As far as revising history goes though, Avatar has no history. It's been less than six months since the film came out. That's why it's different than Star Wars. "Extended Cut", whatever, the film is still in theatres from its original run as we speak, and the initial release version is being released in high definition Blu Ray right now. It's hardly hypocritical. There's therefore no revisionism in the first place, and like I said, given that the film is still playing in some theatres and that its been less than six months since it made its debut, its not uncommon to add or delete a few bits at this stage in response to certain factors. It's like accusing Lucas of revisionism in 1977 because he added new lines and new sound effects for the mono edition. But beyond this, there isn't the revisionist "the original edition doesn't exit" slant, anyway.

The difference between Avatar and Star Wars is that: a) the additions are out of character and mind-set from the original production, and are not technically appropriate nor part of the original production, b) are added in decades after the film is made, rather than during its original release or theatrical run, and c) that the original version is purported to not exist.