely worth experiencing.

When I left the cinema, I felt I got my moneys worth, but would never ever again watch it on a home display, blueray, HD or otherwise.
But faced with a spare few hours again next weekend and vs. whats with on in the cinema at present, I'll probably pay my €9 and have another view.

It's a really horrible precedent.

It's a terrible film with a paper thin plot that we've already seen dozens of times over the years. The fact that it has done so well and that they can just stick it out again and people will pay again directly impacts on what other types of films the studios will make and release in future. We're already seeing the impact Avatar has had by looking at the amount of utterly pointless 3D movies being rushed out. This is all really bad news for the future of cinema.

Galvasean

filmfan wrote: »

I think they should re-release Jurassic Park but in 3d instead, I'd go see that in the cinema again in a heartbeat:D

Just re-release Jurassic Park full stop.

BlitzKrieg

This is all really bad news for the future of cinema.

uhmm???


future???


This is the old business model

Avatar is such a bizarre throwback through the history of cinema (in plot, shooting style, technology etc) that for them to embrace the re-release in cinema on a regular basis model that cinema embraced before the birth of vhs is almost expected now.

Going through cinema only once is only a fairly recent model. Films like Gone with the Wind and the wizard of oz got re released numerous times.

for example gone with the wind according to wiki:

Gone with the Wind was given theatrical re-releases in 1947, 1954 and 1961. It was re-released in 1967 in a 70 mm stereophonic version, which is best known today for its iconic poster.

Yes only a year has passed for avatar which is a bit rushed. But re releasing into theatre is not a new precedent, its just no major films in the last 10 or so years really had the appeal to make more profit in theatre, they made more money going to dvd. Avatar does because 3D tv hasnt been embraced (and hopefully wont be) and I will bet it will be re released every year until it is because they know they can make money from it because there are substantial people out there who feel dvd/blu ray cant do the film justice without the big 3D imax thingy everyone raves about.

Renn

Did the re-releases in the old days contain additonal footage and all that?

bonerm

Renn wrote: »

Did the re-releases in the old days contain additonal footage and all that?

I think Spielberg started this whole trend for Re-edited movies featuring new footage when Close Encounters was rereleased in 1980.

monkeyfudge

I think there's a big difference between the rerelease staggered dates of Gone with the Wind in the days before home video formats and what's happening with Avatar.

jaykhunter

I can't give out about films being re-released to rake in some extra dollars -- i'd wish they'd just admit it, though; like these 9 minutes are something earth-shattering lol

Dark Knight did it so they could pip the $1,000,000,000 mark, so if people wanna re-see it, fine who cares!

BlitzKrieg

Renn wrote: »

Did the re-releases in the old days contain additonal footage and all that?

a number of re-releases used different cuts. With Gone with the Wind it was different aspect ratios and technical changes mostly as it was with Wizard of OZ (the opening changed from sepia toned to black & white in the 1955 re release)

But Touch of evil has different cuts between its 1958 and 1976 versions and famously its 1998 version.

I think there's a big difference between the rerelease staggered dates of Gone with the Wind in the days before home video formats and what's happening with Avatar.

I dont see much difference. Films were periodicly re released to bring in more money, this gave way to the different markets of vhs/dvd/blu ray with the advancement of technology and the simple truth that after a few weeks films in the cinema stop making money. Avatar joins a select few films in today's day and age that enjoyed months in theatrical release (Lord of the rings is another series that embraced it) and it came with the bonus element that like the films prior to the advent of home entertainment the cinema is the only place where it can still be embraced so they used the excuse of the special edition to put it back out on theatrical release.


All of Cameron's films have special editions, but only avatar with the limited 3D market at home had the justification to go back to another theatrical run.

monkeyfudge

It's not a good thing though.

It's eating up marketing budgets and screen space that could go to original films.

If this proves successful you're going to end up with a film industry like the current games industry with slight updates being released on a yearly basis to films like you get with the FIFA football series et al.

Of course people still lap it all up and lots of money will be made. But it's not a good thing for art of film making.

johnnyjb

basquille wrote: »

That'll be €14, plus €1.50 for glasses. And drop the shi*ty glasses in the bin at the end of the showing please!

Your joking

In cork i payed 11 for it and had to give back glasses too.

If thats a real price i wouldnt dream of going to it even the first time