I was watching Avatar with my mom and sister yesterday, and at the end when the humans lose(duh) my mom was like "take that humans, trying to cut down their tree and kill those nice blue people.
I then responded with, "you realise that if this was real, then the saviour of these 20,000 some odd blue people just led to the death of millions or even billions of humans?"
My mom said "why?"
me:"because now the humans are without the their only main source of energy, and it will now become even more expensive and as stores get depleted, and wars will start over remaining reserves and will lead to millions if not billions of deaths. So you just traded 20,000 lives for millions if not billions. just thought you should know"
she got mad
but the ending that i like to imagine is that the humans come back to pandora...and nuke the entire surface and take what they want, because although i liked the visuals of the movie, i had a hard time getting into "OH THE POOR BLUE PEOPLE" vibe
anyone else feel this way, or am i just unkind to the blue people?
So.....if this "unobtainium" is irradiated, can we still use it?
uhmm......yea looks like a chemical bath and we are all good.
So..... fire Ze missiles?
Fire Ze missiles!
In the context of the film, humans put themselves in a position where they needed gobs of energy they couldn't produce and decided instead of fixing the problem they should rip it off from someone else.
It's pretty much the same as if a gang of Skunk growers set up in the house next to yours, and tap your mains for their lighting setup.
That's exactly what I said to my parents after we watched it together. They laughed, and agreed with me. It was a nice warm, family moment, based on the hypothetical deaths of millions of humans.
It always interests me that when we observe one species in nature that has the ability to out-compete its rivals and even cause their extinction, we chalk it up to the survival of the fittest and muse that while the species that died out might have been cuter and more cuddly, that's just nature's way.
When human beings out-compete other species, we deride ourselves as short-sighted, greedy and immoral.
I don't agree with humans mucking the planet up, destroying the rainforests and all that...I just find the semnatics of the issue interesting.
Butcher the blue people, slaughter them like dogs.
That movie was a pinko conspiracy, designed to make the white man hate himself more, and wish he was a warlike equally vicious native American or a warlike equally vicious African instead.
Well, not really.
But I really didn't care about those blue guys, and the film sucked balls as a whole. It was like Pocahontas with robots, and my nephew thought it was corny as hell and he is only 9.
Kilkrazy wrote:No, you're just unkind to the blue people.
In the context of the film, humans put themselves in a position where they needed gobs of energy they couldn't produce and decided instead of fixing the problem they should rip it off from someone else.
It's pretty much the same as if a gang of Skunk growers set up in the house next to yours, and tap your mains for their lighting setup.
The movie never tells how efficient the unobtanium is at producing energy. For all we know, 1 gram could power a city for a day through some super advanced method? the stores on Pandora could power the human race for thousands if not millions of years if used properly. Maybe there never was any unobtainium on earth and the humans just randomly found out that this "element" was a much needed solution to an energy crisis and could be a much cleaner and better alternative to current energy sources. Maybe this isnt what happens, movie doesnt go into it(IIRC), and the movie just depicts big corperations, coal(unobtanium even looks like coal and its surface mined), as horrible, because James Cameron is fairly far to the left on the political spectrum. If i was the head of whatever corperation, i'd have that moon nuked so fast, and the government would back me because they need energy to keep their people happy, and its quite obvious that diplomacy was not an option with these people.
Carmine the Wolf wrote:It always interests me that when we observe one species in nature that has the ability to out-compete its rivals and even cause their extinction, we chalk it up to the survival of the fittest and muse that while the species that died out might have been cuter and more cuddly, that's just nature's way.
When human beings out-compete other species, we deride ourselves as short-sighted, greedy and immoral.
I don't agree with humans mucking the planet up, destroying the rainforests and all that...I just find the semnatics of the issue interesting.
Do we? Funny how there are a lot of campaigns to save the fuzzy-cute but evolutionarily pants pandas, but no-one's looking out for the endangered sea slugs.
If you remove the deus ex machina Avatar would have been one of the best written movies of all time. Keep everything as it was theatrically released up until the point where the planet decides to kill all humans. The bluebies loose the battle, the big ass bomb ends up being dropped from the bomber, smurfette ends up being killed, Jake's avatar is toasted, and Jake ends up being captured. The move then ends just like the south park episode "Dances with smurfs" with Jake on trial back on earth. The smurfs are then forced onto reservations, and history repeats it'self.
That being said good writing makes less money than a total cop out, and Avatar would not have been the #1 money making movie of all time if it didn't have a feel good ending at the expense of good writing.
Carmine the Wolf wrote:It always interests me that when we observe one species in nature that has the ability to out-compete its rivals and even cause their extinction, we chalk it up to the survival of the fittest and muse that while the species that died out might have been cuter and more cuddly, that's just nature's way.
When human beings out-compete other species, we deride ourselves as short-sighted, greedy and immoral.
I don't agree with humans mucking the planet up, destroying the rainforests and all that...I just find the semnatics of the issue interesting.
Do we? Funny how there are a lot of campaigns to save the fuzzy-cute but evolutionarily pants pandas, but no-one's looking out for the endangered sea slugs.
I was thinking more about the intellectual approach to the issue, rather than the wooly, ill-informed approach that wants to save all the cute creatures while at the same time thinking that spiders are icky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
htj wrote:You'd have to rewrite all the dialogue too. And tone a lot of the acting way the heck down.
You know, no matter how hard I try, I can't recall one line of dialogue from that film...so memorable!
Carmine the Wolf wrote:It always interests me that when we observe one species in nature that has the ability to out-compete its rivals and even cause their extinction, we chalk it up to the survival of the fittest and muse that while the species that died out might have been cuter and more cuddly, that's just nature's way.
When human beings out-compete other species, we deride ourselves as short-sighted, greedy and immoral.
I don't agree with humans mucking the planet up, destroying the rainforests and all that...I just find the semnatics of the issue interesting.
Looks like the cuddly blue people did the out-competing in that movie. Guess they were more fit and the silly humans can just quietly go extinct now. It's nature's way, after-all.
The problem with your train of thought is exactly what Agent Smith said about humans in The Matrix:
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
While we're busy out-competing, we're also busy destroying our own habitat. Other animals might do something similar, but none are as efficient at it as humans. They wouldn't understand why it was happening and they wouldn't be able to take steps to prevent it...they would simply die. We, on the other hand, have no one to blame but ourselves (barring some massive unavoidable natural catastrophe, of course).
Kilkrazy wrote:Edo period Japan had the world's most successful forestry management programme.
Forestry is different than energy. Trees grow back ALOT faster than Coal reserves come back, and until mankind has a good alternative...well gotta keep doing it. There are many organizations researching VIABLE replacements for coal, and one of the main viable alternatives is not that popular recently (nuclear). Wind, solar and geothermic are not practical, and hydro is very limited. So anyone against unobtainium(coal) should get off the internet, because computers are powered by electricity, and guess where almost 90% of all electricity comes from. Hint:Burning Coal. People are entitled to their opinions, but i believe they should back them up, and so if someone is against expansion and progress and nicer quality of life, fight it.
/rant
Terrible movie, but if you think that humans killing billions for their own mistake is all fine and dandy, you should get yourself checked up. The kittens in my garden agree.
And, as bushido quoted, simply draining one place and moving on to the next it unsustainable and will always lead to the same situation: running out of places to go to, and either learning to pick the purple berries or dying out.
1) Humans are inherently the good guys. The default is to root for us. 2) The catpeople are the ones who rejected a diplomatic solution. 3) The catpeople have no more claim to the planet than humans did. They're clearly not a native species, since every other species on the planet had 6 legs and 4 eyes. 4) The over-the-top environmental message was way too obvious. Which made me hostile to it, rather than sway me. 5) The only interesting character was the "evil" human marine guy. 6) The catpeople commit bestiality rape. That's pretty gross. 7) The catpeople are super religious. 8) Ewoks defeating Storm Troopers was more believable than the humans loosing to bows and arrows. 9) They've got everything they need easily provided to them by the planet. It seriously looks like the entire ecosystem was designed about supplying their every need. Yet, they still act like their life is so tough. 10) Furries need to be purified.
Grakmar wrote:Top 10 Reasons I rooted against the catpeople:
1) Humans are inherently the good guys. The default is to root for us.
2) The catpeople are the ones who rejected a diplomatic solution.
3) The catpeople have no more claim to the planet than humans did. They're clearly not a native species, since every other species on the planet had 6 legs and 4 eyes.
4) The over-the-top environmental message was way too obvious. Which made me hostile to it, rather than sway me.
5) The only interesting character was the "evil" human marine guy.
6) The catpeople commit bestiality rape. That's pretty gross.
7) The catpeople are super religious.
8) Ewoks defeating Storm Troopers was more believable than the humans loosing to bows and arrows.
9) They've got everything they need easily provided to them by the planet. It seriously looks like the entire ecosystem was designed about supplying their every need. Yet, they still act like their life is so tough.
10) Furries need to be purified.
THAT...WAS...AMAZING!!!woot woot, i did not relate with the blue people if you guys/gals have not guessed that yet...
mattyrm wrote:Butcher the blue people, slaughter them like dogs.
That movie was a pinko conspiracy, designed to make the white man hate himself more, and wish he was a warlike equally vicious native American or a warlike equally vicious African instead.
Well, not really.
But I really didn't care about those blue guys, and the film sucked balls as a whole. It was like Pocahontas with robots, and my nephew thought it was corny as hell and he is only 9.
Indeed. I think I actually fell asleep in part of it.
TrollPie wrote:Terrible movie, but if you think that humans killing billions for their own mistake is all fine and dandy, you should get yourself checked up. The kittens in my garden agree.
And, as bushido quoted, simply draining one place and moving on to the next it unsustainable and will always lead to the same situation: running out of places to go to, and either learning to pick the purple berries or dying out.
We kill gazillions of bacteria and microbes every day and hale and celebrate those mass murderers. WE call thaem doctors and vaccine pioneers. I guess we should all just pop off and shoot ourselves. You first.
Oh, OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. Indeed, you're quite right then.
Ah, if only more people that I met understood this fundamental fact of life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bushido wrote:
Carmine the Wolf wrote:It always interests me that when we observe one species in nature that has the ability to out-compete its rivals and even cause their extinction, we chalk it up to the survival of the fittest and muse that while the species that died out might have been cuter and more cuddly, that's just nature's way.
When human beings out-compete other species, we deride ourselves as short-sighted, greedy and immoral.
I don't agree with humans mucking the planet up, destroying the rainforests and all that...I just find the semnatics of the issue interesting.
Looks like the cuddly blue people did the out-competing in that movie. Guess they were more fit and the silly humans can just quietly go extinct now. It's nature's way, after-all.
The problem with your train of thought is exactly what Agent Smith said about humans in The Matrix:
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
While we're busy out-competing, we're also busy destroying our own habitat. Other animals might do something similar, but none are as efficient at it as humans. They wouldn't understand why it was happening and they wouldn't be able to take steps to prevent it...they would simply die. We, on the other hand, have no one to blame but ourselves (barring some massive unavoidable natural catastrophe, of course).
And of course the real problem is that if you classify humans as a "virus" then you have to accept that their inevitable destruction of the environment is as natural as a bird flocking to migrate to a warmer climate in the winter and stop castigating them for simply acting according to their nature.
The Agent Smith quote is simply a trite piece of throwaway psuedo-intellectual soundbite scripting on the part of the Watchowski Brothers that falls apart under closer analysis of mammal species that have spread from their native habitat and caused ecological chaos in a new one.
And the really interesting thing about the plot of Avatar is the obvious fact that without the intervention of a "silly human" the blue folks would have been wiped out in short order.
So the film in effect manages to have its cake and eat it in suggesting that humans are destructive, but the blue people are too stupid to save themselves and need humans to tell them how to do it!
i say keep the blue people. put them in zoos,make millions.oh,better yet,grab all those alien animals to! then farm there planet and terra form it so humans can breath there.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i say keep the blue people. put them in zoos,make millions.oh,better yet,grab all those alien animals to! then farm there planet and terra form it so humans can breath there.
dajobe wrote:I was watching Avatar with my mom and sister yesterday, and at the end when the humans lose(duh) my mom was like "take that humans, trying to cut down their tree and kill those nice blue people.
I then responded with, "you realise that if this was real, then the saviour of these 20,000 some odd blue people just led to the death of millions or even billions of humans?"
My mom said "why?"
me:"because now the humans are without the their only main source of energy, and it will now become even more expensive and as stores get depleted, and wars will start over remaining reserves and will lead to millions if not billions of deaths. So you just traded 20,000 lives for millions if not billions. just thought you should know"
she got mad
but the ending that i like to imagine is that the humans come back to pandora...and nuke the entire surface and take what they want, because although i liked the visuals of the movie, i had a hard time getting into "OH THE POOR BLUE PEOPLE" vibe
anyone else feel this way, or am i just unkind to the blue people?
I don't recall unobtanium was used as an energy source (but I barely paid attention to the film anyway), I thought it was used as a building material (as an engineer, we have a different use of the term unobtainium (and we came up with it first, damnit), used to describe any material (which most likely doesn't exist) that has the ideal properties for whatever application it is that you would like to utilize it in). In any case, operations on Pandora had only been going for a bit over a decade or two, so I sincerely doubt that Earth is that reliant on the stuff in any case. As for humans coming back to pandora, well Avatar was the first movie in a trilogy, and its been pretty much stated that Colonel Quaritch will probably make a comeback (in the form of a clone, remember this is supposed to be set in the same timeline as Alien(s?) IIRC).
the james cameron wiki says that it is used to save earth from its energy crisis, but you could be right because wikipedia is full of a bunch of gak. I think that colonel guy should kill jake sully, cuz sully is a traitor, and lame for making strange cat noises
dajobe wrote:the james cameron wiki says that it is used to save earth from its energy crisis, but you could be right because wikipedia is full of a bunch of gak. I think that colonel guy should kill jake sully, cuz sully is a traitor, and lame for making strange cat noises
or dissect jakes now alien brain to find out how to transfer all humans to super bodies
TrollPie wrote:Terrible movie, but if you think that humans killing billions for their own mistake is all fine and dandy, you should get yourself checked up. The kittens in my garden agree.
And, as bushido quoted, simply draining one place and moving on to the next it unsustainable and will always lead to the same situation: running out of places to go to, and either learning to pick the purple berries or dying out.
We kill gazillions of bacteria and microbes every day and hale and celebrate those mass murderers. WE call thaem doctors and vaccine pioneers. I guess we should all just pop off and shoot ourselves. You first.
Except microbes are just guided by instincts, they don't feel pain or fear death. There's a Chuck Norris joke in their somewhere, but I can't be bothered at the moment.
And draining places of resources then moving on to the next won't sustain anyone for long, so there's that.
If life's gonna be harsh, don't make it harsher.
i just looked at the wiki page, and as i said i cant guarentee its actual use, but it looks like coal(black, shiny, bumpy) and i believe that it is supposed to be inferred, but there is no actual proof that it is energy. But cameron has been on tv and has spoken publicly against coal and oil and mining in general. I personally believe that he is inferring that unobtainium is coal or some other energy that he views as evil, and is trying to brainwash the peoples of the world
Automatically Appended Next Post: not actually brainwash, that is an exageration...
Assuming the audience has knowledge outside of a work of fiction so they can answer questions within the fiction is just bad writing.
My biggest complaint against Avatar is that Unobtanium was some mystery rock that was apparently worth a lot of money, but otherwise had no stated use (which is odd because if it has no use how is it worth anything?). Humans came out as greedy douche bags tearing a planet apart for pure profit (which is probably historically accurate colonization wise to a degree but makes for cliche and predictable story line). The film would have been greatly improved by a reason in the film for wanting the mystery rock. It would, dare I say *removes sunglasses* humanize the antagonists?
dont worry, hes jason bourne, he will just get some swiss chick to drive him to your place, and you will snipe her and think you got him, but he'll get you in the end, you should enlist the help of the astartes, they could probably help you
dajobe wrote:dont worry, hes jason bourne, he will just get some swiss chick to drive him to your place, and you will snipe her and think you got him, but he'll get you in the end, you should enlist the help of the astartes, they could probably help you
See this is the fatal mistake most antagonists make. NEVER touch the girl. Don't kidnap her, beat her, kill her, or hold her ransom. It just makes him more angry
LordofHats wrote:Assuming the audience has knowledge outside of a work of fiction so they can answer questions within the fiction is just bad writing.
My biggest complaint against Avatar is that Unobtanium was some mystery rock that was apparently worth a lot of money, but otherwise had no stated use (which is odd because if it has no use how is it worth anything?[i][u]). Humans came out as greedy douche bags tearing a planet apart for pure profit (which is probably historically accurate colonization wise to a degree but makes for cliche and predictable story line). The film would have been greatly improved by a reason in the film for wanting the mystery rock. It would, dare I say *removes sunglasses* humanize the antagonists?
Gold
Silver
Platinum
Diamond
Sapphire
Emerald
Ruby
etc.
etc.
etc.
Okay, so a lot of those things actually have valid scientific uses nowadays, but when they first became valuable, they were entirely useless outside of a form of jewelry(which equates to uselessness in my mind) and their valuable continues to be based on just how useless the are, rather than their application in semiconductors or what have you. Anyway, maybe Unobtanium is a form of jewelry? Or maybe its the traditional engineering definition: a material with all the right properties for whatever application is at hand (whatever that happens to be)...
Avatar's plot: the marine is the bad guy and he will die in the end. All the other stuff is just made for being good looking in 3D. Finding director's hidden agenda is kinda far-fetched. If he wanted to make a statement, he could have just said it out loud.
I found Avatar very very typical Hollywood movie with supposed-to-be-fascinating 3D effects. It's main point is not to tell a interesting story, but to show off with the graphics. It's funny that people actually get the DVD or Bluray to watch in in TV with no 3D whatsoever!
dajobe wrote:dont worry, hes jason bourne, he will just get some swiss chick to drive him to your place, and you will snipe her and think you got him, but he'll get you in the end, you should enlist the help of the astartes, they could probably help you
See this is the fatal mistake most antagonists make. NEVER touch the girl. Don't kidnap her, beat her, kill her, or hold her ransom. It just makes him more angry
yeah but lots of times going after the women gets him severely hurt or worse...why is it women always cause trouble in movies? if he hadent met that blue girl in avatar,he wouldnt of turned.
My main complaint is that the entire film was a showcase of special effects that weren't even revolutionary. From the paper-thin Pocahontas plot, the bad and OTT acting (looking at you, Stereotypical Sarge), the half arsed, cliched script to the ridiculous "Don't just respect nature, LOVE IT!" message, it is probably the most overrated movie of all time.
Still, at least it's not fething Shyamalamalanalalamalan.
chaos0xomega wrote:Okay, so a lot of those things actually have valid scientific uses nowadays, but when they first became valuable, they were entirely useless outside of a form of jewelry(which equates to uselessness in my mind) and their valuable continues to be based on just how useless the are, rather than their application in semiconductors or what have you. Anyway, maybe Unobtanium is a form of jewelry? Or maybe its the traditional engineering definition: a material with all the right properties for whatever application is at hand (whatever that happens to be)...
That's the problem though! Those 'useless' things you listed are useful. They are expensive for a reason. We value them because we like the way they look.
Why do we value Unobtainium? The film never says. It just says it's worth something. It's a plot hole, and leaves us with only one conclusion: Human beings are douche bags who want money. It makes for a very boring antagonist.
remilia_scarlet wrote:My armour is contempt
My shield is disgust
My sword is hatred
By the name of the emperor
Let none survive
does dakka have a Like button?
I wish.
+5 Internet point for Remilia!
We should ask legoburner for a like button then i will leave facebook XD
Blue people killing humans! BAH!
I feel no symphony for those monkeys killing humans, even if it is cruel what they were doing to the planet I will not support Xenos, humans are the good guys lets just put it down for that, They refused dipolomacy! And they attacked first! No peace organization! Hyper violence and they are basically rapists, they deserve death. I do not care for they are not human, and they themselves call us from the dead world. Well sorry to say this but it wouldn't actually be like that, we would still have massive green forests still abiding around us. Plus the element might be able to power the cities for thousands of years this means that Jake Should be hunted down for crimes against humanity. Because hundreds of soldiers were killed by him and his rouge pilot. Treachery! And Betrayal! Especially if he was a former marine. He was just going insane. I say get a vindicator assassin and kill him!
I am a conversationalist too, and I hated this movie, Though I really hate james cameron....... Plus its an unoriginal plot to me.
Why do we value Unobtainium? The film never says. It just says it's worth something. It's a plot hole, and leaves us with only one conclusion: Human beings are douche bags who want money. It makes for a very boring antagonist.
boring? yes. real for humans? yes. humans will do anything to ake money,even destroy aliens that we should be studying.
Why do we value Unobtainium? The film never says. It just says it's worth something. It's a plot hole, and leaves us with only one conclusion: Human beings are douche bags who want money. It makes for a very boring antagonist.
boring? yes. real for humans? yes. humans will do anything to ake money,even destroy aliens that we should be studying.
Reality is the worst fiction.
EDIT: And here as a cynic of the human species, I never thought I'd argue that human beings in fiction shouldn't be greedy douche bags!
Why do we value Unobtainium? The film never says. It just says it's worth something. It's a plot hole, and leaves us with only one conclusion: Human beings are douche bags who want money. It makes for a very boring antagonist.
boring? yes. real for humans? yes. humans will do anything to ake money,even destroy aliens that we should be studying.
study? put some in a zoo with some trees and animals to ZAHEELUOO or whatever it is with, and study em, at the same time, mine the gak out of thier planet, and show them pictures of it too
Why do we value Unobtainium? The film never says. It just says it's worth something. It's a plot hole, and leaves us with only one conclusion: Human beings are douche bags who want money. It makes for a very boring antagonist.
boring? yes. real for humans? yes. humans will do anything to ake money,even destroy aliens that we should be studying.
study? put some in a zoo with some trees and animals to ZAHEELUOO or whatever it is with, and study em, at the same time, mine the gak out of thier planet, and show them pictures of it too
i dunno, could stuff a couple of em in a tiny cage in a college classroom, could dissect them, could drop them out of a plane and see if they follow standard physics laws!
LordofHats wrote:Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the film NEVER said what Unobtainium was used for. Just that it was worth a large amount of money.
The movie said it was used for Superconductors that resolved an energy crisis. Mankind got off oil and by getting hooked on unobtainium in the say way a crack addict enjoys a new crack free lifestyle my smoking crystal meth instead.
LordofHats wrote:Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the film NEVER said what Unobtainium was used for. Just that it was worth a large amount of money.
The movie said it was used for Superconductors that resolved an energy crisis. Mankind got off oil and by getting hooked on unobtainium in the say way a crack addict enjoys a new crack free lifestyle my smoking crystal meth instead.
Anyhow on that note a quick preview of Avatar II
yup.the only thing the 2nd can be about is humans coming back and blowing the gak out of em all
The movie said it was used for Superconductors that resolved an energy crisis. Mankind got off oil and by getting hooked on unobtainium in the say way a crack addict enjoys a new crack free lifestyle my smoking crystal meth instead.
Wait, this was in the scene where the loser business guy was putting in the control room wasn't it? I think I remember this now...
remilia_scarlet wrote:My armour is contempt
My shield is disgust
My sword is hatred
By the name of the emperor
Let none survive
Indeed, Purge them from the world with Cleansing Fire!
That aside, i enjoyed the move in the same way i enjoyed both transformers movies, i didn't have to think too hard about them and could just sit back and watch.
corpsesarefun wrote:How could superconductors resolve an energy crisis?
More importantly, to my knowledge superconductors aren't a perishable resource, they should be good to go after their problems were resolved.
nononono,you see,if they found a way to make it into a infinite power source,people would just want more and more and more,so they keep mining it for money even though they dont need it.
corpsesarefun wrote:How could superconductors resolve an energy crisis?
More importantly, to my knowledge superconductors aren't a perishable resource, they should be good to go after their problems were resolved.
This.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:How could superconductors resolve an energy crisis?
More importantly, to my knowledge superconductors aren't a perishable resource, they should be good to go after their problems were resolved.
nononono,you see,if they found a way to make it into a infinite power source,people would just want more and more and more,so they keep mining it for money even though they dont need it.
That is the thing, superconductors cannot be used as a power source as a superconductor is simply a material with electrical resistance of 0. Superconductors are useful for making circuits efficient and for making strong electromagnets, to my knowledge that is all they are good for.
And anyway, if they invented an infinite power source (mass/energy conservation says hi by the way) why would they want to produce more of them? surely they could just use the infinite power they already have?
corpsesarefun wrote:And anyway, if they invented an infinite power source (mass/energy conservation says hi by the way) why would they want to produce more of them? surely they could just use the infinite power they already have?
cause the human population is constantly growing and everyone would want one for each device they have.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:anyone else laugh that the element was named un-obtain-ium?
ohhhh yes i did. it got made fun of in that stupid kids show; mad. yet they obtained some...ironic.
Well plot and story aside, the movie does look really good. I passed by a 82 inch TV playing Avatar on Blu-ray yesterday and damn did that movie look good.
i didnt necessarily hate the movie at first, but once my mom started talking about how evil the humans were and how they dont need the energy, i saw the plot for what it really was, and both the people who like the blue people and the blue people themselves are obviously short term thinkers because blue people gonna get nuked whereas they could have made a gak-ton of money.
We should put james cameron 9 feet from a cliff, and have him roll 3D6 and a scatter dice and walk that many feet! lol, jk, i dont think he deserves that, even if he is a nutjob!
ok, that is correct, he is good at catering to what is currently in, i just dont agree with many of his political stances, Avatar did LOOK nice, i will give him that, i didnt like the movie itself though, titanic is ok
Political? Nah, it's a story that would make money, so he rolled with it. A subvertive message in a film is great, read: District 9. What Avatar did was bash on the head with a brick labelled save the environment. I'm glad I only ever watched Dances with Smurfs once.
I think hitting me with a brick saying save the environment is a political message. I love the national parks and think that it should be saved, but i dont want to beaten over the head with it. It is his first ammendment right to make a movie and say what he wants in it, but it is also my first ammendment right to call him a nutjob for what i feel is him preaching in movie form.
It's a political opinion that you may want to put on him, but I highly doubt that James Cameron the man was actually trying to convey his own personal message. It's a money making scheme.
dajobe wrote:I think hitting me with a brick saying save the environment is a political message. I love the national parks and think that it should be saved, but i dont want to beaten over the head with it. It is his first ammendment right to make a movie and say what he wants in it, but it is also my first ammendment right to call him a nutjob for what i feel is him preaching in movie form.
Technically that is a libel, which isn't protected speech.
I won't delete the comment because I think James Cameron has better things to do than cruise the OT Forum looking for excuses to sue us.
lol, i guess that is technically libel...
how about this: i thought that the movie Avatar had great cinematics and I personally believe that the movie hints at many controversial political issues in a way that is one sided that I do not agree with and do not like the director that much for previously listed reasons.
lol, if james cameron sued every person who said something bad about him on the internet, he'd be sueing alot of people...
also, i just shouted my previous libelous statement in my office because its not libel if it is spoken
dajobe wrote:I think hitting me with a brick saying save the environment is a political message. I love the national parks and think that it should be saved, but i dont want to beaten over the head with it. It is his first ammendment right to make a movie and say what he wants in it, but it is also my first ammendment right to call him a nutjob for what i feel is him preaching in movie form.
Technically that is a libel, which isn't protected speech.
I won't delete the comment because I think James Cameron has better things to do than cruise the OT Forum looking for excuses to sue us.
Technically, it's an opinion, which is protected speech.
Now if he had made a factual assertion, for example that James Cameron is a convicted criminal, or implied a fact, for example saying that James Cameron has never admitted to being an alcoholic, then it would be libel.
Perhaps that means something different in the USA to the UK.
It might.
Here it's meant as a general derogatory term, it doesn't imply that the person lacks mental facilities (in the medical sense) or that the person suffers from a mental derangement or illness. I can call someone a "nutjob" and most people will see it as an expression of disbelief in someone's views and/or beliefs, not a statement about their mental capacity.
Similarly, the term "idiot" or "dumb" is used as a general insult, not to indicate that the person suffers from mental illness or is unable to speak.
Besides, damages is an element of the libel claim, and I'm 99% sure Cameron would have a difficult time proving that, assuming he could overcome the burden imposed by Sullivan.
Another defense to libel is that you reasonably believed the statement was in fact true, even if it wasn't.
So, for Cameron to successfully sue, he'd have to prove that he wasn't actually crazy. And, dajobe would then have to fall back on the fact that he thought Cameron was, and had a reasonable belief for it.
Please do not call James Cameron by his last name, Cameron.
Because that is my name, And people equate me to Cameron Diaz or James Cameron.
Please use his full name XD
Its confusing Because sometimes i go offline and thinking "Wait i did what?"
I would have orbital bombarded them, burnt off the atmophier and striped mined it all, all the while humming to my self "its not my world" Why should we be bothered to be diplomatic when they don't even have a flag. We stuck one down and there fore the world is now ours to do with as we wish Strip mine and credits for whom kills the most bluebies a week.
Asherian Command wrote:Please do not call James Cameron by his last name, Cameron.
Because that is my name, And people equate me to Cameron Diaz or James Cameron.
Please use his full name XD
Its confusing Because sometimes i go offline and thinking "Wait i did what?"
Okay...
Cameron ( ) ripped everything off Pocahontas (if you look at my upper post you can see what I'm talking about.)
I liked Avatar. It's not the best story but the hate it receives from nerdom has nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie but rather its box office success.
Asherian Command wrote:Please do not call James Cameron by his last name, Cameron.
Because that is my name, And people equate me to Cameron Diaz or James Cameron.
Please use his full name XD
Its confusing Because sometimes i go offline and thinking "Wait i did what?"
The thing that unsettled me with Avatar was how it kinda sorta hinted at the middle east (imho) Also When half the audience was laughing during the climactic battle, Me (the soldier) was getting very angry. These guys had families too. They were just following orders. But that's me, anyone else have a similar experience with their crowd?
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The thing that unsettled me with Avatar was how it kinda sorta hinted at the middle east (imho) Also When half the audience was laughing during the climactic battle, Me (the soldier) was getting very angry. These guys had families too. They were just following orders. But that's me, anyone else have a similar experience with their crowd?
Do you often think of the families of the guards that James Bond dispatches so regularly?
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The thing that unsettled me with Avatar was how it kinda sorta hinted at the middle east (imho) Also When half the audience was laughing during the climactic battle, Me (the soldier) was getting very angry. These guys had families too. They were just following orders. But that's me, anyone else have a similar experience with their crowd?
Do you often think of the families of the guards that James Bond dispatches so regularly?
Yes. Constantly. Especially the grieving widow. I think about her a lot.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The thing that unsettled me with Avatar was how it kinda sorta hinted at the middle east (imho) Also When half the audience was laughing during the climactic battle, Me (the soldier) was getting very angry. These guys had families too. They were just following orders. But that's me, anyone else have a similar experience with their crowd?
yeah, my mom and sister were both like "Kill those soldiers!" and i just 'ed. It always really ticks me off when people say really anything against the US military branches. Or when my neighbor said "what right did the US have to just go in and kill BIN LADEN?" my reply was "what right did he have to kill 2000+ Americans on 9/11?". she shut up after that.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The thing that unsettled me with Avatar was how it kinda sorta hinted at the middle east (imho) Also When half the audience was laughing during the climactic battle, Me (the soldier) was getting very angry. These guys had families too. They were just following orders. But that's me, anyone else have a similar experience with their crowd?
yeah, my mom and sister were both like "Kill those soldiers!" and i just 'ed. It always really ticks me off when people say really anything against the US military branches. Or when my neighbor said "what right did the US have to just go in and kill BIN LADEN?" my reply was "what right did he have to kill 2000+ Americans on 9/11?". she shut up after that.
And *this* mentality strikes me as a little odd. When the soldiers are so blatantly depicted as the bad guys, it's not ok to root against them because they are "American military?" Never mind that it's a work of fiction and the audience is supposed to cheer for the protagonists.
To be fair, the "soldiers" that were in Avatar weren't actually military. They were mercenaries that answered to a private corporation that was trying to mine the planet.
So, they weren't enlisted. They weren't serving their country. They voluntarily took a dangerous job, and were free to quit at any time.
they are mercenaries in the movie, but i feel bad for/side with anyone that is following orders and dying. Also, yes, i do believe all americans should root for US soldiers in movies and real life because I believe that anyone that is willing to risk their life/ donate 4+ years of their life to protecting this country deserves to be rooted for in movies and supported in real life.
dajobe wrote:i do believe all americans should root for US soldiers in movies
So in Platoon when Tom Berenger is committing war crimes and shooting members of his own unit we are supposed to cheer him on? Or Abu Graib? Just sit back and be "feth Yeah! Human pyramid! Such ingenuity!"? I could go on. Being a member of the military isn't now nor has it ever been a free pass for acting unethically and "just following orders" is not a very good excuse.
The soldiers in this one were harsh, but in the movie, it basically showed that one idiot soldier who just shouted stupid gak all the time. Many of the mercenaries were faceless and were not depicted as evil except that they were fighting the "noble" blue people. But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
Which is also the reason why i refuse to see cars 2. Ive read that the plot is that BIG OIL companies try to create a natural disaster that looks like it was the alternative energy source companies fault in an effort to frame them. I mean, come on pixar, at least Avatar was SORT OF subtle about its bashing. absolutely disgusting, hollywood is becoming sickeningly liberal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The soldiers in this one were harsh, but in the movie, it basically showed that one idiot soldier who just shouted stupid gak all the time. Many of the mercenaries were faceless and were not depicted as evil except that they were fighting the "noble" blue people. But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
Which is also the reason why i refuse to see cars 2. Ive read that the plot is that BIG OIL companies try to create a natural disaster that looks like it was the alternative energy source companies fault in an effort to frame them. I mean, come on pixar, at least Avatar was SORT OF subtle about its bashing. absolutely disgusting, hollywood is becoming sickeningly liberal.
bushido wrote:Rodriguez's character (amongst the soldiers) was the only one I could remember who didn't look enthusiastic at the prospect of genocide.
And her character arc was not fleshed out at all. Her turning traitor was a convenience to the plot more than a natural transition from merc pilot to fighting her former comrades. They needed her to turn against them for plot convenience so she did.
dajobe wrote:The soldiers in this one were harsh, but in the movie, it basically showed that one idiot soldier who just shouted stupid gak all the time. Many of the mercenaries were faceless and were not depicted as evil except that they were fighting the "noble" blue people. But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
Which is also the reason why i refuse to see cars 2. Ive read that the plot is that BIG OIL companies try to create a natural disaster that looks like it was the alternative energy source companies fault in an effort to frame them. I mean, come on pixar, at least Avatar was SORT OF subtle about its bashing. absolutely disgusting, hollywood is becoming sickeningly liberal.
Wait, I think I saw a South Park episode about this. The boys wrote a book and put as much disgusting crap as they could in it. Everyone brought their own baggage into it and convinced themselves that it was some deep philosophical treatise on their personal beliefs. When, end the end, it was just a book about infected orifices, bodily fluids, and bowel movements.
The Tale of Scroty McBoogerballs. They were caught so blamed it on Butters due to their paranoia, then everyone took the tale as being a deep philosophical message on par with The Lord of The Flies and Of Mice and Men.
it can be looked at in such a way for avatar, but do you disagree with the Cars 2 thing?and there are definite examples of people reading into things to much. I saw a history channel show, saying how Star Wars was like the Odessy and was based upon a great deal of mythology? come on History Channel, he wrote a story about fighting in space, a great one, but i doubt he connected it with the odessy. But as for Avatar and Cars 2, i believe deliberate connections were made, you can disagree if you like, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I am just stating mine.
i am partially with you, i think if the species is sentient and can reason and arent a bunch of Dbags then we can be nice, but the NA'VI in the movie were uncompromising. But i think humans should always put humans first
dajobe wrote: But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
Yeah, because coal and big corporations are our friends. Mhm, yep. Drill, baby, drill. And who gives a gak about fething up the only planet we have, anyway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote: But i think humans should always put humans first
So, is destroying an entire world for a profit justifiable if it "benefits humanity"? Murdering thousands of innocent beings? Destroying natural beauty for the sake of a good quarterly report?
dajobe wrote: But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
Yeah, because coal and big corporations are our friends. Mhm, yep. Drill, baby, drill. And who gives a gak about fething up the only planet we have, anyway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote: But i think humans should always put humans first
So, is destroying an entire world for a profit justifiable if it "benefits humanity"? Murdering thousands of innocent beings? Destroying natural beauty for the sake of a good quarterly report?
Humans do this... Get use to it like I did.
Humans also steal ideas from others... Cartman wrote the book "dances with the smurfs" and James Cameron stole the idea
I wonder if someday on an advanced alien world a bunch of alien nerds will be debating if their race sould have exterminated the savage and inferior humans of earth?
CT GAMER wrote:I wonder if someday on an advanced alien world a bunch of alien nerds will be debating if their race sould have exterminated the savage and inferior humans of earth?
I wonder if they will make a movie about it?
I suspect they will all agree it was for the best.
CT GAMER wrote:I wonder if someday on an advanced alien world a bunch of alien nerds will be debating if their race sould have exterminated the savage and inferior humans of earth?
I wonder if they will make a movie about it?
I suspect they will all agree it was for the best.
dajobe wrote:The soldiers in this one were harsh, but in the movie, it basically showed that one idiot soldier who just shouted stupid gak all the time. Many of the mercenaries were faceless and were not depicted as evil except that they were fighting the "noble" blue people. But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
The idea that companies do very bad things in search of their own profits is hardly a liberal idea, it's more a widely recognised part of reality.
Your complaint makes about as much sense as someone saying that a scene of government bureaucracy was politically motivated, and they're so sick of seeing rightwing propaganda in movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:I saw a history channel show, saying how Star Wars was like the Odessy and was based upon a great deal of mythology? come on History Channel, he wrote a story about fighting in space, a great one, but i doubt he connected it with the odessy.
This dude called Joseph Campbell wrote a bunch of stuff studying myths in the 40s and 50s, with his most famous work being 'The Hero of a Thousand Faces'. He had this idea that myths across societies had a lot in common, certain archtypes always showed up, the hero typically underwent certain activities in his journey.
Lucas read a lot from Campbell, and followed it all very closely. His Star Wars trilogy followed the framework laid out by Campbell very closely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bushido wrote:And *this* mentality strikes me as a little odd. When the soldiers are so blatantly depicted as the bad guys, it's not ok to root against them because they are "American military?" Never mind that it's a work of fiction and the audience is supposed to cheer for the protagonists.
It's been a really common complaint about the movie, and really, it just makes no damn sense. I don't think the complaint is about soldiers being killed, we see that in movie after movie... I don't remember anyone ever complaining about all those Burmese soldiers getting slaughtered Rambo IV. I think it's really about the soldiers involved being very tightly aligned with the US, as they seemed to all be ex-US troops.
I'm left wondering if this reaction against Avatar wouldn't have happened if the soldiers involved were more of a league of nations, drafted from a variety of militaries.
Well Cameron does have a theme in his films of corporation = evil running throughout his oeuvre with all the subtlety of a hand grenade in a bowl of oatmeal.
i think people need to tone down on the whole "America is BAD, corporations are BAD" thing.
yes, JC does have a pet hate in corporations, but I don't think it extends to the US military. the guys were mercs, part of a PMC. a PMC is a corporation.
as to the subject of the completely american cast. it's holywood, since when did holywood give a damn about non-US actors? unless its the villain (the good old top hat, monocle wearing, twirly moustache posh bloke) or James bond.
the movie itself? i thought it was okay. the highlights was the really shiny GFX and the acting from Sam Worthington. i don't know what it is about that guy but he is a really good actor. but the story was as most people pointed out, pretty basic and unoriginal. i pretty much guessed all major plot points about 10 minutes into the film.
but i think the main point was i left the cinema feeling that it was money well spent. it was a really good showcase for modern 3D and the action scenes were pretty cool.
and i noticed similarities between all the hate for Avatar and hate for ultramarines. both were criticised for being blue (hence lots of smurf jokes), and both are quite popular with the mainstream. am i detected a little elitism here?
Ahtman wrote:Well Cameron does have a theme in his films of corporation = evil running throughout his oeuvre with all the subtlety of a hand grenade in a bowl of oatmeal.
Absolutely. If the complaints were just that it was heavy handed and obvious, then it'd be more reasonable, albeit still a little weird given we're talking about big budget Hollywood here... "I went and saw the latest $200 million action movie and I was disappointed it wasn't subtle"?!
Meanwhile, Transformer II had a painfully obvious theme of a stupid, bungling US government (actually explicitly mentioned as the Obama administration) that wanted to negotiate with the Decepticons, and just generally getting in the way of the soldiers who knew exactly what needed to be done. The film ultimately approved of those soldiers disobeying the orders of its government to go and do whatever it was, I can't remember it was all so stupid. Point being, I don't remember anyone complaining about that stupidly heavyhanded piece of Hollywood morality, or it's obvious rightwing undertones.
I've been told this theme is just as obvious in the new movie. But there's still no complaint.
But plenty of folk pick up on Avatar's anti-colonialism, and use it to complain about Hollywood leftwing politics...
airsoftmanic wrote:and i noticed similarities between all the hate for Avatar and hate for ultramarines. both were criticised for being blue (hence lots of smurf jokes), and both are quite popular with the mainstream. am i detected a little elitism here?
For a bunch of people who are presumably outside the norm and really imaginative, nerds are really predictable. One thing is for certain, if a typical nerd property like an effects heavy sci-fi film manages to cross over and make a lot of mainstream money, you can bet the nerds will be lining up to declare how much they hated it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I'll complain about it.
I would too but I'm not going to see the movie
Well, not because of that being in the movie. If a movie celebrating the military and booing the government was enough for me to not enjoy it, I'd have to miss out on about half of all action movies (more if you expand the theme to celebrating violence and booing restraint or any control then you'd be looking at about 95% of all action movies). Nah, I won't be watching TFIII because the second movie was really bad on almost every level.
dajobe wrote: But the thing that did the movie in for me was the, IMO, blatant attack on coal and Big corperations.
Yeah, because coal and big corporations are our friends. Mhm, yep. Drill, baby, drill. And who gives a gak about fething up the only planet we have, anyway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote: But i think humans should always put humans first
So, is destroying an entire world for a profit justifiable if it "benefits humanity"? Murdering thousands of innocent beings? Destroying natural beauty for the sake of a good quarterly report?
I am all about researching to find a new REALISTIC main source of energy, and many places are, but until then we need power, and coal provides 90% of it. And what corperation is your "friend", all corperations are out to make money, and many of them are in area's that are unliked by the public. My family has worked in the coal industry for a while now, and I know that the coal corperations are depicted MUCH too harshly by the media, and all of the dinkpods of the world follow blindly.
and yes, i dont give one flying feth about the blue people
awww,thanks 
ok! heres your shovel,and your stun rifle in case they try to kill you. those blue guys took out my l-err,yeah,get to work!
) ripped everything off Pocahontas (if you look at my upper post you can see what I'm talking about.)
'ed. It always really ticks me off when people say really anything against the US military branches. Or when my neighbor said "what right did the US have to just go in and kill BIN LADEN?" my reply was "what right did he have to kill 2000+ Americans on 9/11?". she shut up after that.
