If anybody believes Gordon Gekko that “greed is good” it has to be James Cameron. As if $2.6 billion worldwide wasn’t enough for the creator of Avatar, in an interview with USA Today, the box office master is looking to milk his biggest cows for everything they’ve got.
“The wildcard is that we might be re-releasing [Avatar] this fall. It’s kind of gotten stomped out (in theaters) because of Alice in Wonderland. The word we’re getting back from exhibitors is we probably left a couple of hundred million dollars on the table as a result.”
“We’re targeting spring of 2012 for the release (of a 3D version of Titanic), which is the 100 year anniversary of the sailing of the ship.”
Avatar could be in theaters for an entire year and likely still rack in Top 10 box office returns on a weekly basis. Is this a case of Cameron getting his way, only days after losing Best Picture to The Hurt Locker? Or does he feel cheated by Disney’s takeover of the IMAX market? Most of the finicky director’s works are passion projects without a doubt, and letting go while there is still a demand for Avatar (and that aforementioned “money on the table”) can’t be easy.
The big news here seems to be the desire to add additional footage to what we saw during Avatar’s historic main theatrical run. Could we finally get that Na’Vi sex scene that ran the fanboy gauntlet a short while back? At a recent press conference, IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond claimed Cameron had over 40 minutes of unused footage, but to use it all would surpass the maximum 170-minute runtime for an IMAX film.
Avatar the unrated version?
Cameron seems to be gunning for an Avatar re-release that coincides with the release of the 3D Blu-Ray this fall. One of these moves will inevitably detract from the other, but the big money does all go to the same place in the end. If 3D home entertainment really does strike a chord with homeowners, Cameron will be the pioneer of a technological movement. It almost seems counter-productive to re-release in theaters what might be the defining film in the evolution of home video.
As for the Titanic re-release, it is a couple years away, but what kind of desire is there to experience the 1998 Oscar-winner for Best Picture again? I have no craving for a third dimension viewing of Leonardo DiCaprio’s plunge into the icy abyss. Will you see Titanic in 3D if it gets re-released in 2012?
In the meantime, we’ll keep you updated on the details of Avatar‘s re-release in theaters this Fall.
Source: USA Today
Loading ...
By time it gets re-released it'll already be on Blu-Ray, so there will be no reason in seeing in theatres again, to me anyway. I do hope that the additional scenes will be on the Blu-Ray, though. I'm more interested in seeing the hunting ritual that Jake Sully must complete to be a member of the tribe, than the Na'vi sex scene.
I can see titanic due to the anniversary, but 3D? Come on.
Avatar re-release this fall? I think I will just slowly hate cameron more and more and think of him as an a-hole. I don't know if you can get any greedier then that.
lol titanic in 3-D u cant be serious cameron what about what movie would look cool in 3-D man thats a new low.
I seriously hope re-releasing Avatar is just some minor comment that's getting too much attention, as I really don't see how 2.6 billion USD is anything to cry at. I've read this at a couple of places and it just doesn't make sense.
Frankly, films like Avatar belong in the theater, or at least that's where I'd rather see them. I have my reservations that it will hold up on a 42″ television.
I’d always rather see a movie in the theater than at home, even if I own the blu-ray/dvd. I have my reservations about how great it will be on a 42″ television. Sprawling epics with massive sound and visuals really need to be on the big screen.
Re-releasing the two highest grossing films of all time just screams “greed” to me.
And Titanic in 3D? I hope not. That's such a great film and it should be left alone.
Although, I am curious how Titanic would fare in the box office with a new generation to watch it.
I have to admit I would probably go see Titanic in 3D just because I was too young to go see it when it was in theaters and I think it will be amazing to watch. And about the greed thing, I have a subscription to my local cinema so as long as I see another two movies in the same month, Cameron won't be getting a single penny from me.
how greedy can one get, he made (money) over 4 times what it costed him to make the movie and he still wnats more.. wtf is up with him.
hollywood is getting worse and worse everyday.
i dont mind about titanic though, being its 100yr aniversary and all, but that should only come out for idk 2-3 weeks no more. hes being a little baby, having a cry because he didnt win best picture. he doesnt take into consideration that there are other movies out there… then again hollywood is a competitive battlefield.
This is ridiculous! “Alice In Wonderland” robbed them of some of their money? Everyone has to face that fact. “The Dark Knight” didn't complain when they finally got taken down. James Cameron needs to quit being a greedy baby. He's like “Oh no fair! They took our money!” Sorry you're Pocahontas aliens can't be in theaters forever!!
I have no problem with cameron re-releasing Avatar. Cinemas are massive these days with 12+ screens so having Avatar there is no big thing! There's been numorous movie's over the years that i've missed on the big screen and would of loved to have seen! Batman begins, beowulf. Master and commander, Apoclypto, Gladiator off the top of my head and I go frequently.
I'm all for re-releases, cinema's should do it more often! If people don't want to see it they wont go.
If any of you think that JC is pushing this singlehandedly then get real. Fox have an agenda to make as much profit as possible. This isn't a question of being nice, it's just business. In the words of Gordon Gekko, 'Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.' Watching movies is probably the most practiced luxury of the Western World. It's not a matter of survival, we pay to watch films for pure entertainment. Why wouldn't they make as much money as possible from this film? You and I would do exactly the same if we were running Fox. By the way 100% of the money made doesn't go straight into JC's wallet; it goes towards keeping our family, friends and neighbours in work in movie theatres world wide.
Stop moaning and pretending that James Cameron or Fox owe the world anything.
If any of you think that JC is pushing this singlehandedly then get real. Fox have an agenda to make as much profit as possible. This isn't a question of being nice, it's just business. In the words of Gordon Gekko, 'Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.' Watching movies is probably the most practiced luxury of the Western World. It's not a matter of survival, we pay to watch films for pure entertainment. Why wouldn't they make as much money as possible from this film? You and I would do exactly the same if we were running Fox. By the way 100% of the money made doesn't go straight into JC's wallet; it goes towards keeping our family, friends and neighbours in work in movie theatres world wide.
Stop moaning and pretending that James Cameron or Fox owe the world anything.
For those of you who already saw Avatar in 3-D in the theater, I can understand why you would think of re-releasing avatar as a greed campaign. But for some of us cheap-skate movie watchers, I had no desire to fork out the cash to see the film in 3-D until I redboxed it and realized what I was missing. I watched the DVD twice in a row and I’m on fire to go see it in 3-D, but it’s only playing in a handful of theaters in the country. So I would consider Fox & Cameron’s money grab as a terrific opportunity to see the cinematic history I missed because I was too busy and too cheap to see it when it was first released.