Triple Dip

email this story
read comments (30)
post a comment

Yesterday The Oregonian's Mike Russell published a James Cameron interview in which the Avatar director revealed that a version running 16 minutes longer that the original theatrical cut -- including a whole new opening on a polluted, befouled and Blade Runner-ish earth -- will be sold in an Avatar box set out in November.

The extended 3D Avatar opening in theatres today is eight and 1/2 minutes longer than the version that opened last December.

Russell: I've read the Avatar screenplay that Fox posted online around Oscar season, and I'll admit the thing I want to see re-inserted into the film are the opening scenes set on the polluted, dystopian Earth -- the shots of lead character Jake in a sports bar -- the polluted, crowded cityscapes. You shot this sequence, correct? Any chance we'll be seeing that?

Cameron: Well, if you buy the box set in November, you can sit down, and in a continuous screening of the film, watch it with the Earth opening.

Q: Oh, really?

A: Yeah. It works very well. It just takes a long time to get the movie started. You have to be sort of predisposed to like the movie like a fan, you know what I mean? And then you can sit and you can have a great ride -- a different telling of Avatar. Not inconsistent -- it's just the stuff that happened off-camera.

We call it 'the Earth opening.' It's about 4 1/2 minutes of stuff. And it was in for the longest time. It was very late in the day that we took it out. I walked in one day and said to my two editors, 'Guys, I want each of you to cut a new version of the start of the film, Reel 1, that doesn't have any Earth in it at all.' And they looked at me like I was out of my mind. And I said, 'No -- it's gonna work.' They had to figure out the details. I said, 'Just grab a couple of things to use as flashbacks, and start it in space when Jake opens his eyes.'

Q: So wait - does [today's] re-release start on Earth?

A: No. The re-release opening [today] starts the same way. But in November, you can buy a box set with all the bells and whistles. Plus it's got like 45 minutes of unfinished deleted scenes that exist in a supplement where you can just play the scenes individually.

"But it's all a big negotiation with the studios; how much money do they want to spend on these sort of revisionist versions of the movie? Because on the whole Earth opening, the visual effects weren't done, and we had to go back and spend a million bucks or whatever to get those shots done. So there's a price-tag dangling from anything that gets re-inserted.

"It's not like Apocalypse Now, where they blow up a Vietnamese village and the footage is done - there are no visual effects after the fact. We've got to go back, and it's our time and our energy and the studio's money to re-create this stuff.

"But (in November) you'll be able to watch a 16-minute-longer version of the film that's a nice, flowing, cohesive version of the movie. If you just want to wallow in Avatar for three hours, I can get that for you."

Sofia Ducking Toronto << previous | next >>Terrific

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 27, 2010 at 6:20 AM

comment #1

Alboone says ...

Fuckin' Cameron pisses me off to no end. For all the talk of him as an ego maniacal genius, he's really at heart a closet studio bitch. He pulled the same shit with Aliens -- The Abyss -- and T2, fearing audiences wouldn't sit still for character development. If you read the script the scenes on earth are crucial to the development of Jake as a character, would've made his sacrifice of his human form much more poignant not only for him but for us as well. Also Sam Worthington would've came off way more multi dimensional than he does with the current cut which makes him look like a dufus who got lucky.
If the special edition of Aliens was the theatrical cut then there's no question Sigourney Weaver would've gotten the Oscar that year.

Posted by Alboone at August 27, 2010 6:52 AM

comment #2

thasos says ...

Aw, cummon, Avatar was a bit bloated as it was. This is a new version for hard-core people who can't get enough. I even think the Aliens spec. ed. is a bit long in the tooth.

Posted by thasos at August 27, 2010 7:12 AM

comment #3

mattn says ...

Yeah, "wallow" is certainly the right word. It's one thing to have these bloated extended editions on disc, where you watch it for the fourth time and without your full attention or even over a few days. Then these little additional things are nice mainly because it gives you something new.

It's quite another to have to sit through it in a theater; Cameron was quite right to get the movie started as quickly as possible.

Posted by mattn at August 27, 2010 7:50 AM

comment #4

Jachyra says ...

Just to clarify.

An IMAX reel can contain a maximum of 170 minutes of footage. Since the original release clocked in at 161 minutes, he could only add 9 minutes for the re-release.

He probably wanted to add more, but the physical limitation was there. That's why it's gonna be an even longer cut (16-17 minutes added) on the November release of the DVD/Blu-Ray and not in theaters today.

Posted by Jachyra at August 27, 2010 8:06 AM

comment #5

Steven Kar says ...

Well this is terrific news for someone like me who actually enjoyed the movie. The more footage, the better, I say.

Too bad the whole movie was CGI, otherwise those 45 minutes of unfinished, never-before-scene material that JC spoke of could've easily been reinstated into the movie for the November DVD release.

Just like the LOTR extended cuts, AVATAR would've been a 223-minute-long epic adventure.

Posted by Steven Kar at August 27, 2010 8:12 AM

comment #6

Steven Kar says ...

Actually the movie is 161.5 minutes long, and the added material is 8 minutes 33 seconds. (I'm a geek, I know.)

Posted by Steven Kar at August 27, 2010 8:14 AM

comment #7

Travis Crabtree says ...

Y'all have a good time.

Posted by Travis Crabtree at August 27, 2010 8:19 AM

comment #8

Circumvrent says ...

I like that the theatrical cut just throws you in head first. It's a great way to put the audience in the main character's head: not only are we adjust to him and the surroundings, but also the 3D.

Excited that there'll be a longer version available, but I hope that the theatrical cut will be in the set as well.

Posted by Circumvrent at August 27, 2010 8:19 AM

comment #9

Steven Kar says ...

Yes, the theatrical cut will be there as well.

Posted by Steven Kar at August 27, 2010 8:21 AM

comment #10

dkaye says ...

I agree with Alboone -- I love both versions of "Aliens" but if Cameron had left in two scenes with Weaver, her character would have taken on a whole new dimension. I'm not even talking about keeping all the "extended cut" scenes in a theatrical version -- just those two, which only add up to a few minutes.

Something more with Worthington's character might have salvaged a lot of "Avatar" for me, but I'm sure as hell not gonna spring for this box set or whatever it is in November.

This reminds me of something that always frustrated me with "The Exorcist" -- that Friedkin cut the ending so that Ellen Burstyn doesn't keep Father Karras' cross. Now that I see it in that "extended cut," I wish it was in the original. It completes her character arc logically -- something the original theatrical version does not do. But just that one extra shot made a world of difference.

Posted by dkaye at August 27, 2010 8:28 AM

comment #11

brad says ...

said it before and now, again: Avatar=Gone with the WInd. You watch it wanting to think it is really good, nice images, nice sets etc, but it goes on and on and on, talk talk and more talk, posturing and lecturing. It was a colossal overrated bore like GWTW before, now it will be the new enhanced special edition BORE.

Posted by brad at August 27, 2010 9:50 AM

comment #12

Robert Cashill says ...

There's nothing dull about GWTW, which is about as taut as a four-hour movie can be. I get sucked into it everytime I come across it on the dial. Now, CLEOPATRA--once you've enjoyed the sets and costumes, that's a snooze.

Posted by Robert Cashill at August 27, 2010 10:51 AM

comment #13

nbxzero says ...

Isn't this news going to kill the box office for the re-release this weekend? Why would anyone spend $15+ to see eight minutes when you can wait until November and for a few dollars more get 16 additional minutes?

Posted by nbxzero at August 27, 2010 5:38 PM

comment #14

Patrick Juvet says ...

The theatrical release offers the chance to revisit the film in 3D ( there are no 2D engagements ) which will not be an option on the extended edition video release.

Posted by Patrick Juvet at August 27, 2010 8:13 PM

comment #15

Gordn27 says ...

"If the special edition of Aliens was the theatrical cut then there's no question Sigourney Weaver would've gotten the Oscar that year."

Man, I love delusional nerds on the Internet.

I want to ask you something seriously: Do you even know who Weaver lost to? I can't imagine you do, because if you do, then how could you think there was any chance of her losing?

I mean, you know how every year, most of the categories are locks, but there's one absolute definite no-question about it lock? That was Marlee Matlin in 1986. There is no way that a tough woman in a sci-fi movie was going to beat Marlee Matlin.

Extending this past the realm of fact and into opinion, if Cameron had released the extended cut in theaters, the movie wouldn't have made as much money and it would've been harder to get Weaver the nomination.

Posted by Gordn27 at August 27, 2010 9:30 PM

comment #16

Kakihara says ...

Speaking of rip-offs, I'm totally enjoying being forced to buy the Fantasia blu-ray set just to see Destino. But hey, I did say this film and the format were just excuses to charge you more for less, and now you're already complaining about 3D ticket prices and this shit.

brad: GWTW at least had a plot, not just a concept.

nbx: "Well, why would anyone buy bare-bone discs of something they just saw a couple months earlier" is what I thought.

Gordon: "There is no way that a tough woman in a sci-fi movie was going to beat Marlee Matlin."

What about when the chick from Hackers beat Winona?

Posted by Kakihara at August 27, 2010 10:54 PM

comment #17

Steven Kar says ...

B.O. results are out on Deadline, the top 5 are listed, and the AVATAR rerelease is not in the top 5, which means that it made less than 5 million. How much less, they don't say. But I really thought it had a chance to make 10 million or more.

Posted by Steven Kar at August 27, 2010 11:16 PM

comment #18

bluefugue says ...

>For all the talk of him as an ego maniacal genius, he's really at heart a closet studio bitch. He pulled the same shit with Aliens -- The Abyss -- and T2, fearing audiences wouldn't sit still for character development.

This seems to me an extremely harsh assessment of someone who has always skillfully balanced pacing, structure, and characterization with running-time demands. And Cameron is always *very* patient in setting up his stories -- far moreso than most directors. Aliens would have been better with the daughter scene, sure, but it's not like the theatrical cut doesn't have plenty of strong character development stuff for Ripley. Speculating that a few snipped minutes cost her the Oscar seems to me wildly unsupportable.

Posted by bluefugue at August 27, 2010 11:58 PM

comment #19

Kakihara says ...

Kar: It's amazing how Cameron crashed and burned his legacy with a soul-less cash-grab like Avatar. Yeah, it paid off, but it might have been better if it had bombed, because then at least people would pretend it was "misunderstood" like A.I. Now people think of him as a greedy hack, even though he was once considered a trend-setter in FX.

Posted by Kakihara at August 28, 2010 12:26 PM

comment #20

Gordn27 says ...

"But I really thought it had a chance to make 10 million or more."

Steven (or anybody else) -- do these months-later re-releases ever work? I know it's hard to say because it hasn't really been done in so long, but it seems like striking while the iron has had six months to cool down, to me.