Avatar Superthread

opinion guy · 05-01-2010 11:58PM

Kipperhell wrote: »

One thing I found just plain stupid was to have a character that smoked. Served no purpose and was actually unbelievable as there is no way you could being doing the same in present day as she was.

You know I was wondering about that too. I mean isn't almost illegal to show a character smoking these days ? It seemed an odd touch really - like they were trying to make some kind statement but I can't for the life of me see what that was unless it was generally humans have no respect for life or something.

lucianot wrote: »

I saw video on the 'Science of Pandora' and it doesn't explain it either, so maybe they really want us to shut-up :pac:. Just imagine, you find floating mountains that defy gravity and then you go and waste your time digging out some rare expensive element.

Was the fact that the business guy had a floating piece of unobtainium on his desk and the constant rabbiting on about flux interfering with their equipment not explanation enough ? (Again I'm kind of wondering if people actually watched this film or just sat ther makign a list of things they didn't like)
I really don't think a fleshed out explanation would have added anything - in fact quite, quite the opposite. Have we all for gotten Qui-Gon Jinn's explantion of the Force in the phantom menace ? Millions of tiny miticloride's ??? WTF ??? It just became another plot-hole

Dempsey · 06-01-2010 12:00AM

lucianot wrote: »

Well, something seems to defy the whole purpose of the plot, it's big as a mountain and floats and is not explained. Actually I think they did not have artificial gravity in the spaceship.
For the sake of sci-fi storytelling heritage, just give me one silly or one mumbo-jumbo explanation but please don't leave those giant rocks floating up there!
I was thinking on the advice "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." Probably its me only seeing the loaded rifle

LOL, I hate when people try to punch as many holes as possible in a Sci-Fi film. Do you not have an imagination?

Isaac Newton FTW!! :pac:

Excellent Film btw, easy to see that the story was reduced for the widest audience possible but that shouldnt take away from it. As the CGI, Cameron doesnt know what a half measure is!

lostexpectation · 06-01-2010 03:10AM

atleast Zemeckis was honest and just did a straight version of a christmas carol as his 3d animation primer

lucianot · 06-01-2010 09:27AM

Dempsey wrote: »

LOL, I hate when people try to punch as many holes as possible in a Sci-Fi film. Do you not have an imagination?

Isaac Newton FTW!! :pac:

Excellent Film btw, easy to see that the story was reduced for the widest audience possible but that shouldnt take away from it. As the CGI, Cameron doesnt know what a half measure is!

Well, that's an unfair assumption. That's the only thing that bothered me in the movie, plot related that is.
One thing is to skip any explanation of how the mind is transferred into another body for which you have to accept and live with it, and another is try to understand how they justify flying mountains. I probably didn't relate the magnetic interference to all that, sorry, I thought it was purely gravitational, too many Asimov tales, sorry, sorry.

BTW , the love story was dull, for instance the scene with the bow with the 'I get close to you then you look at me when I'm not watching then I realize you're watching me so I do look at you but then I look elsewhere and we both realize we are attracted' scene!
Maybe is to make a connection with all those millions of couples that fall in love teachin each other how to play snoooker...:rolleyes:

Kipperhell · 06-01-2010 01:33PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Um, the smoking bugged you that much, really?

It wasn't the act of smoking just it had no relevance and was actually as unbelievable the floating mountains. I doubt there are many labs or hospitals beds you can smoke in now let alone in the future.

It also seems stupid for future rating considering UK proposals on smoking in films.

Other things that really annoyed me was the Unoptainium and the plant being called Pandora reminiscent of the Futurama episode when Leela met another Cyclops. Very weak construction

Sleazus · 06-01-2010 02:27PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

The Na'vis appendage is a communication device and it is never insinuated that this is used for sexual activity.

Note: removed spoiler quotes because I think it's been out long enough that a basic piece of alien biology used early in the movie isn't a spoiler.

Apparently it is a sexual organ - there was a scene cut from the film that will be on the DVD.

“If you sync to your banshee and you’re syncing to a tree, why not sync into a person?” said actress Zoe Saldana, who stars as Jake Sully’s love interest Neytiri.

L31mr0d · 06-01-2010 02:53PM

Sleazus wrote: »

Apparently it is a sexual organ - there was a scene cut from the film that will be on the DVD.

I fully expected the Na'vi to sync together intimately via their ponytails and found it odd that this wasn't shown in the film, however I'd argue that it is as much a sexual organ as the human tongue is. When humans kiss are they using sexual organs?

I don't believe they have sex via their ponytails but rather it is used in the process of intimacy between them. Cameron has already stated that the Na'vi are not placental mammals so how exactly they conceive and give birth is not yet known. Hopefully it will be detailed in the bluray extras.

L31mr0d · 06-01-2010 03:02PM

lucianot wrote: »

Ok, I found this wiki on Pandora, it's the Meissner effect:
http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Hallelujah_Mountains

Actually reminds me, that Parker guy had a piece of unobtainium suspended in a device on his table. Should of put 1 and 1 together from that.

opinion guy · 06-01-2010 03:06PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

Actually reminds me, that Parker guy had a piece of unobtainium suspended in a device on his table. Should of put 1 and 1 together from that.

Errr I just said that !!!!!

And again - you gotta wonder what kind of std's these smurfs have got!!

L31mr0d · 06-01-2010 03:14PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Errr I just said that !!!!!

woops

didn't see that, lol

lucianot · 06-01-2010 03:30PM

Well, you can buy now small desk toys with floating, suspended spinning things...so I assumed it just was another showing off toy.

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2010 03:52PM

opinion guy wrote: »

And again - you gotta wonder what kind of std's these smurfs have got!!

Dandruff?

nyarlothothep · 06-01-2010 05:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't ever defending the CGI, no one needs to defend it as it's more than stands up for it's self. As I said earlier in the thread I had no problem with the script, perhaps it wasn't the most original in the world but I never once felt like it was a drawback nor did it take me out of the experience. I don't see why simply because the film is expensive we should expect some ground breathtakingly original script.

GI Joe had a perfectly serviceable story but the action more than made up for it, I could easily attack the film over and over again for it's poor story but at the end of the day the film much like Avatar perfectly captured what it set out to do, entertain the viewer. Once a film entertains you from start to finish what more can you ask for?

I mentioned that in my post and assumed that perhaps the fan was a seller. Cameron while known as a bastard has always treated his fans well. Look at Avatar, after the disdain shown the first trailer Cameron specifically made a more action orientated second trailer simply because it's what his fans wanted/

haha that was brilliant cameron sort of got owned

Dempsey · 06-01-2010 05:39PM

lucianot wrote: »

Well, that's an unfair assumption. That's the only thing that bothered me in the movie, plot related that is.
One thing is to skip any explanation of how the mind is transferred into another body for which you have to accept and live with it, and another is try to understand how they justify flying mountains. I probably didn't relate the magnetic interference to all that, sorry, I thought it was purely gravitational, too many Asimov tales, sorry, sorry.

BTW , the love story was dull, for instance the scene with the bow with the 'I get close to you then you look at me when I'm not watching then I realize you're watching me so I do look at you but then I look elsewhere and we both realize we are attracted' scene!
Maybe is to make a connection with all those millions of couples that fall in love teachin each other how to play snoooker...:rolleyes:

No they never explained the connection between the person and the avatars, hardly be bluetooth/wifi or a very advanced equivalent considering the advancement at the time in all fields of science?

Surely people should just accept that there is a very advanced manmade communication method that can be integrated into the cloning process of an alien species :rolleyes:

If they said that it was some sort of magnetic field/gravitational pull, someone would want a mathematical equation to prove that what they are saying is possible.

The characters in the film didnt understand fully why the mountains floated but they accepted that it was happening. It affected their instruments so it could be got to do with the orbiting moons and planets, the makeup of the planet etc etc. Plenty of stuff happening in reality that we dont understand as it is but accept them. Surely people could allow a sci fi film some 'poetic licence'?

L31mr0d wrote: »

I fully expected the Na'vi to sync together intimately via their ponytails and found it odd that this wasn't shown in the film, however I'd argue that it is as much a sexual organ as the human tongue is. When humans kiss are they using sexual organs?

I don't believe they have sex via their ponytails but rather it is used in the process of intimacy between them. Cameron has already stated that the Na'vi are not placental mammals so how exactly they conceive and give birth is not yet known. Hopefully it will be detailed in the bluray extras.

I have to applaud the likes of Cameron for being able to think of so much detail before releasing these types of film. There must be logical reasons for the most mundane things for people to accept the 'reality' presented in the film.

Avatar will probably become the next film after Star Trek/Star Wars/Matrix in that the creators will need to detail everything to maintain a loyal and 'believing' fanbase. I could have tried to punch holes in the film and question this and that and try to make the film not work for me but I didnt and just enjoyed it for what it was.

I wonder if some people were so obsessed with critiquing the reality that they didnt enjoy the film as much. I suppose Cameron has done all his homework on this, spent enough of his life thinking all things avatar, and people want to know every detail of his 'vision'.

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2010 05:50PM

Kipperhell wrote: »

It wasn't the act of smoking just it had no relevance and was actually as unbelievable the floating mountains. I doubt there are many labs or hospitals beds you can smoke in now let alone in the future.

It also seems stupid for future rating considering UK proposals on smoking in films.

Cameron responds to smoking criticism

Kipperhell wrote: »

Other things that really annoyed me was the Unoptainium

The name unoptanium bothered me becasue its either the material used in "The Core" to make the drilling vessel (an awful scifi film) or the stuff that made the monsters real in the 2nd life action Scooby Doo film (cant remember which). Either way its just a weak McGuffin.

FUNKY LOVER · 06-01-2010 06:29PM

god i have to wonder about people sometimes,i mean complaining about floating mountains and how the body is transformed etc.....

JESUS!!!!!!!!its A sci-fi movie these things arent meant to make sense in the real world,god if that was the case then half of movies ever made are plain stupid:mad::mad::mad:

Dempsey · 06-01-2010 06:39PM

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

god i have to wonder about people sometimes,i mean complaining about floating mountains and how the body is transformed etc.....

JESUS!!!!!!!!its A sci-fi movie these things arent meant to make sense in the real world,god if that was the case then half of movies ever made are plain stupid:mad::mad::mad:

Most people dont know how jacobs get the figs into the fig rolls and dont care either but they want Cameron to explain floating mountains in a sci fi film :pac:

jaykhunter · 06-01-2010 06:50PM

Dempsey wrote: »

how jacobs get the figs into the fig rolls

...go on...

I reckon this film will look stunning on Blu-Ray. Anyone know what resolution the cameras Cameron filmed it in?

vinylbomb · 06-01-2010 07:41PM

Look, the movie is full of McGuffins, but if you go to the cinema AT ALL these days, you need to be fully willing to allow whatever is gonna happen in the story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
This is Sci-Fi, as a result it is gonna be nonsense, but picking holes int he nonsense is a poor argument indeed.
Be it floating mountains/mickeys for tails/whatever - suck up the plot devices etc, thats all they are

I find it much harder is to express my disbelief at how poor the script/characterization et al is.

bSlick · 06-01-2010 10:38PM

I thought it was brilliant, couldn't fault it. Story, acting, characters, action, adventure, romance, special effects.....it had it all for me. It's a work of art imo, the most visually beautiful film I have ever seen.

I've heard rumours of a sequel but as much as I'd enjoy it I think they would nearly better off just leaving it like this and not devaluing such impressive work with a sequel that could never match it and could probably end up being quite average like most sequels.

lucianot · 06-01-2010 10:59PM

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

god i have to wonder about people sometimes,i mean complaining about floating mountains and how the body is transformed etc.....

JESUS!!!!!!!!its A sci-fi movie these things arent meant to make sense in the real world,god if that was the case then half of movies ever made are plain stupid:mad::mad::mad:

Not complaining, just asking the explanation. This director also presents documentaries on the planet he created, his scientific team explains the physiology and anatomy of the animals, etc, etc why not to ask the reason for the floating mountains???!!!
Exactly it is SCI_FI, not fantasy, is not magic, is not being presented as the same as The Lord of the Rings where you have to suspend your disbelief, sure, agree with that, but this movie is something else. And I did not say the movie was bad, come one, one ask one single question and then everybody goes bananas.
Read back what I said about the stupid 'falling in love while practicing archery", that would be a complain and I stand my ground on that, there are some silly dialogues and cheesy moments that detract from the overall excellent quality of the movie.

Anakin.S · 06-01-2010 11:10PM

People Sci-Fi is short for Science Fiction.

Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena

Fiction - A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact

If you want to watch a documentary go watch one

Maximilian · 07-01-2010 12:30AM

Dances with Smurfs 3D.

Bloody awesome movie.

hick · 07-01-2010 12:36AM

Anakin.S wrote: »

If you want to watch a documentary go watch one

And if you want to comment about how you didn't think this sci-fi movie didn't live up to your expectations, feel free to

lucianot · 07-01-2010 12:49AM

Anakin.S wrote: »

If you want to watch a documentary go watch one

Self satisfied and rude reply, completely unnecessary.
My question is as valid as any other question about the non answered aspects of the story, not a criticism on the quality of the movie.
Nobody actually took the time to express any informed theory and discuss the movie in deeper detail.
Just in case if anybody else with a curious and inquisitve imagination needs it here is an Avatar encyclopedia:

http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki

paulieeye · 07-01-2010 08:16AM

How did he know the tree sap was highly flammable??

Dempsey · 07-01-2010 11:42AM

paulieeye wrote: »

How did he know the tree sap was highly flammable??

From the minimal training he did?

Kipperhell · 07-01-2010 03:18PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Cameron responds to smoking criticism

Not really a good enough reason or allows for how the other people working around her might feel. It just seems nonsensical

The name unoptanium bothered me becasue its either the material used in "The Core" to make the drilling vessel (an awful scifi film) or the stuff that made the monsters real in the 2nd life action Scooby Doo film (cant remember which). Either way its just a weak McGuffin.[/QUOTE]

It bothers you that some other lazy writer used the same stupid name rather than the name is just stupid and childish. I forgive Scooby Doo but having so much time to write the script you think it would be better. Really don't get why so many people are defending this film when essentially a film is about telling a story. Why bother with complex explanations of the whole thing is you are then going to just smash out a well trodden story.

Anakin.S · 07-01-2010 03:44PM

lucianot wrote: »

Self satisfied and rude reply, completely unnecessary.

Sorry I wasn't intending to be rude to you.

I wanted to make a general point that Sci-Fi movies are generally based on fantasy not reality. To base an argument against a movie on the fact that things are not possible or unlikely ‘in real life’ is in my stupid and/or ignorant.

beans · 07-01-2010 03:56PM

autaux?b=M%5ea11f09b8576e606bcb5038dfdb92fb821&u=http%3A%2F%2Fachewood.com%2Fcomic.php%3Fdate%3D01072010

Avatar Superthread

Comments