Poll: Do you think Avatar will ship on Blu-ray 3D this year?
By Richard Lawler 
posted May 29th 2010 12:01PM
posted May 29th 2010 12:01PM
posted May 29th 2010 12:01PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I chose other. Personal feelings aside, not caring about the movie or 3D in general, how many people will this effect if the movie ships this year or not. I expect it to so Fox can double dip and end the last quarter of the year on a high note but numbers won't be outragous. I don't know a single person jumping on the 3D bandwagon.
The 2D Blu-ray is pretty much reference quality. But the movie really worked much better in 3D.
One thing you didn't account, though, was that the majority of people buying TVs this Christmas season will likely opt for 3D -- if for no other reason than to stay on top of things. These same people will want 3D content for their new toy, and Avatar being the highest profile of them all will be an instant sell.
-Pie
@EatingPie I think this we will have to wait and see what happens. Currently I disagree that 3D will really sell. There are several cons to 3D TVs right now that I think it won't even catch on as quickly, or rather as slowly, as HDTV. People who refer to these type of items as toys are people like us, not the majority. I actually wouldn't buy a 3D TV for awhile. Maybe in a couple of years but I'm all for it and think it's pretty awesome. Just not something that most people will purchase.
Well I HOPE it's option 4, but it'll surely be option one...
I'm just hoping that the don't rush it so much that it screws it...
I just want a bloody Avatar Blu-Ray that doesn't come with a DVD.
Too much to ask?!
@FORDY : So, you can't just give the DVD to someone else?
They'll probably give Panasonic owners the 3D version of the movie early, and wait for a general release later on. Besides, piracy doesn't matter that much with the 3D version of the film, because you still need a 3D HDTV, lots of 3D glasses, a 3D blu-ray player, and a 3D A/V receiver to enjoy the movie.
The greatest deterrent to digital piracy is to create a hardware requirement. If a pirate isn't willing to spend $30 on a movie, I don't see them spending $2200 for a new TV, $400+ for a new receiver (because directly hooking up the player to a TV means loosing HD audio when the TV feeds the audio back to the receiver), $200+ for a bluray player, and $150 per person for glasses. Not in this lifetime...
I think they will try to get it out ASAP because people WILL lose interest if it is years before it comes out. Hands down, this is the "best" (technically) 3D movie by far. Wait too long and competition will start to overshadow 'Avatar'.
I can't imagine any other film in this situation besides Alice in Wonderland. Considering that neither are quality films, the visuals are their only selling points. So, it's not if - it's when will these films be available in this format. Not really interested. Maybe for the kids, but I'd rather buy another Wii game or something if I want to entertain them. Not this.
I expect it will turn up. After they've strip mined all interest out of the title in conventional format they'll launch a super duper Collectors edition for 2-3x the price probably to coincide with a seasonal holiday and some massive 3D launch. Early adopters are always so desperate for content they will pay over the odds for anything to showcase their purchase.
IMO with Avatar or not, the current selection of 3D content is pathetic and will be for a few years. Even then it's probably going to be padded out with some truly awful 3D conversions.
Something else: Who cares? It's just a stupid movie.
@Unverified User This is my pick too. I couldn't careless about Avatar.
@Brian I'm pretty sure this movie was called Pocahontas when I was in middle school. And also FernGully.
It had the emotional depth of Jackie from That 70s Show.
If Fox doesn't release it by christmas, some other, better, 3-D movie might take all its thunder.
Consumers are sheep that way...
3D?
I just can't see it meaning anything (possibly with the exception of the gaming crowd prolonging the gimmick this time).
Lets put it like this, mass-market punter has $2000 and sees it could buy either a 40" 3D HD TV or a 55" 2D HD TV.
Which one do you seriously think they are going to go for?
It may be that 3D specs just come with most TVs at some point so you get it whether you like it or not but the need for glasses and the lack of content not to mention the completely unnecessary element in this (who cares about the majority of TV in 3D anyways - your soaps in 3D?!) say to me this will be another 3D damp squib.
(even tho I agree Avatar in 3D at the cinema was the best 3D I've seen yet.
That could also be very double-edged & may be setting people up for a major - not to say expensive considering the extra glasses etc you have to buy to share this beyond 2 people - disappointment.
I do not see 3D at home ever being close to cinema)