Lounge of Tomorrow
Page 5 of 17 « First < 34 5 6715 > Last »
Show 500 post(s) from this thread on one page

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Beatnik (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Avatar. (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=10189)

flippyshark 12-27-2009 05:07 PM
Further proof of the indispensability of Mythbusters, GD!

JWBear 12-27-2009 08:45 PM
We just saw it. AWESOME!

My observations have mostly been brought up in other posters, so I won't repeat what they have said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 310417)
And, thanks to Mythbusters, the one moment that I probably would have otherwise rolled my eyes and and cried foul fell squarely into "plausible":

Spoiler:
During the attack on Home Tree, the entire clan let loose their arrows on the gun ships, and did nothing more than nick the cockpit glass. But during the final battle, an arrow pierced clear through the glass and killed the pilot. What gives?!! Well, thanks to the Mythbusters episode about firing an arrow from a horse, we all know that an arrow fired from a moving mount does indeed carry more force do to the forward momentum of the mount, and those flying beasts were certainly diving pretty fast, so I'll give it to them! Nice.
It seemed to me that
Spoiler:
the arrows they were shooting from "horse"back were also much more substantial.

Ghoulish Delight 12-27-2009 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWBear (Post 310432)



It seemed to me that
Spoiler:
the arrows they were shooting from "horse"back were also much more substantial.
Spoiler:
Yeah, and they were also shot from much closer range, and a more direct angle. But the appropriateness of the Mythbusters episode made me chuckle


Also, was I the only one who had to suppress the urge to swat at bugs during the first scene in the forest?

Gemini Cricket 12-27-2009 11:42 PM
I think GD secretly works as a spokesperson for Mythbusters and the Container Store.
:D

Alex 12-28-2009 12:00 AM
Spoiler:
Also, when shot from the sky the spears and arrows were striking the glass mostly perpendicular whereas the ground shots were hitting at an extremely oblique angle.


Glad that nobodies seems to have been particularly burned by my enthusiasm.

Whoops, missed the next page.

Alex 12-28-2009 12:03 AM
If interested, apparently you can find floating around on the internet Cameron's original treatment which contained a lot more explanatory information (such as the conditions on earth, some differences in the planetary mythology -- if CP didn't like the planet's role in this version she'd have liked the original version less). Apparently if it had all made it on screen the movie would have been about 5 hours long.

If the sequels happen I suspect a lot of it will end up in those.

flippyshark 12-28-2009 12:09 AM
This movie does seem especially franchise-ready - sequels, novels, comics, animation, TV series, video games - it could really explode. I'll be interested to see if it does.

Cadaverous Pallor 12-28-2009 10:46 AM
I realized later that another thing bugged me about the planet's "role".
Spoiler:
When they bulldoze the sacred trees, Weaver yells at them about how there is something real going on down there, that they are connected to the planet mainframe, yadda yadda....but to me, this is a non-point, and a bit of a disappointment. Does it matter whether their religion is based in fact, or based on something that no one could prove, or if they worshiped their planet for no good reason?

In the face of "this Aywa thing is real" the villain says "it's just a bunch of trees" and that's supposed to make it ok. If that's a holy place for them, then they have no business destroying it without permission, and that should be the argument made.

I'd argue that they had no business on the planet at all without permission from the natives, but of course that is the entire point of the movie.

JWBear 12-28-2009 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor (Post 310460)
I realized later that another thing bugged me about the planet's "role".
Spoiler:
When they bulldoze the sacred trees, Weaver yells at them about how there is something real going on down there, that they are connected to the planet mainframe, yadda yadda....but to me, this is a non-point, and a bit of a disappointment. Does it matter whether their religion is based in fact, or based on something that no one could prove, or if they worshiped their planet for no good reason?

In the face of "this Aywa thing is real" the villain says "it's just a bunch of trees" and that's supposed to make it ok. If that's a holy place for them, then they have no business destroying it without permission, and that should be the argument made.

I'd argue that they had no business on the planet at all without permission from the natives, but of course that is the entire point of the movie.
Somehow I don't think he would have been swayed by the religious argument either.

Ghoulish Delight 12-28-2009 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWBear (Post 310470)
Somehow I don't think he would have been swayed by the religious argument either.
Spoiler:

No, but from the standpoint of what ethical message the movie sends, having the "religion" turn out to be a reality kinda dilutes it. With such an emphasis on, "But it's not just some tree huggers, there actually IS a consciousness in the forest and the planet," it begs the question, "Well then, does that mean if it were just a bunch of trees, without this neuro-network of roots, it would be okay to bulldoze the place?" I certainly don't think so, but that's kinda what the movie says, otherwise, why does it matter that Aywa was actually real? It shouldn't be okay to forcibly uproot (so to speak) a civilization, regardless of whether their religion is scientifically provable or not.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 AM.
Page 5 of 17 « First < 34 5 6715 > Last »
Show 500 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.