Comments on: Cameron Eyeing Avatar & Titanic Theatrical Re-Releases

By: Emily

Emily — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:18:38 +0000

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.

By: A-K87

A-K87 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:24:56 +0000

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.

By: A-K87

A-K87 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:24:56 +0000

Stop moaning and pretending that James Cameron or Fox owe the world anything.

By: 16bit

16bit — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:24:58 +0000

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.

By: twistedburton

twistedburton — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:10:36 +0000

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!!

By: jwalka

jwalka — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 04:30:48 +0000

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.

By: Raine

Raine — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:26:24 +0000

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.

By: mutantveggie

mutantveggie — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:04:30 +0000

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.

By: Mike Eisenberg

Mike Eisenberg — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:52:55 +0000

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.

By: Mike Eisenberg

Mike Eisenberg — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:20:02 +0000

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.

By: histeachn

histeachn — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:55:14 +0000

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.

By: KanTstandYa

KanTstandYa — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:30:34 +0000

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.

By: Vikinglifeguard

Vikinglifeguard — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:09:07 +0000

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.

By: Matt Keith

Matt Keith — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:08:19 +0000

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.