DVDizzy Forum

dvdjunkie wrote:Several wrong comments about what is on each disc is the first thing that jump out at me. He says that the three movies are spread over two discs. Now since I only own the Blu-ray, I can tell you that they are all on ONE disc.

The review is for the DVD version, which is what Fox sent to UD for review. On the DVD, the film is spread across two discs.

dvdjunkie wrote:He says that the special features are "nothing special" compared to the rest of the package. I find this to be very misleading.

You misread what was said. The reviewer notes that none of the Blu-Ray special features "make special use of the BD format", meaning that they are features that could be authored on DVD as well (as opposed to BD-exclusive stuff like BD-Live or the more advanced/interactive menu systems and PiP options). The BD-exclusive extras you mentioned are all traditional featurettes that can be authored for both DVD and Blu-Ray, and their exclusion from the DVD is upsetting for DVD buyers (they still exist and they still deserve to have supplements, especially if it can still be offered on DVD). Granted, the scene deconstruction probably uses a more advanced version of PiP toggling, but DVD's had multi-angle viewing for years, it just comes at the expense of lower bit rate.

Bill wrote:My feelings are that when a person reviews a product he should watch the entire product and not "read from the back of the box". He should take the time to sit back and watch each and every minute of the films, the special features, the documentaries, etc. I feel very cheated by reviews such as this, and hope that Luke is more careful with who he lets review products for the UD library.

Kelvin Cedeno reviewed this title, and he's been reviewing for UD since the site started. A month ago, he gave the most thorough review for The Sound of Music: 45th Anniversary Edition Blu-Ray. Most other online reviews of that set pale in comparison to it. Just look at, for example, the Blu-ray.com Review or the HighDefDiscNews.com Review, both of which simply lists all the features on the second disc, as opposed to Kelvin's review which actually explains what each and every one is. Or the DVDTalk.com Review which condenses its assessment of the second disc into a mere two paragraphs with little detail about any of the archival material.

UD prides itself on being a site that actually does have its reviewers sit down, watch the film in its entirety and watch all the bonus features in their entirety. And usually more than once, as they also take plenty of screen caps of the film and special features. The Avatar: Extended Collector's Edition review is the most thorough review out there for the DVD version of the set, which is what was sent to UD. Just look at the breakdown of the special features section of the review. There's no way he could discuss that amount of information simply from reading the back of a box:

5 paragraphs about the alternate versions available (with a list of the changes)
1 paragraph about "A Message from Pandora"
1 paragraph about Deleted Scenes, noting on types of scenes included, the state they appear in, etc.
4 paragraphs about the making-of documentary, mentioning what each part is about instead of just saying "there's a 98-minute documentary"
1 paragraph about how there's Blu-Ray features not included on the DVD.

albert

If he is that thorough a reviewer he should be more clear about the fact that he isn't reviewing the Blu-ray version, I 'm sorry if you misread that. I have read several of his reviews and can't think of one that I could be critical of, until this one.

If he can't do a Blu-ray review then we should wait for someone to do a Blu-ray review. And I just think that people who haven't gone "blu" yet, need to and to have certain special features only available on the blu-ray as opposed to the standard DVD should be a way to intice people to get into the Blu-ray versions. Especially with the amount of Combo Packs that are out there that have Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy.

A good example of that is "Shrek The Final Chapter". If you only use the standtard DVD you have to buy the two-pack to get "Donkey's Shrek-tacular Christmas" special. On Blu-ray it is included in the Combo-Pak.

I just think if someone goes as far as buying an HDTV they should go all the way and get a Blu-ray player. Heck, I know that most electronics stores offer a FREE Blu-ray player when they buy a HDTV. So, I don't feel sorry for those people who haven't gone "blu" yet.

Why not have a Blu-ray section only for UD reviews. And then get some reviewers that aren't biased against Blu-ray to review the Blu-ray movies.

I know what you are saying Albert, but I will stand my ground on this, the review of "Avatar CE" was very misleading to those of us who have gone "blu".

dvdjunkie wrote:If he is that thorough a reviewer he should be more clear about the fact that he isn't reviewing the Blu-ray version

So having it say "Avatar: Extended Collector's Edition DVD Review" at the top of the page isn't clear enough?

Nor is the fact that the first link offered for purchase of the set is for the DVD?

Or that it says "DVD Details" and gives the DVD Details above the Video and Audio section?

Or that he doesn't even mention the word "Blu-Ray" in his review until the singular paragraph that starts "That wraps up the DVD content, but the Blu-ray version of this title adds a great deal more."?

Maybe you need to pay more attention when reading the review instead of assuming that I've misread it or that Kelvin miswrote it.

dvdjunkie wrote:If he can't do a Blu-ray review then we should wait for someone to do a Blu-ray review.

UD covers whatever the studios send them based on what they ask for. Fox opted to send them a DVD version instead of a Blu-Ray, so that's what they covered.

Warner did the same for the Ultimate Editions of Harry Potter. Rather than send the Blu-Rays that UD requested, they only sent the DVD version.

The last few months of the year are always very busy for UD. They can't cover every title they want to, and they're not always sent every title that they request. And the titles that *do* get sent to them in whatever format it comes in, has to be reviewed first before they can "revisit" a title that already has a review written and posted.

dvdjunkie wrote:Why not have a Blu-ray section only for UD reviews. And then get some reviewers that aren't biased against Blu-ray to review the Blu-ray movies.

Aaron Wallace and Kelvin Cedeno aren't biased against Blu-Ray. They both cover the format whenever it's sent to them, and whenever Luke gets a Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack, he covers the movie and DVD, while Kelvin covers the Blu-Ray.

dvdjunkie wrote:I know what you are saying Albert, but I will stand my ground on this, the review of "Avatar CE" was very misleading to those of us who have gone "blu".

It's in no way misleading if it says at the very top of the page in big letters that it's a DVD review, not a Blu-Ray review.

albert

Kelvin's review makes it explicitly clear in at least six different places that the DVD edition is the subject of the review, and makes somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty additional, very clear references to that fact. The subject of the review should be exceedingly clear from even a casual reading of the text, if not the ALL CAPS & BOLD heading at the top of the review or the title of the page. It's no great sin for someone to accidentally miss all that and misconstrue this for a Blu-ray review, but to blame Kelvin for that is beyond absurd.

dvdjunkie wrote:If he can't do a Blu-ray review then we should wait for someone to do a Blu-ray review. And I just think that people who haven't gone "blu" yet, need to and to have certain special features only available on the blu-ray as opposed to the standard DVD should be a way to intice people to get into the Blu-ray versions. Especially with the amount of Combo Packs that are out there that have Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy.

If you've read as many of Kelvin's reviews as you claim, you would know that not only has he "gone blu," but he's written numerous Blu-ray reviews for this site and can probably be accurately categorized as a Blu-ray enthusiast. He even reviewed Avatar's first Blu-ray release (which, just to be clear, is a different release than the one he more recently reviewed): http://www.dvdizzy.com/avatar.html

As has already been made clear in this thread, Kelvin didn't simply choose to review the DVD as opposed to the Blu-ray, nor was this a case of him not being equipped to review it. Fox did not supply the Blu-ray for review. That is a choice the studio makes (a dumb one, in my opinion -- and in this case, it may have just been a mistake by Fox' press people -- but that's in their hands, not Kelvin's).

I don't mean to lump a lot of blame onto anyone for making a mistake but honestly, Bill, before you come into a thread and heap a load of grouchiness onto a reviewer's many, many hours of diligent effort and talented writing, at least make sure you've taken the time to get your facts right. Even then, a little courtesy and respect for someone else's work wouldn't hurt. I can assure you from personal experience that this site's critics invest more time in assessment, research, and writing than anyone else writing about home video in a professional capacity on the Internet. Your assertion that Kelvin didn't take time to watch the disc contents and merely relied on the back of the box in writing his review is frankly insulting and I believe you owe him an apology.

(I was writing my previous post while Escapay was posting his response... he covered much of the same ground I did and beat me to it )

My apologies to both Albert and Aaron. I stand corrected on what the title of the review said. It does state DVD review.

Maybe I wasn't in the mood to read about the drawbacks to having a DVD version as opposed to the Blu-ray version, and I was quick to jump on some of the wrong information.

I still maintain that I have read a lot of his reviews and he is very concise in what he says and leaves no doubt as to what the pros and cons are of the title he is reviewing.

I am sorry for insulting the hard work that Kelvin puts in with his reviews and I thank you both Albert and Aaron for getting me back up on my two feet and I will try to read things more carefully.

I am just so sold on the Blu-ray version of "Avatar CE" that I just find it hard to believe that all true movie buffs out there haven't gone "Blu".

Again I stand corrected, and will accept punishment accordingly (except I won't watch "Glee" for a month, so don't even suggest that as punishment)!!!!!

See, this is precisely why I created this thread:
http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27446

It's OK to have a disagreement with the reviewer regarding the film, but outlandish claims, rude generalizations and a condemning attitude will not help your case out, especially if you don't exactly know what happened during the creation of this review.

You apologized, so all is good, but keep that in mind next time you want to argue something.

While the film has been compared to Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas/New World, Last of the Mohicans, Broken Arrow, Fantastic Planet, Star Wars and Ferngully by some, anyone else also notice similarities to Dune by Frank Herbert including the 1984 movie with it's 2000 mini-series and Hayao Miyazaki films in Avatar?

Cameron is a huge fan of Herbert's Dune novels, animated movies, anime and Ghibli as he also took some elements from them. Anyone else see similarities to Nausicaa, Princess Mononoke, Pom Poko, My Neighbor Totoro and Castle in The Sky in the film?

Similarities to Dune are huge.

Pandora is like Arakkis without the sand.
Jake Sully is like Paul Artiedes on young man who have a destiny on a new homeworld even when they work for a corporation that exploits a special substance ("Unobtanium" and "Melenge Spice").
The Na'vi are like the Freman.
Jake becomes an outcast like Paul and joins up with a band of wild people to become one of them through tests of manhood even when taming a wild beast (Shaui-hlu sandworms and Banshees).
Having tribes around the world to fight against the corporaton that wants to take their substance away.
The main characters become messiahs to the people.
Quatrich is like the Baron while Selfridge Parker is like Emperor Shaddamn IV.
Trudy is like a female version of Duncan Idaho.
etc.

You are really "reaching" here with those comparisons. I don't see them at all. I didn't see the comparisons to "Dances With Wolves" either. I thought "Avatar" was one of the best movies to come out of Hollywood in some time. Cameron raised the bar on motion-capture, with its seamless intertwining of live action and mo-cap in the same scene. No one has even come close to this in any movie I have seen.

How can you compare a live-action film to an animated film anyway? All of the Japanimation movies I am familiar with the characters all look the same with the big round eyes, and the herky-jerky movements that just drive me crazy. "Akira" and "Spirited Away" are the two exceptions of that type of animation which I love. But most of the other Anime' films don't compare to a live-action movie like "Avatar".

The "Dune" comparison is stretching everything to its farthest limits and NO I don't see any similarities to any of the characters in "Dune".

I will be passing on this.
Already own the Blu-ray and don't have a 3D TV yet.

Anyone buying it?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/9 ... A1500_.jpg

It's a pass for me also. People may throw tomatoes at me when I say this, but I don't own this film in any form nor do I particularly see myself picking up any release at any point. The film just doesn't have replay value for me (even though I know it looks nice in high definition), but this is a good release for those that would like to be able to pick it up in 3D in a form that's more widely available and (in most cases probably) more affordable.

This movie must hold the record for being the most re-released in a shortest amount of time. They've released this movie like 27,000 times.

Is this 3D release the theatrical or extended edition?

Why not? It can't hurt owning it for a seventeenth time (:

Already have the extended 2D edition, and no 3DTV, so I'll pass for now and maybe pick up at a lower price.

Barbossa wrote:Is this 3D release the theatrical or extended edition?

The Theatrical Version only.

It was only re-released twice. This is the 3rd.

I own the other ones, so this is def a pass for me.

I saw the Avatar thread and say perhaps there should be one where we all can discuss the comparisons between Avatar and other films.



For me he biggest similarities are with Atlantis The Lost Empire

Heck look at Quatrich who was the bad guy in Avatar



Now Look at Rourke



Also the plot involves men being greedy who wants valuable rocks and will stop at nothing to get it. I know Pocahontas also mimics it, but to me Atlantis is the Disney movie I can point out many things that are in Avatar. I can't say about Dances with Wolves as I have yet to see that.

Something I noticed the second time I watched Avatar was that the plot structure is very Disney-esque, especially of the '90s variety. All that was missing were the musical numbers.

Avatar has become once again the #1 highest-grossing movie of all time (not adjusted for inflation), beating Avengers: Endgame thanks to a re-release in China.

‘Avatar’ Overtakes ‘Avengers: Endgame’ As All-Time Highest-Grossing Film Worldwide; Rises To $2.8B Amid China Reissue
https://deadline.com/2021/03/avatar-ove ... 234713788/


Source: https://twitter.com/officialavatar/stat ... 4179973126

I’m happy that this original IP has taken the top spot again. Soon it will have its own bevy of sequels but, to be entirely honest, I am much more interested in James Cameron’s Pandora than I am a universe of superhero movies.