I was wondering if it has been explained somewhere why all the native flora seem to have six limbs, two sets of eyes, two "tentacle thingies" and breathe directly from their lungs (?) except for the Na'vi who are your typical humanoid (with only one "tentacle")
Also, has it been explained how the avatars are "controlled"? How come that connection isn't screwed-up by the energy flux?
But wow was it a cool movie. I expect a few loincloths on Halloween night next year...
'findel
I was wondering if it has been explained somewhere why all the native flora seem to have six limbs, two sets of eyes, two "tentacle thingies" and breathe directly from their lungs (?) except for the Na'vi who are your typical humanoid (with only one "tentacle")
Also, has it been explained how the avatars are "controlled"? How come that connection isn't screwed-up by the energy flux?
But wow was it a cool movie. I expect a few loincloths on Halloween night next year...
'findel
Not sure on the biomechanics of the place, but I had the same question about the flux and avatar control. My buddy suggested that the connection is made through the planet "network"..there' the scene where Sigourney Weaver is showing the new guy how fast the transmission speeds are so it stands to reason she had figured out a good bit concerning that whole system. Of course, we're just geeks trying to justify the awesomeness :)
|
Loved the film saw the 3-d version and it blew me away. Best movie I have seen In a while. It was like watching last of the mohicans crossed with aliens crossed with Predator crossed with Halo. As a side note if they ever decide to do a Halo movie James cameron is the man they should get to direct it.
|
Pandorapedia has explanations on a lot of the "technical" and "scientific" details from the movie, including how near FTL is achieved, some of how the Avatars are created and controlled, biological information on most of the fauna from the movie, and details on the vehicles.
|
I think this movie can't beat Aliens because it relies too much on cliches. The critiques spotted it quick and they were right. I think the bold thing would have been to make the aliens have 6 extremities (arms legs) and breath through holes in their upper chest and have 4 eyes. The next thing would have been to not have them sound like Native Americans, but more like aliens. Lastly, the director should have had faith that this film would land an audience for its subject matter over time. Bladerunner didn't live up to expectations, but it certainly has become one of the best films ever made when it comes to endurance. Instead, I felt like I left with an ice cream spoon in my mouth.
That is "ok" though, because I liked the film on its own merits. I do not believe this film will be catalogued among the great films. It could have been such a film, but the choices taken in its presentation asure that it won't.
|
|
... I do not believe this film will be catalogued among the great films. It could have been such a film, but the choices taken in its presentation asure that it won't.
I agree. While I actually really enjoyed this film, and have seen it three times so far, I don't think it's any better (in terms of innovation) than The Abyss (which I haven't been able to sit through for years now), and doesn't hold a candle to Aliens for me (which I watch at least a couple times a year, without fail). However, I think it will become known as the paradigm shift in moviemaking and presentation, much as The Abyss was (and much as Jurassic Park, for that matter).
BTW: I take back my earlier misgivings regarding the sneak peek I saw. This film was awesome! (Just not the best Cameron's done, and not the best sci-fi I've seen)
Game over man, Game over!
Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with a film that utilizes cliches. I often find completely original films predictable because I know how to read foreshadowing and narrative cues to predict what's going to happen. It can actually be a rewarding viewing experience to "call it" before it happens. In the case of Avatar, not only do the sensory achievements mitigate any narrative shortcomings, but the tropes employed in the film are genre classics and they work within the framework of the film.
A film doesn't have to be original to be good, nor does it need to be historically groundbreaking, influential, or memorable. Sometimes they aren't even enjoyable. Shoah, for example, is not a fun film to watch. It's four times the length of almost any film you'd compare it to, and it's harrowingly depressing. But it revolutionized documentary filmmaking. And Avatar is going to do the same thing with motion capture, 3D rendering, and digital production design. It might not change the way stories are told, but it will have a marked impact on the way films of a certain type are produced. I think that people could appreciate these aspects of the movie instead of only looking at whether or not they liked the story, because that's only element of a cinematic experience, and a relatively shallow one, at that.
I think this movie can't beat Aliens because it relies too much on cliches. The critiques spotted it quick and they were right. I think the bold thing would have been to make the aliens have 6 extremities (arms legs) and breath through holes in their upper chest and have 4 eyes. The next thing would have been to not have them sound like Native Americans, but more like aliens. Lastly, the director should have had faith that this film would land an audience for its subject matter over time. Bladerunner didn't live up to expectations, but it certainly has become one of the best films ever made when it comes to endurance. Instead, I felt like I left with an ice cream spoon in my mouth.
I never expected it to be better than Aliens. But was a really good movie. The problem with making the aliens look more 'alien' is that you then have to believe that not only do the humans have to adapt to the different proportions of the avatars, but to completely different bodies. Which is a much bigger stretch. And the fact that the less 'human' they looked the less sympathetic audiences would be to them. Besides which, the way they were being treated in the film is pretty much exactly the way Native Americans were treated during the westward expansion.
But totally off that topic, has anyone mentioned how much the cat-like creatures resembled Displacer Beasts? I thought that was AWESOME!
I enjoyed the movie immensely, but then again I'm an effects nerd, always have been (all hail the great Harryhausen!). Visually, the thing that impressed me the most was that the biologicals looked as good or better than the mechanicals. This is the first time I've ever been able to say that. Another thing I liked a lot was how they do such a good job keeping the human and Na'vi parts separate so that when they finally meet back up in the big finally you're like "oh yeah, the Na'vi are really big, I forgot about that."
As for the storyline, I agree that it was relatively basic, but it didn't stop me from enjoying it in the least. I'm looking forward to the 'extended' or 'director's' cut. As an aside, has anyone had problems with 3D movies before?
Went to see i with the wife yesterday (in 3D) and we were both underwhelmed. The 3D was cool to start with but wore off after a while and there were some cool visuals (the forest at night for example) but the story lacked something. The central character's conversion to the native culture was handled in a seconds long voice over. He didn't cop any flak for just speaking the "sorry for killing you" stuff rote-fashion for example. There could have been additional drama from conflicting loyalties to the military and the science team and his switch from one to the other. How about some introspection as he thinks about what the company soldiers will do to his new friends? and of course we all knew that he would be flying around on the "Last Shadow" as soon as we were told that no-one had done it for four generations. And how come the wild creatures acted as if bonded even though they weren't plugged into the bio-network?
Unobtanium? Even if it is a real word, I mean, come on.
I did like some bits: the M8 Marauders were cool.
Cheers
Mark
Also the Main badguy surly has to go down as hardest bad ass of the year
Yup, saw it yesterday and I liked it, a good movie, not great but good.
|
|
I think this movie can't beat Aliens because it relies too much on cliches. The critiques spotted it quick and they were right. I think the bold thing would have been to make the aliens have 6 extremities (arms legs) and breath through holes in their upper chest and have 4 eyes.
The most likely candidate for a close relative of the Na'vi is a creature called a prolemuris. It is a medium-sized, arboreal animal that possesses a unique kind of hybrid body form. While it has six limbs, its two sets of lower arms branch off from a single pair of upper arms and shoulders, which could identify it as a transitional form between the hexapod plan of most of the rest of Pandora's vertebrates and the tetrapod form of the Na'vi. Further, the prolemuris sees with only a single pair of forward facing eyes, exactly like the Na'vi. At this point, it is unknown how far back in their shared lineage a common ancestor was, if it existed at all.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I just saw this for a second time tonight and it doesn't lose anything on repeat viewing like some movies. I want to see it again, in fact. It's like a drug, almost, in that it's such a heightened sensory experience that I have a "crash" after seeing it and want to experience the high again. Oh, James Cameron, why can't I quit you?
|
|
Just got back from watching it on IMAX 3D. Not bad visually. Do have to say, man, those arrows were basically ballistas. I would not have wanted to go in on the ground without being in power armor, that takes guts.
anyway, this movie in my mind shall forever be... Ferngully 2: Dances with Smurfs. Yes, I've heard these already through the internet, but it really does fit.
I'm really surprised at some of the comments here.
I thought the movie was innovative both technologically (as I saw it in 3D) and in terms of the story. I saw some familiar themes but I didn't think they were cliches.
By the way the ferngully/smurf comment is just childish. Excellent attempt to try and be dismissive.
Also comparing the movie to Aliens a disservice to both movies.
First I personally enjoyed Avatar more then Aliens, but both were very good movies.
Second they are not in the same genre. Just because there are aliens and humans in both movies doesn't make them comparable.
If anything the movie made me think of District 9. Both are recent, entertaining, excellent movies which portray humans honestly. They show both the positive and negative sides of humanity.
Also I didn't see it as native americans so much as tribal culture. I saw blends of african, meso american, and other tribal cultures but maybe Native North American is they only tribal cultures you know (still a wide variety of cultures there if you actually look).
I really appreciated the use of both strong male and female characters in the film. I thought it was an excellent film overall. It provokes thought and avoided a lot of the pitfalls that it could have hit.
Definitely I would see it again. 5/5
|
|
Also comparing the movie to Aliens a disservice to both movies.
First I personally enjoyed Avatar more then Aliens, but both were very good movies.
Second they are not in the same genre. Just because there are aliens and humans in both movies doesn't make them comparable.
I think the comarison between the two comes from them both being James Cameron films. Of course to be fair nobody would compare Avatar to Titanic, so you ar right on th money there. However, from a historical stand point it does seem fair to compare this film to the rest of Cameron's work as a body. In that respect I believe that Avatar shows that Cameron is at his best when he sticks to wht he knows, and sci-fi morality plays are what he knows.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
And music, according to my brother. Halfway through the movie he asked me when someone was going to start belting out "My Heart Will Go On."...Of course to be fair nobody would compare Avatar to Titanic...s.Except in terms of success and box office receipts, of course.
I don't really understand criticisms of the film's music, honestly. What do people have against an artist having a signature style? When it's Danny Elfman (whose scores often sound very similar) no one minds, but when it's James Horner's hornpipes people get up in arms. John Williams is another popular film scorer whose style tends toward repetition. In each case, if a score serves to augment the emotional experience of the film, it's done its job, regardless of whether it's reminiscent of another score.
Check out the latest offering from FailBlog.
Priceless.
Just remember: the reason cliches are cliches is because they work.
... and so they got used a little too much.
And music, according to my brother. Halfway through the movie he asked me when someone was going to start belting out "My Heart Will Go On."...Of course to be fair nobody would compare Avatar to Titanic...s.Except in terms of success and box office receipts, of course.
Funny, I never got that impression, even thought here in Quebec we have more than our fair share of Celine Dion on every second radio station...
If something, the music from Avatar reminds me more of Apollo 13, and a few moments of Gladiator (two excellent soundtracks btw)
And yes, composers have a distinct signatures. You know when the music is done by John Williams, and to be honest, there are bits between Star Wars, Superman and Indiana Jones that sound about just the same, with the same instrumentation and musical direction. Same goes for Danny Elfman where Beetlejuice sometimes tumbles into the Nightmare Before Christmas...
Just because Titanic as a movie was rather cheesy does not take anything away from its soundtrack, nor its composer.
Let's start an anti-Avatar organization before more unsuspecting moviegoers become sheep to the slaughter:
Bothered About Avatar...aka, BAA...
Get it?
BAA
...aaa...aaa...
Never mind.
I was wondering if it has been explained somewhere why all the native flora seem to have six limbs, two sets of eyes, two "tentacle thingies" and breathe directly from their lungs (?) except for the Na'vi who are your typical humanoid (with only one "tentacle")
Also, has it been explained how the avatars are "controlled"? How come that connection isn't screwed-up by the energy flux?
But wow was it a cool movie. I expect a few loincloths on Halloween night next year...
'findel
They didn't explain much, actually. What bugged me the most were those floating mountains. They made no sense at all. It seems like they just threw them in there for some cool scenery.
A cool movie, some nice action scenes., It'll probably be the next 'Star Wars'. But a lot of people mistake it for Sci-Fi, which bugs me, and I thought it was pretty unoriginal.
|
|
They didn't explain much, actually. What bugged me the most were those floating mountains. They made no sense at all. It seems like they just threw them in there for some cool scenery.
Unobtainium is a superconducting material and as shown by the sample in the RDA Manager's office floats in a magnetic field. The Hallelluja Mountains were a product of unobtainium in the mountains and the strong magnetic fields in the area.
A cool movie, some nice action scenes., It'll probably be the next 'Star Wars'. But a lot of people mistake it for Sci-Fi, which bugs me, and I thought it was pretty unoriginal.
From Websters: Science Fiction - a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.
From American Heritage: Science Fiction - Works of fiction that use scientific discoveries or advanced technology — either actual or imaginary — as part of their plot.
Nope, looks like it was sci-fi.
It'll probably be the next 'Star Wars'.
Maybe the next "Prequel star wars", certainly not on the level of the original trilogy.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
They didn't explain much, actually. What bugged me the most were those floating mountains. They made no sense at all. It seems like they just threw them in there for some cool scenery.Unobtainium is a superconducting material and as shown by the sample in the RDA Manager's office floats in a magnetic field. The Hallelluja Mountains were a product of unobtainium in the mountains and the strong magnetic fields in the area.
A cool movie, some nice action scenes., It'll probably be the next 'Star Wars'. But a lot of people mistake it for Sci-Fi, which bugs me, and I thought it was pretty unoriginal.From Websters: Science Fiction - a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.
From American Heritage: Science Fiction - Works of fiction that use scientific discoveries or advanced technology — either actual or imaginary — as part of their plot.
Nope, looks like it was sci-fi.
I didn't mind the mountains floating, but the fact that a few of them seemed to have waterfalls coming out of them....that kind of bugged me.
Really though, that was my only issue, I loved almost everything else about the film, seen it three times so far :D
I didn't mind the mountains floating, but the fact that a few of them seemed to have waterfalls coming out of them....that kind of bugged me.
That irritated me too. I can deal with mountains that somehow achieve buoyancy, but I was less enthusiastic about considering there was a water pumping plant or animal driving the waterfall.
I ended up satisfing myself that their wasn't a decanter of endless water there and that it had just rained above it causing rivers to fill and flow out for some amount of time.
Or there is a build up of ice in the mountains when it gets cold each night, and that melts in the following day to produce the rivers and waterfalls.
I didn't mind the mountains floating, but the fact that a few of them seemed to have waterfalls coming out of them....that kind of bugged me.That irritated me too. I can deal with mountains that somehow achieve buoyancy, but I was less enthusiastic about considering there was a water pumping plant or animal driving the waterfall.
I ended up satisfing myself that their wasn't a decanter of endless water there and that it had just rained above it causing rivers to fill and flow out for some amount of time.
Or there is a build up of ice in the mountains when it gets cold each night, and that melts in the following day to produce the rivers and waterfalls.
Maybe the rock is porous and since it is composed of a super conductor it is colder then the air around it. Since it is in the clouds perhaps the water vapor condenses against the rock/mountain and trickles into an internal aquifer. This then pours out as a waterfall.
Or something.
A lack of explanations means many possible explanations. One official explanation means only one theory/idea to disprove.
|
|
I didn't mind the mountains floating, but the fact that a few of them seemed to have waterfalls coming out of them....that kind of bugged me.That irritated me too. I can deal with mountains that somehow achieve buoyancy, but I was less enthusiastic about considering there was a water pumping plant or animal driving the waterfall.
I ended up satisfing myself that their wasn't a decanter of endless water there and that it had just rained above it causing rivers to fill and flow out for some amount of time.
Or there is a build up of ice in the mountains when it gets cold each night, and that melts in the following day to produce the rivers and waterfalls.
Maybe the rock is porous and since it is composed of a super conductor it is colder then the air around it. Since it is in the clouds perhaps the water vapor condenses against the rock/mountain and trickles into an internal aquifer. This then pours out as a waterfall.
Or something.
A lack of explanations means many possible explanations. One official explanation means only one theory/idea to disprove.
Considering all the cloud cover around the mountains this seems like a pretty good explanation.
|
|
I didn't mind the mountains floating, but the fact that a few of them seemed to have waterfalls coming out of them....that kind of bugged me.That irritated me too. I can deal with mountains that somehow achieve buoyancy, but I was less enthusiastic about considering there was a water pumping plant or animal driving the waterfall.
I ended up satisfing myself that their wasn't a decanter of endless water there and that it had just rained above it causing rivers to fill and flow out for some amount of time.
Or there is a build up of ice in the mountains when it gets cold each night, and that melts in the following day to produce the rivers and waterfalls.
Maybe the rock is porous and since it is composed of a super conductor it is colder then the air around it. Since it is in the clouds perhaps the water vapor condenses against the rock/mountain and trickles into an internal aquifer. This then pours out as a waterfall.
Or something.
A lack of explanations means many possible explanations. One official explanation means only one theory/idea to disprove.
I also noticed in the film that some of the waterfalls were going up, if that makes any difference.
1. Maybe the rock is porous and since it is composed of a super conductor it is colder then the air around it. 2. Since it is in the clouds perhaps the water vapor condenses against the rock/mountain and trickles into an internal aquifer. 2. This then pours out as a waterfall.
1. Thermodynamics dictates that heat would move from the atmosphere to the rock, then, which would quickly make the rock air temperature.
2. Is this, like, a big waterfall that keeps pouring? The amount of water vapor that would require is staggering... And if the air is that full of water, it would already be raining, so condensation limited to rocks would be out.3. If the waterfall comes out of the bottom, this point might work. But if it's pouring out of the top and down the sides, you've got issues of water pouring uphill over the rim, and then back downhill. Then again, Mr Shiny recently pointed out that some of the waterfalls flow up, which leads us to...
The best workable explanation: "it's magic." By definition, because the laws of physics don't apply.
And given that it's a fantasy movie, there's nothing wrong with having magic rocks and magic water in it.
1. Maybe the rock is porous and since it is composed of a super conductor it is colder then the air around it. 2. Since it is in the clouds perhaps the water vapor condenses against the rock/mountain and trickles into an internal aquifer. 2. This then pours out as a waterfall.1. Thermodynamics dictates that heat would move from the atmosphere to the rock, then, which would quickly make the rock air temperature.
2. Is this, like, a big waterfall that keeps pouring? The amount of water vapor that would require is staggering... And if the air is that full of water, it would already be raining, so condensation limited to rocks would be out.
3. If the waterfall comes out of the bottom, this point might work. But if it's pouring out of the top and down the sides, you've got issues of water pouring uphill over the rim, and then back downhill. Then again, Mr Shiny recently pointed out that some of the waterfalls flow up, which leads us to...The best workable explanation: "it's magic." By definition, because the laws of physics don't apply.
And given that it's a fantasy movie, there's nothing wrong with having magic rocks and magic water in it.
As to your first point you are wrong. Different materials can have different Specific heat capacities. They would all absorb the same amount of energy but that doesn't mean they would be the same temperature.
Not meaning to detract from your post just thought I would remind you of that.
Considering all the cloud cover around the mountains this seems like a pretty good explanation.I didn't mind the mountains floating, but the fact that a few of them seemed to have waterfalls coming out of them....that kind of bugged me.That irritated me too. I can deal with mountains that somehow achieve buoyancy, but I was less enthusiastic about considering there was a water pumping plant or animal driving the waterfall.
I ended up satisfing myself that their wasn't a decanter of endless water there and that it had just rained above it causing rivers to fill and flow out for some amount of time.
Or there is a build up of ice in the mountains when it gets cold each night, and that melts in the following day to produce the rivers and waterfalls.
Maybe the rock is porous and since it is composed of a super conductor it is colder then the air around it. Since it is in the clouds perhaps the water vapor condenses against the rock/mountain and trickles into an internal aquifer. This then pours out as a waterfall.
Or something.
A lack of explanations means many possible explanations. One official explanation means only one theory/idea to disprove.
Call me jaded, but when I see that stuff I just think "wow that looks cool, and that's the only reason they did it."
|
|
So... the floating mountains is a product of the unobtainium deposits interacting with the magnetic field or something like that.
So, wait, they wanted to mine the stuff under the big tree, what about the easier to get stuff in the floating mountains? There's gotta be some deposit in 'dem floating hills! Just blow them up and collect them on the ground or something like that... or is it because they're not surrounded by rocks anymore, they're gonna shoot up into the atmosphere? Sheesh.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So... the floating mountains is a product of the unobtainium deposits interacting with the magnetic field or something like that.
So, wait, they wanted to mine the stuff under the big tree, what about the easier to get stuff in the floating mountains? There's gotta be some deposit in 'dem floating hills! Just blow them up and collect them on the ground or something like that... or is it because they're not surrounded by rocks anymore, they're gonna shoot up into the atmosphere? Sheesh.
You're talking nonsense, man! Those winding mountain roads are nowhere near wide enough for the bulldozers to drive up!
You're talking nonsense, man! Those winding mountain roads are nowhere near wide enough for the bulldozers to drive up!So... the floating mountains is a product of the unobtainium deposits interacting with the magnetic field or something like that.
So, wait, they wanted to mine the stuff under the big tree, what about the easier to get stuff in the floating mountains? There's gotta be some deposit in 'dem floating hills! Just blow them up and collect them on the ground or something like that... or is it because they're not surrounded by rocks anymore, they're gonna shoot up into the atmosphere? Sheesh.
Indeed, 'mining' a flying mountain doesn't sound very convenient. For big corporate industries, not convenient = expensive. Expensive = better face bad press and kick natives out than face a bad fiscal year... Pretty much the point of the whole movie.
As to your first point you are wrong. Different materials can have different Specific heat capacities. They would all absorb the same amount of energy but that doesn't mean they would be the same temperature.
Not meaning to detract from your post just thought I would remind you of that.
No; I'm right, thanks. Specific heat capacity changes how much heat energy is needed to change the temperature by 1 degree. It does NOT keep the object a different temperature from its surroundings indefinitely. There's no rule that says "each object will absorb only X units of heat energy from its surroundings and then stop, given an open-ended time interval," unless you're applying magic again.
|
|
No; I'm right, thanks. Specific heat capacity changes how much heat energy is needed to change the temperature by 1 degree. It does NOT keep the object a different temperature from its surroundings indefinitely. There's no rule that says "each object will absorb only X units of heat energy from its surroundings and then stop, given an open-ended time interval," unless you're applying magic again.As to your first point you are wrong. Different materials can have different Specific heat capacities. They would all absorb the same amount of energy but that doesn't mean they would be the same temperature.
Not meaning to detract from your post just thought I would remind you of that.
I wondered how long it would take you to notice this Kirth. Never argue with a geologist on things like this. :)
No; I'm right, thanks. Specific heat capacity changes how much heat energy is needed to change the temperature by 1 degree. It does NOT keep the object a different temperature from its surroundings indefinitely. There's no rule that says "each object will absorb only X units of heat energy from its surroundings and then stop, given an open-ended time interval," unless you're applying magic again.As to your first point you are wrong. Different materials can have different Specific heat capacities. They would all absorb the same amount of energy but that doesn't mean they would be the same temperature.
Not meaning to detract from your post just thought I would remind you of that.
Darn, and I wanted an infinite and self-sustaining air conditioning system...
No; I'm right, thanks. Specific heat capacity changes how much heat energy is needed to change the temperature by 1 degree. It does NOT keep the object a different temperature from its surroundings indefinitely. There's no rule that says "each object will absorb only X units of heat energy from its surroundings and then stop, given an open-ended time interval," unless you're applying magic again.As to your first point you are wrong. Different materials can have different Specific heat capacities. They would all absorb the same amount of energy but that doesn't mean they would be the same temperature.
Not meaning to detract from your post just thought I would remind you of that.
Not saying your wrong but aren't some objects/materials always cooler then air temperature no matter then amount of air they are exposed to?
I may be thinking of a different concept but, for example, if a material takes 15 units of energy to change one temperature degree and another takes only 5 units then what becomes equal if the two are exposed to each other? The temperature or the energy level?I always understood it was the energy levels. I mean my metal kitchen stove is cooler then the air even though it has been exposed to a relatively constant air temperature for months now. Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong. Educate me.