"Avatar" (2009) Blu-ray 3D relesed Oct.2012

[jefferiestubes8]

Blu-ray 3D Collector's Edition will debut globally October 15th, and release in North America October 16th.

James Cameron himself made the announcement today, via Avatar's Facebook page. Check out the video

Previously only available to consumers through an exclusive deal with Panasonic, the two-disc AVATAR 3D Blu-ray Collector's Edition will feature the original theatrical release and be available in all-new collectible packaging.

source1 source2 source3 with press release from Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment

In November 2010 there was a extended Blu-ray collector's edition Blu-ray release with all of these special features.


Here is the older 2010 related threads:
"Avatar" Blu-ray/DVD thread

Avatar 3D worth the extra money?

This release is sure to sell well in the 3D genre for Q4. For the rest of us I don't think it really matters if you don't own a 3D Blu-ray player. I think it will be a minimal amount of new hardware purchases for this release.

 

[Gaith]

Cue the "I see you" jokes.

 

[JarodRussell]

Huh? Confusing. Didn't they sell the 3D bluray years ago?

 

[Admiral_Young]

They did, but the clip that the original poster indicated explains that was only available through an exclusive deal with Panasonic. The big deal about this is that it is now available to buy everywhere.

 

[Captain Craig]

Does the lack of movement on this thread since yesterday indicate the drop off in interest for Avatar? I know I've seen people about the 'net over the last year or two becoming aware it was a theater event and beyond that fairly poor retelling of a story told better elsewhere.
I admit I'm not a fan but was curious to see this is just post 5 cause when something is hot the post count can move on these boards...and it's a day later.

 

[DonIago]

I rather enjoy the movie, even in 2D, though I won't call the story one of its strengths.

That being said, I can't see myself double-dipping unless at least one commentary track is included.

 

[OmahaStar]

Does the lack of movement on this thread since yesterday indicate the drop off in interest for Avatar? I know I've seen people about the 'net over the last year or two becoming aware it was a theater event and beyond that fairly poor retelling of a story told better elsewhere.
I admit I'm not a fan but was curious to see this is just post 5 cause when something is hot the post count can move on these boards...and it's a day later.

I enjoyed it well enough when it was in the theater, but only there. In the theater, on the giant screen, it really does look amazing. For me, visuals were the only selling point here. The story itself leaves much to be desired. The acting wasn't really great either. It was all down to the visuals.

And those visuals look terrible on a television. What was impressive blown up to giant sized now looks like a bad cartoon on a tv. And when it's already being called Dances with Smurfs, that's not a good thing.

 

[Harvey]

It's a flawed, but visually lush movie. I picked up the 3-disc Blu-Ray set for 12 bucks a year ago. No need to bother with the 3-D version. Honestly, despite the praise, it adds little to the experience (and even less on the small screen).

 

[Gaith]

Well, the only way to watch a movie in 3D, imo, is projected, whether at a theater, or on a wall at home.

I hope to get a projector sometime in the next year or so. Not sure if I'll try for a 3D-ready one, as so far, there are only three 3D movies I'd really want to own - Tintin, Prometheus, and, yes, Avatar.

(Well, maybe a fan-edited Polar Express, too, but only a fan-edited version.)

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Does the lack of movement on this thread since yesterday indicate the drop off in interest for Avatar?

There's probably a little bit of that, as well as people who have seen it a bunch of times being burned out on it for now, the fact that lots of people already own DVD, Blu-Ray, and 3D Blu-Ray versions of the movie, that 3D Blu-Ray players are still kind of rare amongst the public, and that jefferiestube's threads tend to come off less as seeking discussion and more as not so thinly veiled advertising for movies and TV shows.

 

[Kegg]

Does the lack of movement on this thread since yesterday indicate the drop off in interest for Avatar?

I just don't have a 3-D TV and already have the Blu-ray. I enjoyed the hell out of Avatar - was the first movie I saw twice in theaters since Return of the King.

I know I've seen people about the 'net over the last year or two becoming aware it was a theater event and beyond that fairly poor retelling of a story told better elsewhere.

People were saying that weeks before Avatar came out. And just right as it came out. And in the weeks after it came out. It's not exactly a novel movement.

I don't think it's perfect, or that original (although it's the only blockbuster of recent years that wasn't a remake, a prequel, a sequel, or an adaption of an existing property), but it's one of the very few planetary romance movies ever made, and it's very probably the best.

And re: Gaith, Prometheus is the only other movie I've seen in 3D since Avatar, so yeah.

 

[Harvey]

(although it's the only blockbuster of recent years that wasn't a remake, a prequel, a sequel, or an adaption of an existing property)

To be pedantic (this is why I post on the internet, of course!) it's one of a few blockbusters in recent memory that wasn't a pre-sold property. Going by the top ten domestic hits by year, these are the ones that qualify from 2009-2012:

2012: Brave and Ted
2011: (Okay, none here)
2010: Inception and Despicable Me
2009: Up, The Hangover, and Avatar

God, that's a depressing list. And nearly all of those films are franchises or going to become franchises in the future.

 

[Kegg]

^
Well. Point to you, and conceded. I remember reading that somewhere back in 2009, and hadn't really bothered to check the veracity.

It's just... as much as Avatar is basically Dances With Wolves on an alien planet, with all the comic book movies and adaptions of young adult novels and so on it seemed odd to latch onto this particular movie's unoriginality. Is it because, since it's not an established property, it was expected to be original?

God, that's a depressing list. And nearly all of those films are franchises or going to become franchises in the future.

Inception, Up and Brave are the only ones I know on that list not already slated to have a sequel/already have a sequel. The Hangover is set to have a trilogy, for some reason.

 

[Harvey]

There's been some talk of a sequel to Brave too.

I think people latched onto Avatar's originality (or lack thereof) for three reasons:

(1) It made a lot, a lot, a lot of money
(2) James Cameron spent (more than?) ten years working on the story
(3) James Cameron has been sued for stealing story ideas before (Harlan Ellison and The Terminator), and has been criticized for doing the same before (Aliens as a Starship Troopers rip-off).

 

[Captain Craig]

(2) James Cameron spent (more than?) ten years working on the story.

That's a long time to have ended up with such cardboard, 2-dimensional(the irony), mustache twirling bad guys and motivations for the plot by both antagonists and protagonists.
This is common complaint when he cites time spent on the story.

 

[Gaith]

It's just... as much as Avatar is basically Dances With Wolves on an alien planet, with all the comic book movies and adaptions of young adult novels and so on it seemed odd to latch onto this particular movie's unoriginality. Is it because, since it's not an established property, it was expected to be original?

A fair point. I suspect that a part of the backlash may be due to just how much of a romantic drama the story is. Sure, so was Titanic, but this was the director of T1-2, Aliens, and The Abyss going back into sci-fi and space, and with brand-new 3D tech to boot. Also, at least with Titanic one could say that the love story was a necessary tactic to get us emotionally involved in all layers of the ship's society, whereas Avatar had no such excuse.

I had a female friend at the time who loved the movie, and I don't think she was otherwise much into sci-fi at all. Maybe some felt, even subconciously, that Big Jim had sold us geeks out?

 

[JarodRussell]

(2) James Cameron spent (more than?) ten years working on the story.

That's a long time to have ended up with such cardboard, 2-dimensional(the irony), mustache twirling bad guys and motivations for the plot by both antagonists and protagonists.
This is common complaint when he cites time spent on the story.

From the interviews I read he wrote it in a couple of weeks, put it 10 years in a drawer, and then he rewrote it again in a couple days.

 

[Reverend]

Does the lack of movement on this thread since yesterday indicate the drop off in interest for Avatar? I know I've seen people about the 'net over the last year or two becoming aware it was a theater event and beyond that fairly poor retelling of a story told better elsewhere.
I admit I'm not a fan but was curious to see this is just post 5 cause when something is hot the post count can move on these boards...and it's a day later.

^I think this has more to do with relatively few people having the means to watch a 3D film at home. I know I don't (nor do I intend to acquire one.)

 

[DonIago]

I was going to say, he may have worked on the production for 10 years, but I doubt he spent 10 years on the story itself.

 

[Set Harth]

We can't call Inception a remake of Dream of a Lifetime from The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck?