New Footage in Avatar: Special Edition Trailer

One more chance to see it in 3-D!

cool. but dang! only 8 mins.? wish it was like 30 more minutes.

@Brent lol, yeah that would to be too weird. i wanna see ah scene where it's telling the viewers that there's a sequel.

avatar is a good film,the director is a money grabbing prick.
8 minutes of extra footage,why couldn't he release it the first time round.
the greedy bastard,what doesn't he think it taken enough money with cinema,dvd & blu-ray sales already.

i guess this is the 3rd time im going to see it :))

liked the movie but it already got my money so nah

I love this movie, but I haven't bought it yet. I'm hoping that the special edition one will come to DVD with the extra 8 minutes and loads of special features.

great movie, but it isn't worth paying to see 8 extra minutes

eh [frick] Avatar! over rated horribel acting and terrible story. Complete rip off and unoriginal.

anybody wanna rp? meet me in fan fic forum!

Wow 8 more minutes on an already over-long movie.

Oh and for all those wondering why he didn't put it in the original film, it's because he was afraid it might be too offensive and he might lose the audience. That's acceptable, but that's something that you put into the DVD! You don't have to have another [frick]ing release of the same [frick]ing movie!

And BTW- Let's stop crying about stuff like getting another chance to see something if you choose to. If you don't want to see it again, DON'T! It's not like anyone's making you! As for me, the chance to see more of Zoe Saldana wearing next to nothing (even if it is an alien, CGI version of her) on the big screen, is more than worth the price of admission alone.

Also I meant to say that all movies normally borrow from multiple movies...like Star Wars borrows from all different types of cinema throughout the years.

I wouldn't mind seeing it in 3D again, but only 8 minutes of extra footage? :o|

FoxForce5@ I could name you a lot of films that aren't ripoffs of other films and I am in total agreement with Crazyhorrormovienerd. I don't consider doing a movie based on a book as being a ripoff or unoriginal. If a movie hasn't been done on a book yet, have at it. If you are doing a movie that is basically the same (except for visuals) as 3 other movies (Pocahontas, Fern Gully and Dances With Wolves) it gets into the realm of pathetic for me. Been there...done that...bought the t-shirt.

Being you mentioned Hurtlocker, you just named one movie that is not based on another movie or book and is original. It is a movie based on the experiences of a journalist who followed an American Bomb Squad in Iraq. I don't believe there is another movie that portrays that on screen. ;-)

@ Crazyhorrormovienerd & Ranger14: While, as always, I respect other opinions, it is an old artistic argument as to the very possibility of trying to be truly 'original' (and does that even matter - I don't think it does) and the original argument does usually fall flat on most levels. there is only a set number of distinct story paradigms and, while I can't remember the exact number, it's actually pretty small. For example,

ACT 1: A man is propelled into circumstances beyond his control.

ACT 2: He meets a woman who is somehow involved with the circumstances presented to him but fall for her anyway. During the course of this, a lot of details are revealed and action incurs.

ACT 3: The true reason for all circumstances are revealed and a resolution is met. The woman fall for the man. The End.

I could easily find 3,000 movies or more that fit that. It's not about that, it about all the other stuff that goes with it and all the specifics (from the pacing, to the scene structure to characters to the way it all looks on film, etc.).

It's just an example but my point being, again, that it really doesn't matter HOW much a story takes from another story but rather, how well it does so. A great argument made for this was done in "Swinger" where Jon Favreau (who stars & wrote the script) talks about how all films borrow from one another just before the movie does exactly that - it's brilliant.

And for the record, Ranger14, while I loved "The Hurt Locker", I could easily point out how many other war movies it 'borrowed' from and put into a blender (albeit, a very articulate & artistic blender) including the somewhat under ratted George Clooney starer "Three Kings" and the recent Peter Berg film, "The Kingdom" not to mention borrowing techniques used by Hitchcock, Kubrick, Stone, Coppola and many many others... I again argue that to attempt to hide or deny that what we do IS use what came before is just to be dishonest in an industry where our jobs ARE already to sell people on things that don't exist in the first place.