At a News Corp. earnings call, CEO Rupert Murdoch said yesterday that James Cameron's sci-fi megablockbuster Avatar will be released on Blu-ray during the company's fiscal year, which ends June 30. However, the studio is in no hurry to put the movie on store shelves just yet. “We're not going to yank it out of theaters if it is doing $30 million a weekend,” News Corp. president Chase Carey said.
Carey also confirmed what James Cameron had said when Avatar opened in theaters (see blu-ray.com, December 18): the first BD edition will not include a 3-D version, and there will be a 3-D release "down the road" when the technology is ready.
I still don't get the fuss over Avatar. I am frankly gobsmacked - GOBSMACKED - that it's been so successful at the box office and even more surprised by the number of Oscar nominations. It just isn't all that special IMHO. In Cameron terms it doesn't come close to Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens!
I'm glad it it's the 2D version, the 3D made some parts look incredible, but 3D still gives me a splitting headache and it feels kind of gimmicky. I was impressed that they improved the technology but it still has a ways to go before it's completely right
I have to respond to Spymaster and say I feel the same way about The Hurt Locker. I am quite dumbfounded by how that movie received any nominations!!! I think the movie fans got that one right and ignored it big time at the box office and the Academy needs to do the same! I am sorry for going off topic - Yes Avatar the Blu Ray will be the biggest seller of all time! I know people who are planning on buying a Blu Ray Player just for this movie!!!
"If I was planning to buy a 3D HDTV and Blu-ray player I'd definitely wait on the version that shows this movie in all its glory."
Are there really that many people who are planning to upgrade their home theaters to 3D in the next 5 months? I'm sure there are a few -- and probably more on a site like this than in the population as a whole... but it seems like a VERY limited group of folks at this point.
I can't blame them for waiting on a 3D version. Why rush it?
This will definitely be one of those "killer app" titles that brings people to blu.
I think Fox is making a big mistake. The 3D standard is comptiblte with 2D players and will be ready by June so it makes no sense whatsoever to hold off on a 3D release. Personally Ill wait for the 3D version however long it takes
I have to respond to denger76 and say that I feel the same way about The Hurt Locker too! It might have been somewhat interesting if the main character wasn't such a standard macho soldier dude (e.g. Michael J. Fox in "Casualties of War", an actually great war movie), but aside from a few effective scenes of tension, there wasn't anything particulary special about it.
As for Avatar on blu-ray - meh - aside from technical categories perhaps, about the only award it deserves is the Oscar for "Holy Crap What a Great Theatre Experience". I'm not that excited to see it on a small screen in 2D.
I join Spymaster in wondering why this movie is so popular. Aside from a decent "theater experience", it was a total hack job from both Cameron and composer James Horner. Not an ounce of creativity in story, music, acting, or directing. Should have been titled "Pocohontas Meets Dances With Wolves in The Matrix". A horse with an extra set of legs? Wow! A beast with an extra set of eyes? Wow! Nothing more special here than a three hour video game.
District 9 and Star Trek were THE sci-fi movies of the year!
SellmeyourDVD - The Dark Knight was already like the Matrix was for DVD, eclipsed it in fact given that The Matrix didn't even have a concurrent VHS release (it was 11 weeks delayed) while The Dark Knight was released concurrently on both Blu-ray and DVD and it STILL managed to do for Blu-ray what The Matrix did for DVD. TDK did over a million copies on Blu-ray in less time than The Matrix did on DVD.
Yes ogscorpion all 3D versions will have a 2D option. ALL OF THEM. A 2D only release makes absolutly no sense. The only reason Fox seems to be doing this is to get a few double dips from fans. Fox has a nasty habbit of unessesary ridiculous double dips on DVD and I feel thats what they are doing here. Well if Avatar is a released in 2D ill probably rent the 2D version from Netflix and buy in 3D down the road.
Murdoch said huh? Well my understanding was that the 2D/3D compatible Blu-ray was to be included at launch and now this anouncement. So, now I'm wondering if the 2D version will be 2.35:1 (with black bars) or the (more HDTV compatible) 1.78:1 open framing as the 3D version was shown. A double dip situation for sure...
Haven't seen it myself, but heard nothing but good things about it... Except for now on these boards. Sounds like this movie might be a little over-rated. I'm sure it's setting new standards for CGI and sound design but I doubt it's on Dark Knight's level when it comes to directing, acting, screenplay, and I highly doubt the music is as good as Dark Knight's. I'll be renting before I jump right into this one...
What Cameron said was that a 2D version would hit shelves around June and a 3D version would come out in December. I highly doubt the December debut will change, though the June one could get pushed back a month.
just be aware, it's not double-dipping if they tell you beforehand what their plans are. If you absolutely, positively can't wait until December, you can Netflix the 2D version when it comes out.
A handful of people will buy 3-D equipment this year. If 3-D takes off, it will be several years before it reaches critical mass, so Fox probably has little incentive to push the 3-D version (unless it is somehow subsidized by electronics manufacturers or the BDA).
The 3-D spec states that 3-D BD's should be compatible with current players. I have seen a few reports that there may be exceptions; and to be quite honest, I suspect that many BD players will need firmware updates. Many older players may never get the firmware updates required. As a result, I will only buy 2-D versions for now. IF the technology works as advertised, I will begin buying 3-D versions in anticipation of future upgrades to my equipment.
Avatar will not "make" blu-ray, Dark Knight did not "make" blu-ray. In fact, I suspect that most DVD'ers will be quite happy with their DVD's of these two movies. In fact, I suspect Avatar will initially sell many more DVD's then BD's (I would guess at 30-35% BD). Avatar should outsell TDK on BD, simply because there are now many more BD owners than when TDK was released.
I'll probably buy it for the picture and audio quality but this movie is getting wayyyyy too much attention...it basically has almost the same story line as "Dances with Wolves" and the "Last Samurai" - they invade the land trying to kick the natives out, he falls in love with a native, becomes one of them, and then fights against his own people...
I think this story line isn't anything new worthy of an Oscar, but the movie still was a really fun theater experience...that's it.
I didn't like this movie. I wasn't going to see this because I thought it looked dumb in the advertisements. But most of my friends saw it and they couldn't stop talking about how good it was, so I thought I should stop their mouths by seeing it myself, and it wasn't anything special.
"It was so good, in 3D!" a couple of girlfriends of mine said, sounding like they had never seen 3D before. The 3D-screening I watched, in the THX-approved Colosseum in Oslo, the framerate was really low, must have been down to 10-12 fps, and I have to say, 3D have a long way to go before it can look as good as 24 fps film!
Summary: Too long, too boring story, CGI still looks unatural!
I have not seen the movie and will get the 2D version of it. I have seen presentations with this type of technology and frankly this whole 3D thing is a joke. It's more like half-assed 3D. The day a TV set is actually more like an orb with 3D emitters and one doesn't need to wear glasses, then perhaps you can call it 3D. Right now what they are calling 3D is nothing more than a hoaky gimmick. Also, if you look carefully, those 3D glasses actually take away some of the color. It's not the same as a 2D film.
I just don't think 3D is practical at home -- at least for me. It's a theater experience, which is why it's grossing as much as it is. But at home, I will never make the 3D leap -- I much prefer 2D. And if a movie can't captivate in 2D, then you have to wonder if it's really that special after all.
Well, I didn't upgrade to DVD until 2001 for no apparent reason other than VHS beginning to be phased out, but I upgraded my sound system for King Kong. I didn't see Avatar in the theaters, although I was supposed to, but I know, I'm gonna try to get me a new LED TV by then to replace my aging LCD.
I hear ya Spymaster. Not as good as Terminator/Aliens (or The Abyss!) as far as films go. Technically it was pretty amazing though and once these things get on a roll, everyone wants to see what the fuss is about. Titanic wasn't that good a movie either but it still did rather well at the Box office.
If Aliens is a 10, T2/Abyss a 9 then Avatar is about a 7 in my book. I'll still be buying it.
I can understand why the 3d version of a movie will be delayed later than the 2d release. It's going to confuse people at first who don't have the equipment to view the 3d technology.
I certainly don't like everything that's great. Does that mean it's not great? No, just means I don't like that particular thing... I'm just saying not everyone is going to like the same things so don't get your doubts up because a couple negative responses. For the most part it's widely praised.
well only reason why im going 3-d now is because i need a new front projector. i have ordered the optoma hd66. it does 3-d i have a ps3 which is suppose to support 3-d play back so all i am waitiing for are cheaper shutter glasses and avatar 3-d.
the projector is 699. good deal i think considering the optoma hd65 is one of the best projectors under 1000 for the last year and a bit.
i wouldnt of bought a new projector if i didnt need one just for 3-d. but hey i got the best of both worlds now.
If 3D is "just a gimmick" and "nobody really cares", then why are 3D presentations raking in money by the shovelful and 30 or so films over the next year will be released in 3D?
Hard to guage some of you. You want the best possible experience at home and decry 3D as a way to get people to see films at the theater instead of waiting for video, yet when the industry offers to provide you with everything you need to experience it at home...you bitch about it! AMAZING!
fettastic: because ultimately cinemas have to thrive, and the only way they're going to do that is by providing an experience that you cannot get in the home. Cinemascope was first. Then 3-D. Then surround sound. Then 3-D again! Each time they reproduce that experience in the home it has a knock-on effect to theatre takings. Short-term studio greed is counterproductive to their long-term goals. But each time they learn, and then come up with something else to make the cinema-going experience unique. Probably smell-o-vision. I can't wait for that. OMG did you see Avatar VI? Those smells were awesome! That was the best movie I've EVER seen!!
I absolutely cannot believe how people are falling for this 3-D thing. Absolutely cannot believe it. The studios and TV manufacturers must be laughing all the way to the bank!!
There's no point in going into 3D in the home theater just yet. The TVs will be ridiculously expensive and there will be close to no movies supporting it anytime soon. I can think of only one: Disney's A Christmas Carol.
dr manhattan actually you can buy a 3-d ready front projector for for 699. people said that when hddvd/bluray were first coming out theres no point in buying those because they are just gimmicks my dvds are good enough.
i think 3-d is here to stay, i dont think the prices of tv sets are going to go up but stay at the same prices they are at now.
Actually nobody knows yet when they release 3D movies that the 2D version will be on. Its just speculation at this point.
But i don't see how the 2D version can be on with the 3D version. If its 3D the picture is blurry without the 3D glasses, because they lay 2 layers on the movie. So how can the 2D version be on the 3D version?
But i do think Avatar 2D will even sell more on blu the DVD. because it will look LEAPS better then the DVD
Can't wait to turn the volume up on the screech of the toruk.I think it may get the oscar for best score it's a fantastic piece of work from James Horner i love it.I don't think the music can save a bad movie no matter how good it is but in this case it can certainly enhance your enjoyment of a great one.
I wonder how many people in the world are "stereo blind" like me (I have no depth perception due to misalignment - strabismus - of my eyes). Obviously I will be quite content with the 2-D version; although brimming with lament that I can't know what the 3-D would be like. :/ Ironically I'm a successful visual artist, in 2-D of course. Day one buy for me.