Avatar, DVD edition [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 02:35 AM

So, finally got this on DVD.

To cut some controversy: Yes, this is Dances With Wolves cross-bred with Pocahontas. I don't care. I love this movie.

Watched it last night on my laptop with good headphones (my wife undergoes cancer treatment and went to bed early, so I couldn't blast it on the TV). The headphones definitely compensates for the less than perfect picture on the laptop.

Watching it all the way through and then cherry-picking the favorite moments twice before going to bed here are my thoughts:

The "much talked about sex scene":
Nothing special to call home about. Very sweet, very nice, but what was the big deal, really?

Favorite character: Neytiri. Duh. Not only is she written deliberately so that she becomes the favorite character, but as I have confessed before I am geeksexual (a word I made up to explain the whole "scales, pointy teeth, four arms etc is hot" thing, be it Viconia, Lara Raith or Neytiri) and I would definitely hit that faster than a speeding bullet :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:.
On a more serious note, being able to pause and slo-mo through her facial expressions really shows why this movie was so expensive, and that the money was well spent. The fact that they made the character models first and then let the actors almost literary remote-control them through the scenes really did work amazingly well, and as I understand it this was also the reason the faces had to be based on the actual actors face: to catch the facial expressions they made perfectly.
The absolutely most amazing example though was not Neytiri, but her mother. When she is completely in grief and shock, cutting Jake Sully down, the facial expression when she says "help us" is so believable it hurts.

The story is, as mentioned above, nothing original. But it doesn't have to be, it just have to be done well, and it is.

Things I noticed in this viewing:
I almost got a feeling that the military security force thought they were the big damn heroes. After the rousing speech about the need to defend themselves and take the fight to the enemy, and the cheering by the troops... Too bad they were not genre-savy enough to know they were on the wrong team :smallwink:
Seriously though, I don't agree with those that said that the Colonel wasn't a villain. He was a villain, by choice, not design.
In D&D terms he was a Lawful Neutral that pushed himself into Lawful Evil by doing what he thought was necessary. He was not the mustache-twirling madman, he was a dedicated man doing his job with a little too much commitment. Parker Selfridge seemed to almost go the other way (especially if you dig through the material that was cut from the movie): He started as a Neutral Evil and ended up True Neutral by the end of the movie; even in the clips that made it into the final movie you can see that he is not happy with the situation by the time the final confrontation is taking place. He is still a greedy bastard. Just marginally less so.

...Finally, a side note to echo something someone else posted before: What kind of mutant freak is Sigourney Weaver? She looks better at 60 than a lot of women do at 40. :smallsmile:

rakkoon

2010-05-10, 02:52 AM

I just saw the movie for the first time. Still conflicted about how I feel. Cool hero, beautiful effects and scenery. The story is a bit sappy. I still don't know :smallsmile:

Nameless

2010-05-10, 02:55 AM

Well, I only enjoyed this film because of the cinematic experience along with the visuals. The story itself was pretty poor, so I don't think I'd enjoy watching it on DVD.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 03:30 AM

Killer Angel

2010-05-10, 04:11 AM

I don't know...
I really enjoyed it, even if the story was "poor".
But i fear that not watching it on the Big Screen, the movie will lose a lot of his strenght. That said, I'll buy it. :smallwink:

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 04:47 AM

But i fear that not watching it on the Big Screen, the movie will lose a lot of his strenght. That said, I'll buy it. :smallwink:

Headphones, if you can. The only thing better is a full cinema grade surround sound (which will probably make your landlord evict you). They compensate to a surprising degree for a smaller picture, no matter if it is Star Wars, LOTR, or Avatar. Even on my iPhone, the experience is far better than you might expect, because you get high quality sound.

YPU

2010-05-10, 05:06 AM

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 05:17 AM

My girlfriend’s dad has a HD beamer, the quality of the movie was actually better than in the cinema. In a way some parts of it look so real it doesn’t impress until you realize its actually all CG. I the shear amount of luminescent stuff is getting on my nerves a bit, why does everything have to give of light? Its like Pandora is the galaxies biggest Christmas three.

Ok I am jealous.

As for the bioluminecense - It has to do with Cameron's fetish for oceans. At one point the concept of the giant flyers were manta rays! In the sequel there are apparently going to be underwater scenes, so I guess we get to see the wildlife on Pandora turned up to eleven.

pita

2010-05-10, 05:22 AM

The story wasn't just unoriginal. It was stupid. The story was just stupid on every level. It was illogical, more so than even Clash of the Titans.
Also, it featured a cardinal sin: Misuse of an actor from Lost. I don't know what's up with that show, that it seems to have the best actors, but every Lost actor who moves on goes on to be the best part of anything they're in. Michelle Rodriguez is great. They misused her horribly.
I went out wishing the humans had just used an orbital nuke on the blue elves. The only character I liked was the villain, who treats the main character better than he deserves, only to get betrayed.
I dunno... I honestly hate the movie mostly because of how much it was praised. It didn't deserve the praise. It wasn't worse than other stupid effect movies. It didn't deserve the praise it got, because it wasn't much better.

Athaniar

2010-05-10, 05:27 AM

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 05:33 AM

It is indeed a great movie (my current favorite, in fact), and I agree with most of what the OP said.

I don't understand what Pita is ranting about, though. Do you really think the greedy corporation SHOULD have killed all innocent natives just to get the mineral they were after? Meh, morality is subjective, I guess.

Yes, it seems that way. Can't really argue with that point of view without a threadlock, either, since it would require things like IRL politics to do.

Killer Angel

2010-05-10, 05:41 AM

Yes, it seems that way. Can't really argue with that point of view without a threadlock, either, since it would require things like IRL politics to do.

I'm not Pita, but i suppose his wasn't a moral position on genocide, but merely a (strong?) expression to explain how little he liked the Na'vi... (and his delusion about the film)

Grumman

2010-05-10, 05:59 AM

The story wasn't just unoriginal. It was stupid. The story was just stupid on every level.
Every complaint of this sort I've seen has been due to the failings of the complainer, not the movie.

I went out wishing the humans had just used an orbital nuke on the blue elves.
The closest nuclear weapon is ten years away! Even if they sent a message back right then saying they needed a nuke, it would take four years for the transmission to reach Earth, and another six for the ship to get there. Short of sacrificing one of their orbital shuttles in a kamikaze attack or cannibalising hardware from the mothership, their makeshift MOAB is pretty much the best weapon they've got.

The only character I liked was the villain, who treats the main character better than he deserves, only to get betrayed.
Do you remember why he got betrayed?

Teron

2010-05-10, 06:01 AM

My main issue with the movie was how staggeringly stupid the main character is. He never so much as broaches the subject of relocation with the Na'vi. Even when he's told it's too late and the giant bulldozers are going in tomorrow, he goes off to have sex under the very tree they're going to knock down instead of warning "his" tribe. And those are just the most glaring acts of idiocy. On the dubiously positive side, his consistent stupidity partially obscures the fact that he's acting that way to advance the ham-handed story Cameron wanted to tell.

That said, I'm going to get the DVD for the pretty visuals and the badass antagonist, even though I feel vaguely guilty for supporting a badly written work.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 06:06 AM

My main issue with the movie was how staggeringly stupid the main character is. He never so much as broaches the subject of relocation with the Na'vi. Even when he's told it's too late and the giant bulldozers are going in tomorrow, he goes off to have sex under the very tree they're going to knock down instead of warning "his" tribe. And those are just the most glaring acts of idiocy. .

Well since they wouldn't move, and he knows it, why ask? Yes he should have warned them, but it seems the bulldozing happened ahead of schedule.

Deca

2010-05-10, 06:17 AM

I thought the movie was pretty damn decent and I liked the protagonists, even though one of my favourite characters was the antagonist Colonel. I mean, he's just so awesomely badass that I'm fairly certain James Cameron was positioning us to like him at least somewhat.

Nameless

2010-05-10, 07:05 AM

Regarding the story:

I don't really get the haters of it (and no I do not accuse any of you to be "haters!" I am talking about other forums and reviews*). It is unoriginal. But so are 99% of all stories. They have been told before.
...What was that line again? "There are only 6 basic stories". All you can do is play around with them.

This is heroic fantasy in a Sci-fi setting. This is the Cowboys vs Indians movie where the Indians, finally, win not only the day but the war.

Edit:
I also find the whole "enviromental" thing, or rather the criticism against the "preaching" in the movie being overreactions. Yes, the Na'vi are extremely in tune with nature. That is partly because of the ideology, but mostly because of the nature they are actually in. If we literary plugged into the neural network of Gaea, we would be the same way. As Sigorney's character tries to explain, their religion, and their views, are not based on faith. It is based on fact. Besides, something that is not in the movie but in the official Wiki: Humanity have started to wake up on their own. Apparently there are big tanks on earth (similar to the growth tanks for the avatars) where they are building whales and other extinct species from scratch (but without a bunch of scraps :smallwink:).

*I sort of get one of the haters, because I recognize the reasoning from No Mutants Allowed; his whole deal was that his favorite movie of all time was Dances With Wolves, and he took it as a personal insult that someone was using the same premise. Fan Dumb, but at least he had a reason other than "it has been done before".

It wasn't just that the story was unoriginal, it was also because it was very cliché and had very little drive going for it. It was basically about "THE BIG BAD EVIL HUMANS!" Who have no regard for anything but money. A lot of parts also made me cringe and much of it wasn't really explained. Like I said in my review of the film, it had a lot of potential and could of have maybe even made into some sort of epic trilogy. There was a lot there that they could've elaborated and expanded on to do this. I won't go too much more into it, but it was a huge let down for me and I believe it was only this popular because of the visuals.

I’m gonna have to quote Chester A. Bum here; Pretty pictures + lame story = pretty lame.

It is indeed a great movie (my current favorite, in fact), and I agree with most of what the OP said.

I don't understand what Pita is ranting about, though. Do you really think the greedy corporation SHOULD have killed all innocent natives just to get the mineral they were after? Meh, morality is subjective, I guess.

I think he meant “I wish they would just nuke them all to get this film over and done with” rather then putting it in a real life situation.

pita

2010-05-10, 07:17 AM

Every complaint of this sort I've seen has been due to the failings of the complainer, not the movie.
Okay, my reasons for thinking this: The plot is resolved by Deus Ex Machina. Most of the characters are dull. The acting is mostly uninspired, even with stars like Sigourney Weaver, or a former Lostie. I say mostly because I have no complaints over Ney'tiri's actress, whose name I can't remember. You've got some characters who were painful stereotypes, even worse than being dull. The main character was an irresponsible jerk. He could've mentioned that all they want is a mineral which may be of no use whatsoever to the Na'vi. Instead, he's busy with self gratification.
Also, unoriginal is a relative thing. Iron Man follows the conventions of a comic book superhero movie - Origin, usually caused by villain (not always), followed by discovery of his powers, followed by first showdown with villain, realization that he isn't powerful enough, becoming powerful enough (Either by gaining knowledge, power, or the help of friends), then defeating villain. Then five minutes of "this is my happy life". Spiderman had that, as well as Batman Begins, I think Superman (not sure), and Daredevil. There are more, I'm sure. The only real twist in Iron Man is the whole mess with the secret identity. But Iron Man wasn't a carbon copy of other movies. Avatar was Dances With Wolves IN SPACE, but worse. Kevin Costner, as much as I don't like him, is better than Sam Worthington.

The closest nuclear weapon is ten years away! Even if they sent a message back right then saying they needed a nuke, it would take four years for the transmission to reach Earth, and another six for the ship to get there. Short of sacrificing one of their orbital shuttles in a kamikaze attack or cannibalising hardware from the mothership, their makeshift MOAB is pretty much the best weapon they've got.
They have a huge bomb, why carry it in something that can easily be destroyed? They had the tech to launch it from orbit. I don't mean a literal nuke, I just mean something that causes a big boom, which they had. They didn't need to get close enough so that the Deus Ex Machina would work.

Do you remember why he got betrayed?
Yes, because the theoretical good guy decided that he'd rather literally get some tail than do what he agreed to.

I'm not Pita, but i suppose his wasn't a moral position on genocide, but merely a (strong?) expression to explain how little he liked the Na'vi... (and his delusion about the film)
What I mean: They were going to commit genocide either way. Wouldn't it be more advisable to do it in a smart way? I do not support genocide, unless it's against mosquitoes. Those things need to die.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 07:19 AM

It wasn't just that the story was unoriginal, it was also because it was very cliché and had very little drive going for it. It was basically about "THE BIG BAD EVIL HUMANS!" Who have no regard for anything but money. (snip) I won't go too much more into it, but it was a huge let down for me and I believe it was only this popular because of the visuals.

It's not "humans are bastards" or "humans are stupid". It is a "Imperialism is evil". Easy to mix, perhaps, but there is no indication if you really look, that humans are bastards by default in this movie.

As for the appeal: There are four types of reviews for this movie (and yes, I am exaggerating):

1. Story is AWESOME. CGI is AWESOME!
2. Story is Average. CGI is AWESOME!
3. Story STINKS! CGI IS AWESOME!
4. Story STINKS! CGI IS WORSE THAN ON MY PS3!!!

Of those, I can respect the first three (I am a number a 2). The fourth type must own a model of PS3 I have never seen before...

nepphi

2010-05-10, 07:36 AM

It's the PS3 with the hypersentient thinking aluminum.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 07:38 AM

They have a huge bomb, why carry it in something that can easily be destroyed? They had the tech to launch it from orbit. I don't mean a literal nuke, I just mean something that causes a big boom, which they had. They didn't need to get close enough so that the Deus Ex Machina would work.

...The reason they rig their space shuttle as a bomber is because they don't have the technology to drop it from orbit. Or maybe you can argue they they had the technology for the transport, but not the weapon. They didn't have any large bombs, they scraped together tons of mining explosives and a timer

Yes, because the theoretical good guy decided that he'd rather literally get some tail than do what he agreed to.

You completely missed the point. The "tail" had nothing to do with it. The reason he attacked the 'doozer was the fact that he realized that the natives were right, and that the corporation was going to destroy something that would be devastating on an incredible number of levels.

After that, he learned too late that his former CO was a mentally unstable jackass. By that time there was no going back; he was not the one that betrayed his CO, his CO betrayed him. Remember that those 'doozers had been deliberately told to tear down the tree because they wanted to start a war so they could get the McGuffin. They just didn't know he was going to be there when it happened.

What I mean: They were going to commit genocide either way. Wouldn't it be more advisable to do it in a smart way? I do not support genocide, unless it's against mosquitoes. Those things need to die.

Well that is a relief. There are too many people on the Internetz that actually, in all seriousness, argue for the genocide of the Na'vi.

Nameless

2010-05-10, 07:53 AM

It's not "humans are bastards" or "humans are stupid". It is a "Imperialism is evil". Easy to mix, perhaps, but there is no indication if you really look, that humans are bastards by default in this movie.

As for the appeal: There are four types of reviews for this movie (and yes, I am exaggerating):

1. Story is AWESOME. CGI is AWESOME!
2. Story is Average. CGI is AWESOME!
3. Story STINKS! CGI IS AWESOME!
4. Story STINKS! CGI IS WORSE THAN ON MY PS3!!!

Of those, I can respect the first three (I am a number a 2). The fourth type must own a model of PS3 I have never seen before...

Yeah, really didn’t come across that way. And to be fair, I couldn’t really take the film seriously enough to analyse it that much.

I'm more of a:
Story is standard but cliché, CGI is awesome. It’s a good kids film.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 07:55 AM

Yeah, really didn’t come across that way. And to be fair, I couldn’t really take the film seriously enough to analyse it that much.

I'm more of a:
Story is standard but cliché, CGI is awesome. It’s a good kids film.

I am a big kid (I am a geek, after all) so...

Freshmeat

2010-05-10, 08:15 AM

On the whole, I liked it. I don't consider it the best movie ever made (not nearly) but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a very 'accessible' movie.

While I found the story rather preachy, 'black & white' and predictable (the latter because of the overuse of Chekhov's gun so obviously setting up many events later in the movie), I wasn't too bothered by it. The movie had enough Epic™ moments to keep me entertained and the CGI was phenomenally good, particularly the landscapes.

The Colonel was probably the best part about the movie for me. It's hard not to root for the bad guys when you've got treehugging elves in one camp and a cigar-smoking, scarred, completely badass Colonel in the other. Especially that scene where he jumps from the crashing ship in a mecha suit while his arm is on fire was so over-the-top it was both hilarious and completely awesome at the same time.

Seraph

2010-05-10, 09:34 AM

I don't really get the haters of it (and no I do not accuse any of you to be "haters!" I am talking about other forums and reviews*). It is unoriginal. But so are 99% of all stories. They have been told before.
...What was that line again? "There are only 6 basic stories". All you can do is play around with them.

As someone who writes fiction with the intent of making a career of it, I'll tell you that THIS IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH EXCUSE.

the "six basic stories" bull**** is NOT justification for just cribbing your entire plot from earlier, better works.

And you know what really, really pissed me off about this movie? 400 million dollars in special effects and yet they didn't feel like hiring a competent screenwriter. That's like somebody spending thousands of dollars on a skid-steer forklift they will never use, just because they like the look of it. That's like someone buying a yacht when they live in the middle of Kansas and have no intention of leaving.

They went to the effort of making a massive storytelling visualization and forgot to tell the story.

Liffguard

2010-05-10, 09:41 AM

A quick point of order regarding a common criticism. "Deus ex machina" doesn't refer to any somewhat surprising ending. It is literally an ending without any set-up or foreshadowing. The ending of Avatar was not deus ex machina. You can argue that it was trite, cheesy and unbelievable but it wasn't deus ex machina.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-10, 09:47 AM

I don't really get the haters of it (and no I do not accuse any of you to be "haters!" I am talking about other forums and reviews*). It is unoriginal. But so are 99% of all stories. They have been told before.

It's really quite simple. The movie was terrible. It was terrible because of it's awful one-sidedness and oversimplification of complex issues. Even that could be allowed to pass, if it wasn't held up by everyone and their mother as OH MY GAWD THIS IS THE BEST MOVE EVER. No. No it wasn't. It wasn't even a particularly good film. It was enjoyable, or would have been if it wasn't for the absurd hype, but that was it.

A quick point of order regarding a common criticism. "Deus ex machina" doesn't refer to any somewhat surprising ending. It is literally an ending without any set-up or foreshadowing. The ending of Avatar was not deus ex machina. You can argue that it was trite, cheesy and unbelievable but it wasn't deus ex machina.
The Marine successfully transferring bodies? Not Deus Ex Machina
The whole "suddenly, dragons EVERYWHERE!"? Deus Ex Machina.

Grumman

2010-05-10, 10:05 AM

The whole "suddenly, dragons EVERYWHERE!"? Deus Ex Machina.
The "suddenly, dragons EVERYWHERE" was the whole damn point! Maybe if people weren't so set on thinking it was Dances With Wolves In Space, you would have noticed that the existence of a world-spanning non-humanoid intelligence which can communicate with the native wildlife is a core part of the whole story.

Dienekes

2010-05-10, 10:06 AM

Finally saw it, I honestly don't get why people really made so big a deal with the movie to begin with. Story was average, acting was average, set up was average, CGI was amazing. However, of a movie CGI is the least important aspect in my opinion so again, why is it a big deal?

Sure I can see why it'd have some fan boys, what doesn't these days? But there's so much hullabaloo over this thing for, I don't know why. I'm not saying I agree with Pita here, but personally I didn't think the movie was really dvd worthy (though I buy maximum 2 movies a year so take that with a grain of salt).
Though yeah, the villain was badass on multiple levels.

Knaight

2010-05-10, 10:20 AM

The movie is completely devoid of merit from a storytelling perspectives. The characters are archetypes, basic, ancient archetypes without a single complicating feature, at most they get two whole archetypes. Wow! I've seen comedia del arte stock characters that are more interesting. Quite a few of them in fact.

Added to that is a setting with so many aspects that just prove that nobody cared enough. The term unobtanium was used completely seriously, the planet somehow evolved a universal trait that would get stamped out whenever it started growing, given that it allows others to take you over. Breeding might allow it, but who bred them? The setting has so many glaring inconsistencies, either nobody knew anything about science, or nobody cared, and given the rest of the movie (other than visuals, and audio), it is more likely the latter.

Added to that is the morality being pushed. Its hugely oversimplified, there is absolute good or near absolute good with a few trivial flaws, and absolute evil. One side is entirely at fault, and there are a grand total of 3 agendas floating around, ignoring the ones attached to the archetypes that never play out much anyways, and a few "this is why I work here, I'm redeemed" motives.

Its a simplified black and white world without explanation, without much in the way of history, containing characters that are the same. It feels like a hastily thrown together setting with characters thrown in it fully grown with a few notes in some overused summary history or other, not like a real world that characters have been in, and while this is somewhat excused by the fact that the humans are new to Pandora, that isn't enough.

The CGI was beautiful, and the audio was incredibly well done, and surprisingly overlooked. A pity its attached to a simplified morality tale full of boring characters in a poorly made setting. I would say it is for children, but Cameron is pitiful against the likes of Geisel or Silverstein.

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-10, 10:30 AM

The Colonel was probably the best part about the movie for me. It's hard not to root for the bad guys when you've got treehugging elves in one camp and a cigar-smoking, scarred, completely badass Colonel in the other. Especially that scene where he jumps from the crashing ship in a mecha suit while his arm is on fire was so over-the-top it was both hilarious and completely awesome at the same time.

Yes. This is true. :smallbiggrin:

I saw it in theaters, and I loved it. It's not on my (admittedly finished) top ten movies list yet, but it's pretty good. I have some thoughts on it now that it's had time to settle in my brain.

(Spoilers in my rambling, but then I assume if you're in this thread you've seen the movie.)

-the Na'vi had two things going for them beyond the CGI and tree huggers and holier than thou type stuff that I thought made for a nice touch. First: the Na'vi are **** heads! Every single one started out snobby, arrogant and violent and had to work for any sympathy with me. And two: unlike a lot of movie aliens, they could be hurt by bullets to a big degree. Those two factors made them more 'human' and likeable to me.

-the story really isn't that spectacular. But that's fine. A mediocre plot can be made up for in execution, and this was wonderfully executed. A story doesn't have to be the ground breaking to be well told.

-that said, the Deus Ex Machina ending was the weakest part for me. Couldn't there have been a way to make that less...stupid?

-Trudy bothered me a lot. I get that she didn't sign on to shoot native women and children. So she decides to switch sides and shoot the people she's been friends and coworkers with for years now and shows no sign of remorse...buh? Was she supposed to be a sociopath or something and I missed the hints?

-Colonel Quaritsch is the biggest bad ass in science fiction I have seen in quite a while. :smallbiggrin:

-And finally, to agree with Avilian, Monster Girls are the best kind. :smallwink:

So to sum up, a very enjoyable romp. I think I liked District Nine better, but it was close.

Nameless

2010-05-10, 10:43 AM

I think the big issue with the story, which also leads to most of the other problems (story wise) is the whole drive behind it was money. Yes, they entire reason for killing an intelligent race, completely destroying their home is for money. Now, you could argue that this happens to a degree in real life (although it’s not that black and white), but it still makes a lame story, especially in a nice modern/futuristic fantacy setting. There’s no depth what-so-ever. It’s not even as if what they’re looking for is some sort of fuel, or something the humans need to survive. In fact, it hardly explains what the rock stuff even is. It’s a story purely of black and white good and evil, which is why I said it’s a good kinds movie at most.

Also, is it me or did the blue smurfy characters all have different accents when they spoke English? Like, one of them had a sort of Chinese-ish accent, while one of the dudes had an African accent and one of the other ones had a Jamaican accent. You can’t just lump 3 different accents to one group of one race and expect it all to flow as one exotic way of speaking! It doesn’t work! :smallannoyed:

:smalltongue:

pita

2010-05-10, 10:49 AM

Well that is a relief. There are too many people on the Internetz that actually, in all seriousness, argue for the genocide of the Na'vi.
When the Na'vi start sucking my blood and making me itch, I'll want to kill them. Until then? Not worth the trouble :D.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 12:10 PM

(I heard all of you that hates the story. I won't argue against you because it is a matter of taste and therefore not debatable).

Now, for people who wonder what is the true new thing with this CGI:

The models were done first. Then the actors were doing their scenes, and it was directly transfered; almost like the Avatar program in the movie, when you think about it. That meant that the actors could watch their performance minutes after doing them. Plus, the face recognizing system is much MUCH more detailed than in any earlier movie, to catch the smallest change in face muscles.

Edit: Also, for anyone saying that this was much less of a deathworld than it was hinted as: Apparently In cut scenes or in filmed but unused scenes (don't remember which), the local wildlife seems to do frequent raids on the actual camp; that's why the avatars are locked in at night, for example. Can't have them being eaten by the wolves or tigers or (well, not bears)...

kusje

2010-05-10, 12:31 PM

What I really love is the physics defying fight scene at the end. Jake is somehow managing to block blows that smash through tree trunks without being flung halfway around the planet.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 12:35 PM

What I really love is the physics defying fight scene at the end. Jake is somehow managing to block blows that smash through tree trunks without being flung halfway around the planet.

Well although it might still be over the top, it is a callback to the beginning of the movie. "They are very hard to kill" because their bones are naturally reinforced by carbon fibers.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-10, 12:54 PM

Well although it might still be over the top, it is a callback to the beginning of the movie. "They are very hard to kill" because their bones are naturally reinforced by carbon fibers.
I think he's actually talking about that pesky a=F/m thing. It doesn't have to *kill* him, but he shouldn't be able to just stand there and absorb it. He's going to get thrown around a bit.

Anyways: absolutely no one is arguing for the genocide of the sociopathic smurfy cats. People have argued that the humans are justified in mining pandora, because they kind of need it to survive. Because Terra is you know, dying, and space travel is only viable with the space rocks. The humans aren't going to genocide the smurfs, they're going to mine. That is their only objective. After they drove them out, they were going to leave well enough alone until they started massing for an attack.

The common counterargument, is of course "but they'll eventually run out of places to go!". Well that isn't true. They aren't going to colonize, and that's what really takes up space. While the obvious parallel is Oil, for the sake of argument let's instead use Coal. How much area is taken up by Coal mines? Not much. That's all the humans are here for, and that's all the space they're going to be taking up. If the smurfs weren't complete and utter sociopaths, they would allow the humans to take what they need so that their race would survive.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 01:00 PM

Anyways: absolutely no one is arguing for the genocide of the sociopathic smurfy cats. People have argued that the humans are justified in mining pandora, because they kind of need it to survive. Because Terra is you know, dying, and space travel is only viable with the space rocks. The humans aren't going to genocide the smurfs, they're going to mine. That is their only objective. After they drove them out, they were going to leave well enough alone until they started massing for an attack.

Let's go another round with this. As far as I can tell, the unobtanium is not a matter of life and death for Earth. It would help, but it wouldn't be a disaster not getting it.
Also, the problem with this idea of "they can move" is that... no they can't. The sentient trees only grow on sites with huge concentrations of unobtanium. And you cannot seriously ask the Na'vi to live without the trees. Plus, there is the risk that the unobtanium is what keeps the whole thing going to begin with, if all the WMGs are correct: you basically lobotomizes the planet if you dig.

Edit: and I know, a blow should have made him fly for a bit.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-10, 01:36 PM

The sentient trees only grow on sites with huge concentrations of unobtanium.
The sentient tree and the unobtanium were in two different places.

Knaight

2010-05-10, 01:46 PM

They were very close, and the floating islands would have needed some very careful mining done to avoid damage once they fell. For all of Avatar's flaws, it did have a mostly coherent plot. Given how shallow and simple it was, that wouldn't exactly be difficult to do.

warty goblin

2010-05-10, 01:51 PM

I think he's actually talking about that pesky a=F/m thing. It doesn't have to *kill* him, but he shouldn't be able to just stand there and absorb it. He's going to get thrown around a bit.

Anyways: absolutely no one is arguing for the genocide of the sociopathic smurfy cats. People have argued that the humans are justified in mining pandora, because they kind of need it to survive. Because Terra is you know, dying, and space travel is only viable with the space rocks. The humans aren't going to genocide the smurfs, they're going to mine. That is their only objective. After they drove them out, they were going to leave well enough alone until they started massing for an attack.

The common counterargument, is of course "but they'll eventually run out of places to go!". Well that isn't true. They aren't going to colonize, and that's what really takes up space. While the obvious parallel is Oil, for the sake of argument let's instead use Coal. How much area is taken up by Coal mines? Not much. That's all the humans are here for, and that's all the space they're going to be taking up. If the smurfs weren't complete and utter sociopaths, they would allow the humans to take what they need so that their race would survive.

That was absolutely not the impression I got from the movie. I saw it as a case of Earth dying due to overconsumption yes, but people only came to Pandora to make more stuff. Expensive stuff sure, but I don't recall anybody ever saying it was vital for humanity's survival, just that it was worth an assload of money. So humanity would mine and strip and destroy Pandora just the same as Earth, in an endless quest for more stuff. Not because it was vital to the species' survival, but because somebody could make money off of it.

In fact the only person I ever recall mentioning Earth dying was Jake, and only after essentially becoming a Na'vi. I think that's more his becoming aware of what humanity has lost than a statement that the species is doomed. Otherwise you'd think somebody else might mention it.

Strawberries

2010-05-10, 01:54 PM

I went out wishing the humans had just used an orbital nuke on the blue elves.

Yes! Someone who shares my opinion! I spent half the movie whispering in my boyfriend's ear "Come on, nuke them, will you? Nuke them so we can go home and end this torment... no, I'm sure now he'll realize nuking them is a sound strategy...". The laugh we shared was the only thing making the movie bearable.

Mind you, I'm a huge fan of science fiction. I consider myself a geek and I went to the theater fully expecting to like the movie. Instead I was bored out of my mind: I found the movie too long, and the story dull, silly and cliché. But the worst offenders for me were the characters. I tend to forgive a movie or a series a lot of flaws if it has deep, compelling characters, instead Avatar's characters, both heroes and villains, were painfully one-dimensional.

So no, I won't buy the DVD. The CGI was beautiful, but the CGI alone can't sustain a movie.

White_North

2010-05-10, 04:07 PM

One thing I find really unfortunate about the way a lot of people view this film is that they hear a catchphrase (''Dances with Wolves in space'') and completely adhere to it, without even bothering to try and think about it. Thus, we have people accusing the message of being overly simplistic and promoting a ''humans are evil'' message. Well, if that were the actual message of the movie, I'd be the first to agree that it's not a good one, but please consider this instead.

An avatar, by nature, is a representation of an individual. A character you play in a game is an avatar of yourself. In light of this, I'd be inclined to say that there are two kinds of avatars in the movie. You have the bio-engineered avatar that Jake uses, and you have the robot that the colonel uses. Both are representations of their ''owner's'' mindset and allow them to interact with Pandora. Jake, and the other scientists, try to interact with the natural world around them by assimilating themselves into it. They try to become part of it in order to better understand it. This is conveyed by their avatars being organic, made in the image of a natural entity on Pandora, and designed to blend in and allow the user to become part of the natural world. The colonel, on the other hand, seeks to subjugate nature in order to obtain what he wants through force. Thus, his avatar is a walking fortress, an out-of-place construct of steel in a natural world, built to protect him from the dangers of Pandora and to allow him to forcibly subjugate it.

Now, based on these observations, I'd like to suggest that Avatar is less of a ''Humans and technology are evil'' and more of a study of the ways in which people use technology to interact with nature. Science fiction, by nature, is a genre which focuses on studying how humans interact with science and how science influences them. Avatar is no exception. it tries to show how we, as a modern civilization, use technology in relation to nature: to understand it and be a part of it, or to simply dominate it and take what we want. So, you see, the movie is very far from a ''technology is bad'' point of view. As a matter of fact, it tries to illustrate the ways in which science could be used which would be beneficial. After all, it is science that allows Jake to become a Na'vi, thereby allowing him to be integrated in the natural world. Heck, even when he is a Na'vi, he doesn't go around flinging spears at people in the final battle. No, he uses technology, like guns, grenades, comm devices and even an airship, but to defend nature instead of destroying it. Now granted, the movie is still taking a stand by showing that Jake's way of interacting with science is better than the Colonel's, but can you really blame it for that? Especialy considering what's happening to the world we live in?

Now, it's by no means a perfect movie. Personally, I found the ending was a little too ''everyone happy now'' for my taste, a lot of secondary characters are two-dimensional, and the actual storyline is still very simple. But it uses that story-line to say something relatively new, and, most importantly, very relevant to modern society. What's more, it relies heavily on visuals to immerse us in the world, convey the story, and show the message. And, in the end, that's what cinema is about. Visual storytelling.

Klose_the_Sith

2010-05-10, 05:16 PM

My biggest problem with Avatar is quite easily summed up by the following

'...richest source of unobtainium within 200 clicks.'

Truly, mankind will send their people on ridiculous voyages across the stars unto this planet, but they will never be willing to travel a couple hours (at most) for a mining operation.

Fantastic Cameron, simply fantastic :smallsigh:

EleventhHour

2010-05-10, 05:35 PM

My opinion of Avatar is quite easily summed up : I was cheering for the humans.

>.>

doliest

2010-05-10, 05:50 PM

I was personally rooting for genocide of the Blue-Smurf people. Really, with the level of trouble they were causing, getting rid of that ONE tribe would have likely been enough. It seems rather hard to figure out whether the stuff was vital or just important. I see it as vital, but an arguement could be made either way.

From a critical perspective;
I loved this movie. It was such a great twist- The Heroes actually LOSE; I really am happy to see a director willing to take chances and allow the bad guys to win, and while the blue elves were one dimensional villains, apperantly attempting to doom humanity for the fun of it, I guess for that amazing twist I'm willing to put up with it. I really did cry when the humans lost; it was so sad. Hopefully a sequel will be made when they come back with force. :smallfrown:

Samurai Jill

2010-05-10, 07:07 PM

the "six basic stories" bull**** is NOT justification for just cribbing your entire plot from earlier, better works.
The story is unoriginal. But, also, awesome. This is not a contradiction. An awesome story does not become less awesome when it isn't changed. Because getting worse would be a form of change.

Allow me to stress this again-

You cannot claim that a story has BOTH gotten worse AND not been changed. Get your head straight, please.

Either the changes Avatar makes to it's (well-trodden) narrative are superficial and unimportant, in which case it can be unoriginal but not worse, or the changes Avatar makes are significant and important, it which case it can be worse but not unoriginal. Make up your damned minds.

A quick point of order regarding a common criticism. "Deus ex machina" doesn't refer to any somewhat surprising ending. It is literally an ending without any set-up or foreshadowing. The ending of Avatar was not deus ex machina. You can argue that it was trite, cheesy and unbelievable but it wasn't deus ex machina.

Quite so. The entire film had been leading up to that point and had even foreshadowed the whole thing with a halfway-scientifically-plausible explanation. People who don't notice this have simply not been paying any goddamn attention.

The whole "suddenly, dragons EVERYWHERE!"? Deus Ex Machina.
Foreshadowed by:
1. Grace and Intern Dude take samples of tree roots and explaining electric signal transduction.
2. Bonding rituals between Na'vi and wildlife, plus Na'vi and the Tree of Souls.
3. Grace explaining significance of tree-root communications as 'neurons' within a collective planetary intelligence (which, I would speculate, may have been responsible for genetically tailoring much of the wildlife- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri springs to mind.)
4. Grace attempts a body transfer expedited by Eywa. Fails, but her memories are uploaded.
5. Jake attempts to warn Eywa using Grace's memory as testimony.

Did you even see this film?

The term unobtanium was used completely seriously, the planet somehow evolved a universal trait that would get stamped out whenever it started growing, given that it allows others to take you over. Breeding might allow it, but who bred them?
EYWA. EYWA EYWA EYWA EYWA EYWA. FRACKING EYYYYYYWAAAAAA. The big bloody planetary intelligence thing!

Did you even see this film?

Added to that is the morality being pushed. Its hugely oversimplified, there is absolute good or near absolute good with a few trivial flaws, and absolute evil..
Selfridge is clearly torn over whether or not to attack the natives. Quaritch starts out simply aiming to protect his men. This is not earth, with human natives versus human industrialists. This is a world with FRACKING EYWA IN IT. Things actually ARE at that polar.

The acting was superb. I don't know what definition of 'acting' others might be using, but I tend to favour 'accurately and evocatively conveys an appropriate underlying emotional state.' Which was done flawlessly. Just because you don't agree with those emotions doesn't mean they've been badly portrayed.

He never so much as broaches the subject of relocation with the Na'vi.
Yeah! Because that worked out so well.

The fundamental point of the movie was perfectly clear- the humans had nothing to offer the Na'vi that the Na'vi wanted. No trade was possible. The Na'vi were there first, it's their land. The moral course of action here is for the humans to turn their asses around and go home. Whether the Na'vi need the unobtainium at all is irrelevant- you can't just walk into a house and steal whatever the owners happen not to be using at the moment- and there's no way to extract the mineral without inflicting significant environmental devestation that will seriously undermine their way of life (given it requires razing their ancestral home, plus chemical runoff, and general forest clearance for roads and work camps. Did I mention many forest species are psychologically incapable of crossing open spaces? ...Well there you go.) You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether choosing a hunter-gatherer existence over the benefits of modern industrial science is rational or ill-advised, but it's missing the point. This is not your call to make.

Truly, mankind will send their people on ridiculous voyages across the stars unto this planet, but they will never be willing to travel a couple hours (at most) for a mining operation.
Significant resources have clearly been invested in establishing a central base of operations on Pandora. Sure, they could relocate to the far side of the planet, but they'd have to build a brand spanking new base. Why bother with that expense, when you can buy the natives off with blue jeans and root beer, or wipe them out if they get petulant?

Anyways: absolutely no one is arguing for the genocide of the sociopathic smurfy cats.
Right, you're just calling them sociopaths, after they completely overreact to the application of machine-gun fire.

People have argued that the humans are justified in mining pandora, because they kind of need it to survive. Because Terra is you know, dying, and space travel is only viable with the space rocks.
How did they get to Pandora in the first place, then? There must have been either (A) viable (albeit less efficient?) methods of travel available previously, or (B) extant (albeit less abundant?) deposits of the material elsewhere. I'm not seeing compelling evidence that the future of the human species uniquely hinges on mining Pandora, and it's certainly not presented in the film.

Samurai Jill

2010-05-10, 07:21 PM

Now, it's by no means a perfect movie. Personally, I found the ending was a little too ''everyone happy now'' for my taste, a lot of secondary characters are two-dimensional, and the actual storyline is still very simple. But it uses that story-line to say something relatively new, and, most importantly, very relevant to modern society. What's more, it relies heavily on visuals to immerse us in the world, convey the story, and show the message. And, in the end, that's what cinema is about. Visual storytelling.
I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post, and I'd add that a lot of the scientific details of Avatar are rather sketchy (starting with indigenous life-forms that look and behave uncannily similar to humans and working down from there.) But those could be 'fixed' and the underlying storyline would probably remain more-or-less plausible (e.g, replace the Hallelujah Mts. with regular mountains and they'll still serve the same overall narrative function, even if they wouldn't look half as impressive. Can you believe they got Wayne Barlowe in to do the early creature designs? Cripes, what a waste of his talents.)

I'd be reluctant to call Avatar anything like 'Hard' SF, but there's actually a surprising amount of attention paid to the logical details of the setting, and it more-or-less hangs together if you're willing to meet it halfway.

And yes, the Colonel is Epic McBadass.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-10, 07:27 PM

The story is unoriginal. But, also, awesome. This is not a contradiction. An awesome story does not become less awesome when it isn't changed. Because getting worse would be a form of change.
.

You can re-tell a story badly and thus make it worse in the re-telling without changing any details of the plot. For example, the Odyssey could be retold as "yeah, this dude totally went on a long boat trip, and he fought monsters, and came back after a bunch of years and killed some dudes". Avatar has the same plot as older stories, but if the older stories took that plot and did a much better job with it, then they are 'older, better stories' despite sharing that plot.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether choosing a hunter-gatherer existence over the benefits of modern industrial science is rational or ill-advised, but it's missing the point.
Sorry, but considering the subject matter, I LOL'ed at this choice of words.:smallbiggrin:

The Extinguisher

2010-05-10, 07:38 PM

I mostly dislike the movie because the only human character to die in the final fight was the really really cool one. Couldn't they have killed of the whiny nerd?

Kiren

2010-05-10, 07:45 PM

Am I the only one who thinks its a movie with few flaws and a great ending + characters?

I admit, one must not think too hard about the, part of the "mated for life scene", left out of the movie. Kinda funny though.

Trazoi

2010-05-10, 08:02 PM

My thoughts on Avatar: Saw it at the movies in 3D. Very pretty. Felt about half an hour too long. You could see which way the plot would go miles away. Why did they use Papyrus as the subtitle font?

Overall I enjoyed watching Avatar, but it was purely for the spectacle. Otherwise I'm indifferent to the film. I guess Avatar will be to the early 3D film era what the Matrix was to early DVD era, except with Sigourney Weaver instead of Hugo Weaving as the memorable character. :smallwink:

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 10:19 PM

Mind you, I'm a huge fan of science fiction. I consider myself a geek and I went to the theater fully expecting to like the movie. Instead I was bored out of my mind: I found the movie too long, and the story dull, silly and cliché. But the worst offenders for me were the characters. I tend to forgive a movie or a series a lot of flaws if it has deep, compelling characters, instead Avatar's characters, both heroes and villains, were painfully one-dimensional.

Funny how YMMV. I don't recognize this description of the characters (or story) at all. Of course I am not sure what movies you usually watch, but these characters were no way worse than the characters from any other Cameron movie, be it Aliens, or T2, or...

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-10, 10:23 PM

My opinion of Avatar is quite easily summed up : I was cheering for the humans.

>.>

And I still don't get that. Of course I was cheering louder and louder for every human who died, so who am I to talk.

(Tons of smart and correct stuff)
Thank you for summing up a ton of things I was going to write. :smallsmile:

Sorry, but considering the subject matter, I LOL'ed at this choice of words.:smallbiggrin:

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about.

Mind Fillet

2010-05-10, 10:25 PM

Great movie all in all i thought, the story was overused but the effects blew me away. I spent the next week in a kind of daze just thinking about the plant life.

Dienekes

2010-05-10, 11:01 PM

Klose_the_Sith

2010-05-11, 08:48 AM

Significant resources have clearly been invested in establishing a central base of operations on Pandora. Sure, they could relocate to the far side of the planet, but they'd have to build a brand spanking new base. Why bother with that expense, when you can buy the natives off with blue jeans and root beer, or wipe them out if they get petulant?

6 kilometres is really not far. I'm just sayin'

(You know a click means 100 feet, right? :smallconfused:)

The Glyphstone

2010-05-11, 09:08 AM

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether choosing a hunter-gatherer existence over the benefits of modern industrial science is rational or ill-advised, but it's missing the point.

Since we're discussing Avatar, I found it a hilariously appropriate idiom to have used.:smallbiggrin:

Liffguard

2010-05-11, 09:38 AM

6 kilometres is really not far. I'm just sayin'

(You know a click means 100 feet, right? :smallconfused:)

A "klick" is also a common term in the military for a kilometer, which sounds more likely in this case.

The Rose Dragon

2010-05-11, 09:42 AM

'...richest source of unobtainium within 200 clicks.'

Klicks, which is the military term for kilometer. Not clicks.

By the way, click is slang for a mile, not 100 feet.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 10:23 AM

You cannot claim that a story has BOTH gotten worse AND not been changed. Get your head straight, please.

Either the changes Avatar makes to it's (well-trodden) narrative are superficial and unimportant, in which case it can be unoriginal but not worse, or the changes Avatar makes are significant and important, it which case it can be worse but not unoriginal. Make up your damned minds.
Nice false dichotomy. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.
http://img.moronail.net/img/5/6/1156.jpg

The fundamental point of the movie was perfectly clear- the humans had nothing to offer the Na'vi that the Na'vi wanted. No trade was possible. The Na'vi were there first, it's their land. The moral course of action here is for the humans to turn their asses around and go home. Whether the Na'vi need the unobtainium at all is irrelevant- you can't just walk into a house and steal whatever the owners happen not to be using at the moment- and there's no way to extract the mineral without inflicting significant environmental devestation that will seriously undermine their way of life (given it requires razing their ancestral home, plus chemical runoff, and general forest clearance for roads and work camps. Did I mention many forest species are psychologically incapable of crossing open spaces? ...Well there you go.) You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether choosing a hunter-gatherer existence over the benefits of modern industrial science is rational or ill-advised, but it's missing the point. This is not your call to make.
So you're willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands, likely millions, or possibly billions of human lives for the material comforts of a few dozen blue sociopaths? They didn't even want to kill the smurfy cats, just move them somewhere else. The damage done to the planet would be less than that from a hard night's drinking, and you're helping to save literally millions of lives. The moral course of action in this case is clear.

Right, you're just calling them sociopaths, after they completely overreact to the application of machine-gun fire.
Right, because it's not like the first thing we see of the smurfs is their arrows sticking out of a truck. Or that the girl smurf was going to shoot the guy for no reason at all until some sacred dinglefuzzer landed on her arrow. Or that the humans attempted to exhaust every other option before resorting to force to drive the smurfs out, or even after that they used tear gas instead of bullets. Or that the smurfs would rather kill off millions of humans than move a couple kilometres.
Yeah, I'm going to stick with sociopath.

How did they get to Pandora in the first place, then? There must have been either (A) viable (albeit less efficient?) methods of travel available previously, or (B) extant (albeit less abundant?) deposits of the material elsewhere. I'm not seeing compelling evidence that the future of the human species uniquely hinges on mining Pandora, and it's certainly not presented in the film.
The space rocks make space travel actually viable. Since earth is in it's death throes, you need all the space travel you can get. The parallels between space rocks and oil are clear, so let's assume it's usefulness is comparable to that of oil. Would you care to evacuate a country without using oil? Sure, it can be done, but many lives that could otherwise have been saved are going to be lost. In that case, I absolutely support forcible relocation of a couple overly-aggressive savages.

J.Gellert

2010-05-11, 10:25 AM

I almost got a feeling that the military security force thought they were the big damn heroes. After the rousing speech about the need to defend themselves and take the fight to the enemy, and the cheering by the troops... Too bad they were not genre-savy enough to know they were on the wrong team :smallwink:

Well, in the real world, everyone is the protagonist of his own story. It's interesting to consider any movie not only from the villain's percpective, but also from the point of view of random onlooker #32.

And a quick rule: If you are fighting natives of any sort, and they are not cannibals, then you need to check with your doctor paladin, you may be evil.

I loved the film. Sure, it's all cliches, but I don't mind them if I can feel for the characters. And avatar did a good job evoking emotions about... everything in it.

Grumman

2010-05-11, 10:47 AM

So you're willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands, likely millions, or possibly billions of human lives for the material comforts of a few dozen blue sociopaths?
To avoid straying any further into political territory, I'll merely point out that not everyone supports the concept of eminent domain as much as you do. Quite simply, I feel the humans have no right to take what is the Na'vi's if the Na'vi do not want to sell. If the only way that the humans can survive is by taking things that belong to other people without their consent, then perhaps the society isn't worth saving.

Optimystik

2010-05-11, 10:54 AM

To cut some controversy: Yes, this is Dances With Wolves cross-bred with Pocahontas. I don't care. I love this movie.

I saw it more as Halo crash-landing into Fern Gully :smalltongue:

Pig Norton

2010-05-11, 11:00 AM

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 11:21 AM

To avoid straying any further into political territory, I'll merely point out that not everyone supports the concept of eminent domain as much as you do. Quite simply, I feel the humans have no right to take what is the Na'vi's if the Na'vi do not want to sell. If the only way that the humans can survive is by taking things that belong to other people without their consent, then perhaps the society isn't worth saving.

Are you willing to die for that ideal? Because that's exactly what every successful human society is based on.

Tiger Duck

2010-05-11, 11:30 AM

Did they really say that the humans needed the stuff to survive? Because if that were true I'm sure some government would have come forward to claim it.
The top corporate guy wouldn't have felt guilty killing Navi if it would have meant saving humans. Nor would have his shareholders.

comicshorse

2010-05-11, 11:57 AM

Posted by Captain Happy

Did they really say that the humans needed the stuff to survive?

No they didn't. NOT ONCE
The main character makes a throw-away comment about sending the humans back to their dying world. But that struck me as just being a bit of eco-snobbery, " see how much more in tune with the world I am now I've joined the other side"

In all the arguments with Sigourney Weaver's character the Corporate never say's the stuff is necessary for humanity's survival, when pumping up the troops the Colonel never points out that this is going to save the Human Race. The mineral is worth a **** load but there is nothing to say it's going to save the human race

Optimystik

2010-05-11, 12:01 PM

Are you willing to die for that ideal? Because that's exactly what every successful human society is based on.

For certain definitions of "successful."

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 12:13 PM

For certain definitions of "successful."
The only one that matters-- Still around.

Dr.Epic

2010-05-11, 12:16 PM

Avatar?...oh, you mean Dances with Smurfs.

Grumman

2010-05-11, 12:28 PM

For certain definitions of "successful."
For certain definitions of "every", too.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 12:30 PM

For certain definitions of "every", too.
The only one that matters-- still around

Altaria87

2010-05-11, 12:42 PM

A lot of people are badmouthing this film, but the thing I don't see mentioned is the fact that there were humans ON THE GROUND during the final battle. Did I miss something, or is that pointless and risky from the human perspective?
Exactly this, for a professional military force, the humans are using pretty silly tactics:
"We have a big spaceship of doom and our only target can only be reached via said big spaceship, due to this planet being a bunch of floating islands. Let's put troops on the ground!"
Also:
"So, the enemy's only arial force is a **** load of birds, that we must have intel on that they like to divebomb things... Let's all fly on almost the same horizontal axis- not having any (notable) defences from things above us whatsoever!"

Dienekes

2010-05-11, 12:46 PM

Exactly this, for a professional military force, the humans are using pretty silly tactics:

Welcome to Hollywood. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics) please turn off brain before coming inside.

Strawberries

2010-05-11, 12:54 PM

Klicks, which is the military term for kilometer. Not clicks.

By the way, click is slang for a mile, not 100 feet.

200 kilometers isn't far either. It's about a two-hour drive.

Funny how YMMV. I don't recognize this description of the characters (or story) at all. Of course I am not sure what movies you usually watch, but these characters were no way worse than the characters from any other Cameron movie, be it Aliens, or T2, or...

It may be I simply don't like Cameron very much. Alien was okay, but then I saw it when I was little and more easily pleased. And I despised Titanic with a passion. Come to think of it, the criticism I had for Titanic apply almost verbatim to Avatar: too long, first half of the movie spent in a useless romance half of which could have been cut without losing anything, dull characters. I guess I was influenced by the fact it was science fiction and didn't stop to think it was Cameron. I'll know better next time.

Posted by Captain Happy
No they didn't. NOT ONCE
The main character makes a throw-away comment about sending the humans back to their dying world. But that struck me as just being a bit of eco-snobbery, " see how much more in tune with the world I am now I've joined the other side"

This as well. I am confused as to why the people claim the mineral is needed to save the human race, as I never got that impression from the movie.

I'm not saying I disagree with the message the movie is trying to pass: the fact I was cheering for the humans is a bad sign because, under normal circumstance, I'd fully have supported the aliens.

chiasaur11

2010-05-11, 12:55 PM

I saw it more as Halo crash-landing into Fern Gully :smalltongue:

If that was the case, then where were the flood?

Man, seeing the whole place devoured by those things, then Halo'd?

Bliss

(Also, Sgt. Edward Buck would have been able to kill every single Na'vi if he had good cause, DEM or no.)

Optimystik

2010-05-11, 01:03 PM

The only one that matters-- Still around.

As I recall, viruses are also still around, and follow the very philosophy you describe.

Liffguard

2010-05-11, 01:21 PM

200 kilometers isn't far either. It's about a two-hour drive.

In a car on a smooth tarmac road, sure. Not in a super-heavy industrial bulldozer in a dense rainforest.

The Extinguisher

2010-05-11, 01:46 PM

In a car on a smooth tarmac road, sure. Not in a super-heavy industrial bulldozer in a dense rainforest.

How long did these people fly to get to Pandora? They can't drive a little bit longer?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 01:59 PM

So you're willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands, likely millions, or possibly billions of human lives for the material comforts of a few dozen blue sociopaths?

First of all, what's with the "sociopaths" comment? Are you calling people who don't want to be mentally and culturally destroyed sociopaths? You are not making any sense.

Appart from that, I noticed something: Earth is not completely dead. The intro of the movie is from the Venezuelan jungle. That's where Jake got shot. And the colonel even says that Venezuela has some mean bush.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 02:02 PM

Are you willing to die for that ideal?

Yes. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
Edit: And as has been pointed out over and over: Unobtanium is NOT neccesary for humankind's survival.

And a quick rule: If you are fighting natives of any sort, and they are not cannibals, then you need to check with your doctor paladin, you may be evil.

ROFL. First one this week.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-11, 02:06 PM

As much as I dislike the movie, I have to agree with this - you can't apply the standard definition of 'sociopath' to a sentient, non-human species. If it were two factions of smurfs beating each other up, then they could be considered sociopathic, but it's two different species involved.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 02:25 PM

This as well. I am confused as to why the people claim the mineral is needed to save the human race, as I never got that impression from the movie.
It's an extrapolation. Premises:

Earth is dying
Space rocks are needed for cheap space travel
Cheap space travel would be needed to evacuate any meaningful amount of people
There are, at best, a couple dozen smurfs in that particular village
The rocks will save orders of magnitude more people than that

And we are left with three choices:

Humans take the rocks, drive the smurfs off. 0 deaths.
Humans take the rocks, kill the smurfs, about 50 deaths
Smurfs sit around being smug, 1,000,000+ deaths

Humans chose the 1st option, smurfs chose the last option. Who has the moral high ground again?

As I recall, viruses are also still around, and follow the very philosophy you describe.
And viruses are quite successful. Pointing out an example that supports my point is not a very good way to disprove it.

Yes. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
And survival isn't? You mean to tell me that you would be alright with dying, and the only reason you had to die was because some blue guy decided he didn't want to get off his ass and move a few miles?

First of all, what's with the "sociopaths" comment? Are you calling people who don't want to be mentally and culturally destroyed sociopaths? You are not making any sense.

Letting millions die because you couldn't be arsed to move a few kilometres seems pretty sociopathic to me. And they aren't being "mentally and culturally destroyed" either. The center of their culture was that tree thing, which was still standing. Don't forget the humans were going to leave well enough alone until the guy went around making speeches and getting other people killed.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 02:30 PM

Humans take the rocks, drive the smurfs off. 0 deaths.
Humans take the rocks, kill the smurfs, about 50 deaths
Smurfs sit around being smug, 1,000,000+ deaths
[/LIST]
Humans chose the 1st option, smurfs chose the last option. Who has the moral high ground again?
t.

The Na'vi. Because we have no moral right to even be on the moon.
Besides, it sounds like humanity got what it deserved.

Anyway, why are you not seeing the obvious problem with relocation? The only places where the unobtanium is really plentiful, is right under the holy sites and home trees. Plus you are basically lobotomizing the Na'vi AND the moon itself by digging it up.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 02:36 PM

Anyway, why are you not seeing the obvious problem with relocation? The only places where the unobtanium is really plentiful, is right under the holy sites and home trees. Plus you are basically lobotomizing the Na'vi AND the moon itself by digging it up.
Now you're making unfounded claims. I'm going to slap a big [citation needed] on the claim that it's only under their holy trees. Because no mention of anything like that near their first mining zone.

The Na'vi. Because we have no moral right to even be on the moon.
So now it's not just this one mineral deposit, but the whole moon? And a significant portion of humanity deserves to die because of some misplaced sense of morality? How does that even begin to be okay?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 02:46 PM

Now you're making unfounded claims. I'm going to slap a big [citation needed] on the claim that it's only under their holy trees. Because no mention of anything like that near their first mining zone.

So now it's not just this one mineral deposit, but the whole moon? And a significant portion of humanity deserves to die because of some misplaced sense of morality? How does that even begin to be okay?

Okay, it is implied. Not stated. But there is an obvious connection between the room-temperature superconductor and the tree-network.

And yes, it is the moon as such. You can't travel without a visa between countries on earth, why should you be able to travel to a foreign planet without the people living there giving you permission to land?

Tiger Duck

2010-05-11, 02:47 PM

Now you're making unfounded claims. I'm going to slap a big [citation needed]

I could say the same of this

It's an extrapolation. Premises:

Earth is dying
Space rocks are needed for cheap space travel

I haven't seen evidence of this in the movie.

If it were true then the human would have tried harder. A few dozen mercenaries with hardware not meant to fight a war were defeated with plenty of effort. If the human race needed it they would have been able to get it.

Optimystik

2010-05-11, 02:47 PM

And viruses are quite successful. Pointing out an example that supports my point is not a very good way to disprove it.

They are successful... at being viruses.

Portraying an undesirable philosophy as being desirable is not a good way to make your point sympathetic.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 02:50 PM

I could say the same of this

I haven't seen evidence of this in the movie.

If it were true then the human would have tried harder. A few dozen mercenaries with hardware not meant to fight a war were defeated with plenty of effort. If the human race needed it they would have been able to get it.

Also, AFAIK, humanity has already colonized both the moon and mars. So...

And again, Jake is exaggerating. There are patches of green left; like the jungle in Venezuela.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 03:04 PM

They are successful... at being viruses.

Portraying an undesirable philosophy as being desirable is not a good way to make your point sympathetic.

I'm not commenting on the desireability, only the utility.

Strawberries

2010-05-11, 03:29 PM

Okay, keeping in mind I'm not arguing about the message, just the artistic merit of ther movie, I still have a problem with premise 1

It's an extrapolation. Premises:

Earth is dying
Space rocks are needed for cheap space travel
Cheap space travel would be needed to evacuate any meaningful amount of people
There are, at best, a couple dozen smurfs in that particular village
The rocks will save orders of magnitude more people than that

It may fully be that I wasn't paying much attention - I was, after all, bored and making silly jokes with my boyfriend, but I never got that "earth is dying" from the movie, at least not any more than it's dying, say, today (due to pollution, overpopulation, intensive use of resources and all that jazz) and certainly not to the point of evacuate people with spaceships. Did I miss something important?

Zen Monkey

2010-05-11, 03:45 PM

I thought it was pretty clear when the corporate representative was playing with the sample in his office that the only real motivation was profit. The cause of the expedition was defended by stating the monetary value of the object in question, without any real discussion of its necessity to humankind.

The ethics of the human majority in this film are really just Hobbesian state of nature. If I'm bigger than you, I'm entitled to knock you down and take your stuff. It's a really difficult position to defend, and makes a great argument for the need of civilization and rules to protect the people that don't have the biggest stick that day. Eventually you're going to get a bigger stick, or enough friends, and then the bully will be the one claiming that might doesn't make right after all.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 04:11 PM

It may fully be that I wasn't paying much attention - I was, after all, bored and making silly jokes with my boyfriend, but I never got that "earth is dying" from the movie, at least not any more than it's dying, say, today (due to pollution, overpopulation, intensive use of resources and all that jazz) and certainly not to the point of evacuate people with spaceships. Did I miss something important?

No you did not. Earth is dying, from an Na'vi perspective. It is definitely far, FAR worse than today, with totally dead seas, apparently (the seabed is being farmed for food), and very little wilderness on land.
But there is hope. According to the background material they are using the Avatar technology to recreate extinct species; they are growing full-size whales in tanks, for example.

comicshorse

2010-05-11, 04:13 PM

Fundmentally it is the Navi's world and anything we do there against there wishes is theft and tresspass.
Let me draw a more mundane comparision. A gambler is in debt to bad people who will kill him unless he pays them.Is he morally right to rob you of your most prized possession to pay his debt. The argument that he is because a robbery is preferable to a murder seems...... lacking to me

doliest

2010-05-11, 04:22 PM

Personally, where I in charge, I'd have suggested burning the entire moon until not a single one of the filthy Xenos lived, taking the mineral, and moving on to the next moon and world. Unfortunately, for all his awesome, Colonel McAwesome failed to comprehend the first rule- We don't negoiate with Xenos. Ever.

Strawberries

2010-05-11, 04:32 PM

It is definitely far, FAR worse than today, with totally dead seas, apparently (the seabed is being farmed for food), and very little wilderness on land.
But there is hope. According to the background material they are using the Avatar technology to recreate extinct species; they are growing full-size whales in tanks, for example.

I had missed that. In any case, if we are talking about the situation from an academic point of view, I fully agree with comicshorse: it is their world, humans have no right to be there against the Navi's whishes and, while a negotiation could be a viable option, worth pursuing, the final say on the matter should be the Na'vi alone.

Again, the fact that I was advocating a nuking from orbit (for the fans of Babylon 5, I did suggest the use of mass drivers at a certain point) had nothing to do with the situation and everything to do with my perceived lack of artistic merit from the movie.

doliest

2010-05-11, 04:35 PM

I had missed that. In any case, if we are talking about the situation from an academic point of view, I fully agree with comicshorse: it is their world, humans have no right to be there against the Navi's whishes and, while a negotiation could be a viable option, worth pursuing, the final say on the matter should be the Na'vi alone.

Again, the fact that I was advocating a nuking from orbit (for the fans of Babylon 5, I did suggest the use of mass drivers at a certain point) had nothing to do with the situation and everything to do with my perceived lack of artistic merit from the movie.

Why are you acting like the Xenos really have ANY rights? I'm pretty sure they could have gotten away with a Nuke. Would have solved most of the problems right there.

Strawberries

2010-05-11, 04:39 PM

Why are you acting like the Xenos really have ANY rights? I'm pretty sure they could have gotten away with a Nuke. Would have solved most of the problems right there.

It would certainly have solved mine, as a spectator :smalltongue:.

doliest

2010-05-11, 04:40 PM

It would certainly have solved mine, as a spectator :smalltongue:.

Would have made a better movie too, come to think of it. Realistically, it would have made more sense, and it could have focused on the real heroes, rather than the smurfs.

nyarlathotep

2010-05-11, 04:40 PM

Something in here that really bugged me was the huge bulldozers. If you can make autonomous machines that are that big and that powerful why not just make them giant drill mining machines and go under the forest mine the unobtainium from under the tree and save trillions that are being wasted on the bulldozers and the avatar project.

Edit: As for my moral position if unobtainium is needed for human survival then humans are in the right and the protagonists are horrible sociopaths, but they should have told the na'vi that. If it is a luxury then the humans are in the wrong and the protagonists are standing up for what is right. Either way its too preachy and seems to be going for a green aesop that I disagree with.

chiasaur11

2010-05-11, 04:55 PM

Klose_the_Sith

2010-05-11, 05:03 PM

Klicks, which is the military term for kilometer. Not clicks.

By the way, click is slang for a mile, not 100 feet.

>.>

Google disagrees with you, sah.

Even if it is kilometers/miles, that still isn't that far. Especially considering how much they complain about the Navi.

Knaight

2010-05-11, 05:08 PM

EYWA. EYWA EYWA EYWA EYWA EYWA. FRACKING EYYYYYYWAAAAAA. The big bloody planetary intelligence thing!

Did you even see this film?

The big bloody planetary intelligence thing that would have been able to get absolutely no influence unless it and some kind of animal independently developed compatible mind control. After all, unless it was already absurdly huge to begin with, evolving that trait would get it killed, or it would need to be a bunch of trees with communications and a society breeding it, and willingly giving up all individuality (as the first tree trying it on another tree would be massacred). There is no reason for that trait to exist, it makes no sense at all, and given previous indications (unobtanium), it becomes clear that all that mattered were graphics, audio, and the message, and if everything needed to be bent to absurdity to support it, or dropped entirely, so be it. Which is why it has an old plot that was poorly executed in a setting that looks as it it were designed all at once without any concern to what went before it.

White_North

2010-05-11, 06:11 PM

As I recall, viruses are also still around, and follow the very philosophy you describe.

http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad326/MbakubakeRo/villains/agent_smith.jpg

He was right all along.

White_North

2010-05-11, 06:20 PM

Knaight

2010-05-11, 06:54 PM

Sounds like some of us need to play a little 3:16, to see the opposite view here. In a fun RPG setting, if limited and reeking of indie.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 07:18 PM

IThe ethics of the human majority in this film are really just Hobbesian state of nature. If I'm bigger than you, I'm entitled to knock you down and take your stuff. It's a really difficult position to defend, and makes a great argument for the need of civilization and rules to protect the people that don't have the biggest stick that day. Eventually you're going to get a bigger stick, or enough friends, and then the bully will be the one claiming that might doesn't make right after all.
Couple things:
1. I'm not defending it from a moral standpoint, but a practical standpoint. Such a position is difficult to justify morally, but when it's a survival situation such as the humans in the movie are in, non-utilitarian ethics are a luxury they can't afford

2. Bearing this in mind, the humans show remarkable restraint. They attempt to minimize smurf casualties. They drive the smurfs off rather than killing them. And even when they resort to deadly force (in response to the smurfs massing for an attack) their goal is to destroy their will to fight rather than destroy them outright.

Eldonauran

2010-05-11, 07:59 PM

I like the movie, honestly. Didn't stir from my seat once during the entire movie, even to go to the bathroom. Bought it on blueray too. Probably going to use the movie as an excuse to buy one of those new 3d tv's.

Anyway, I thought those dirty humans got off too easy. Getting sent back home was too good for them (except the GOOD humans of course, they got to stay). Greater military power or not, they had the entire planet turn against them (Eywa). I don't know about you, but I can't imagine what kind of technology will protect you when the entire planet decides you need to die.

warty goblin

2010-05-11, 08:05 PM

Couple things:
1. I'm not defending it from a moral standpoint, but a practical standpoint. Such a position is difficult to justify morally, but when it's a survival situation such as the humans in the movie are in, non-utilitarian ethics are a luxury they can't afford

I watched Avatar three times. I never got the impression that humanity was going to die. You'd think that would sort have come up, particularly when whathisface Mr. Corporate was arguing with Grace. 'We're gonna die otherwise' is a lot more compelling of an argument than 'look, money!' As I pointed out earlier, Jake is the only person who ever mentions Earth 'dying,' and only after he's very deeply enamored with Na'vi culture and Pandora in general. Comparing Earth now to Pandora makes this seem a dying world. It's made fairly clear that Earth is worse off by the time of the movie, but that hardly means the entire human race is necessarily on the brink of extinction.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-11, 08:09 PM

Greater military power or not, they had the entire planet turn against them (Eywa). I don't know about you, but I can't imagine what kind of technology will protect you when the entire planet decides you need to die.

Well....there's always killing the planet, y'know. Humans couldn't breathe Pandora's air anyways, and I don't know about its flora/fauna being edible or not. With, as you said, the entire planet out to get you, it'd be logical (if extremely henious) for them to just bring some serious military firepower and fire/carpet bomb with extreme prejudice, one island at a time. Not pretty, but it is a manner of protection so to speak - Eywa was only the planet's biosphere.

warty goblin

2010-05-11, 08:15 PM

Well....there's always killing the planet, y'know. Humans couldn't breathe Pandora's air anyways, and I don't know about its flora/fauna being edible or not. With, as you said, the entire planet out to get you, it'd be logical (if extremely henious) for them to just bring some serious military firepower and fire/carpet bomb with extreme prejudice, one island at a time. Not pretty, but it is a manner of protection so to speak - Eywa was only the planet's biosphere.

That takes a ridiculous amount of firepower. It's probable that the combined nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could do it, but those are about twelve years away, and therefore not available.

Optimystik

2010-05-11, 08:23 PM

I'm not commenting on the desireability, only the utility.

Again, that doesn't help your point. There is short-term utility and long-term utility, and they are frequently at odds.

Taking resources by force, using them up, and moving on to the next is great in the short term, but not a viable long-term strategy. Viruses kill their hosts, then die themselves as they have nothing left to live on. In the end, everything dies. Is that "successful" to you? Is that "utility?"

No, even from a "utilitarian" standpoint, your position is untenable.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-11, 08:27 PM

That takes a ridiculous amount of firepower. It's probable that the combined nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could do it, but those are about twelve years away, and therefore not available.

Yeah, but it's also the future. Who knows what they have at their disposal, with more powerful weapons than a mining/exploration expedition brought with them for security? Worst comes to worst, they could probably engineer a mass extinction by ramming a small asteroid into the thing.

Trazoi

2010-05-11, 08:31 PM

There's a supposed early version of the script of Avatar floating around on the net that someone linked to me shortly after the film's release, and it gave a fairly good reason for why the humans didn't want to slaughter the Na'vi: the whole point of the Avatar program was to employ the Na'vi as mine workers, as it costs zillions to ship anything from Earth to Pandora. Exterminating their future workforce wouldn't help ship unobtanium back to Earth.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-11, 08:34 PM

warty goblin

2010-05-11, 08:49 PM

Yeah, but it's also the future. Who knows what they have at their disposal, with more powerful weapons than a mining/exploration expedition brought with them for security? Worst comes to worst, they could probably engineer a mass extinction by ramming a small asteroid into the thing.

Despite what Every Movie with Asteroids Ever would have you think, the things are really pretty thinly spread out, which is a more or less inevitable consequence of gravity- they either are spread out, or they collide and the results are spread out.

The second problem is that even a 'small' asteroid would take utterly fantastic amounts of energy to move, and fairly precise equipment to shift into a collision orbit. It's not impossible for a space-capable species by any means, but it is hardly a walk in the park.

And to cause an actual mass extinction, you need a really, really big rock. One with much, much more massive than the ship they used to get there certainly.

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-11, 08:50 PM

I just got done watching the movie again on DvD.

And you know, I think the fatal flaw that keeps it from being totally fantastic is that if Mr. Cameron expects me to be rooting for the aliens in an aliens vs. human war then he'd better come up with some better reasons than 'because they're one with nature and CGI.' Way I see it, every Na'vi who gets a speaking role shows themselves to be a colossal jerkass whereas the humans really weren't that bad. Suffice to say, I was rooting for the humans all the way again. Except for Trudy, that turncoat.

Halna LeGavilk

2010-05-11, 09:01 PM

Despite what Every Movie with Asteroids Ever would have you think, the things are really pretty thinly spread out, which is a more or less inevitable consequence of gravity- they either are spread out, or they collide and the results are spread out.

The second problem is that even a 'small' asteroid would take utterly fantastic amounts of energy to move, and fairly precise equipment to shift into a collision orbit. It's not impossible for a space-capable species by any means, but it is hardly a walk in the park.

And to cause an actual mass extinction, you need a really, really big rock. One with much, much more massive than the ship they used to get there certainly.

Well, yeah.

Only for the initial propulsion. Hell, they're already moving. Find one moving in the general direction of the planet and just give it a nudge. Slap some ion engines on the thing- relatively low cost, steady propulsion. You don't really need too much fine control, again, just nudges. I'm sure they have computers than can do the calculations, and computerized engines wouldn't be too hard to do. Hell, you can see planets. You can see mercury and neptune, and so forth from the Earth sky. Especially once the planet gets in closer- You would eventually be able to aim by sight.

And you don't need an extinction on the whole planet, just the local area.

warty goblin

2010-05-11, 09:22 PM

Well, yeah.

Only for the initial propulsion. Hell, they're already moving. Find one moving in the general direction of the planet and just give it a nudge. Slap some ion engines on the thing- relatively low cost, steady propulsion. You don't really need too much fine control, again, just nudges. I'm sure they have computers than can do the calculations, and computerized engines wouldn't be too hard to do. Hell, you can see planets. You can see mercury and neptune, and so forth from the Earth sky. Especially once the planet gets in closer- You would eventually be able to aim by sight.

And you don't need an extinction on the whole planet, just the local area.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess you've never done much in the way of physics, because this is not how it works.

Orbits do not work that way. Yes the asteroids are moving, but either much too slowly or much too quickly because they're in the wrong orbit. Either way, you've gotta do a lot of work to move them to a different orbit. You might get lucky and get a gravitational slingshot for some of that, but bottom line is that you still need to apply a lot of delta V to a very massive object.

I suppose its possible, but highly improbable, that you could find an asteroid in the same orbit as your target rock, but that's no better really, because simply strapping a rocket to its backside won't get you a collision, it'll get you an asteroid headed for an entirely different, and higher, orbit. Strapping the rocket to the front just causes it to fall into a lower orbit.

Again, it is in theory completely possible to do this. However it would strain credulity past the breaking point for anybody with a brain if they just happened to pull an engine capable of doing this out of their ass. It'd be like a smalltime prospector suddenly revealing they happened to have a jet engine in their back pocket.

Tavar

2010-05-11, 09:33 PM

I remember reading a rather soft Sci-fi book by David Weber and Eric Flint. They do use the above method to shot rocks at a planet, using an Orion drive to do it. The process takes several interstellar empires to do, and takes a fleet months. Keep in mind that this is with easy FTL travel and inertia-less engines. Somehow I don't see someone on the level of the Humans in the Avatar verse having it easy. Especially since they also have to contend with a Gas Giant, which would make the calculations that much harder.

Plus, you have to find a very large rock to get the desired effect.

Pocketa

2010-05-11, 09:46 PM

As president of the Math, Engineering, and Science Society, I'm showing the film at my school. We've had turnouts of about 20 people so far, and we're showing it in parts, at lunch.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-11, 09:57 PM

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 10:54 PM

Would have made a better movie too, come to think of it. Realistically, it would have made more sense, and it could have focused on the real heroes, rather than the smurfs.

Apart from that being extremely evil, disturbing and psychotic behavior in general, did you miss the part about bad PR? They can't just go and kill the "blue monkeys", because of it. There is already people protesting the mining back home.

Plus, they don't have that kind of weaponry with them. Apparently there is some kind of treaty between nations that WMD is illegal in space. Plus, again, it is a security company in space; the mining company would not pay enough for them to bring that kind of weaponry anyway.

As for being "the real heroes"; I still can't even begin to get my mind around such a standpoint. It's just... twisted.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-11, 11:01 PM

IWay I see it, every Na'vi who gets a speaking role shows themselves to be a colossal jerkass whereas the humans really weren't that bad.

I still don't see it. I see not a single instance of anyting even close to jerkass behavior from the Na'vi. None. What. So. Ever.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-11, 11:21 PM

Again, that doesn't help your point. There is short-term utility and long-term utility, and they are frequently at odds.

Taking resources by force, using them up, and moving on to the next is great in the short term, but not a viable long-term strategy. Viruses kill their hosts, then die themselves as they have nothing left to live on. In the end, everything dies. Is that "successful" to you? Is that "utility?"

No, even from a "utilitarian" standpoint, your position is untenable.

Except we aren't talking about viruses, we're talking about mining. And when they're done mining, they pack up and leave. In about 60 years, you'd never know they were there. Like I said, it's not like they're colonizing or anything, they're after one thing. One thing necessary to their survival, I should add.

I still don't see it. I see not a single instance of anyting even close to jerkass behavior from the Na'vi. None. What. So. Ever.
"look a guy lost in the woods... I think I'll shoot him"

"What's that? Much of the tensions between our peoples could have been averted if we simply told them why the trees are so important instead of shoot-on sight?"

Stuff like that. They refuse all attempts at communication and diplomacy, then get butthurt when the humans stop trying to resolve things peacefully and resort to force. Nonlethal force, I should point out.

See, the fact that you're rooting for the smurfs tells me you aren't really watching the movie so much as consuming it. You're letting it play you. When you're watching a movie, everything you see and hear is painstakingly crafted by the director. And in this film, it's done in such a way that the smurfs are unambiguously painted as the good guys. But when you choose to disregard the cinematographer's hamfisted attempts at making you see the smurfs as paragons of vurtue, and evaluate them based solely on their actions, they don't look so good.

That takes a ridiculous amount of firepower. It's probable that the combined nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could do it, but those are about twelve years away, and therefore not available.
They don't need to nuke the forest. Fly around spraying defoliant, or just firebomb them and let them burn.

Trazoi

2010-05-11, 11:55 PM

"look a guy lost in the woods... I think I'll shoot him"

"What's that? Much of the tensions between our peoples could have been averted if we simply told them why the trees are so important instead of shoot-on sight?"
That's part of what made me like the first half of the movie more than the second (that and because we were being introduced to the fantastic world). All the groups involved seemed to be acting like they should naturally, not as "good guys" or "bad guys". The Na'vi were deeply mistrustful of outsiders, the mercs were constantly on edge but protective of their own, the scientists were eager to explore a whole new world, and the corporate suits just wanted to get a return on their investment with a minimum of fuss.

Then in the latter half of the movie everyone went various degrees of insane in order to set up the prerequisite blue elf dragon riders versus mecha with combat knife fight in. Everything Na'vi became perfect, the mercs went villain-grade nuts, and the moral anvils came raining down. In the end, the movie made me inadvertently sympathetic for the corporate suits who had all this insanity explode on them.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 01:13 AM

"look a guy lost in the woods... I think I'll shoot him"

"What's that? Much of the tensions between our peoples could have been averted if we simply told them why the trees are so important instead of shoot-on sight?"

Stuff like that. They refuse all attempts at communication and diplomacy, then get butthurt when the humans stop trying to resolve things peacefully and resort to force. Nonlethal force, I should point out.

See, the fact that you're rooting for the smurfs tells me you aren't really watching the movie so much as consuming it. You're letting it play you. When you're watching a movie, everything you see and hear is painstakingly crafted by the director. And in this film, it's done in such a way that the smurfs are unambiguously painted as the good guys. But when you choose to disregard the cinematographer's hamfisted attempts at making you see the smurfs as paragons of vurtue, and evaluate them based solely on their actions, they don't look so good.

They don't need to nuke the forest. Fly around spraying defoliant, or just firebomb them and let them burn.

Okay, let me try again, although it is pointless.

First of all: The humans have no right to be on the planet, period. They are invaders.

Second: Yes, she was about to shoot him. Too bad for him, he was new there and hadn't done anything (yet). She didn't know that. Her response to his presence was entirely justified.

Third: Um... If you are so naive you think that would have helped...

Fourth: I love the "humans tried to solve this peacefully" crap. What you really mean is "they should have shut up and let the humans destroy their world". After all, it's not like anything the humans offered were even close to the same worth as what they already had.

Fifth: Killing several men, women and children is "non-lethal force"?

And sixth: Huh? Thank you for telling me how I watch movies. I could return the favor - you are obviously blind and have had extremely narrow filters when watching it, since you are rooting for the humans. You are deliberately taking everything out of context and stubbornly refuse to see the big picture to justify that.
The point is that I don't have to watch them "painted as good guys". They ARE the good guys. Based only on their actions, that is painstakingly clear. I can't understand how, by only watching their actions alone, you could judge them as being in the wrong.

Edited: As someone posted above - Everyone that rooted for the humans in this must have rooted for the aliens in Independence Day, since it is exactly the same situation. The humans are like locust, their greed has consumed their own planet and now they are travelling the stars to find new places to consume. If you DIDN'T root for the "locust" in that movie, you are immense hypocrites.

doliest

2010-05-12, 01:23 AM

Okay, let me try again, although it is pointless.

First of all: The humans have no right to be on the planet, period. They are invaders.

Second: Yes, she was about to shoot him. Too bad for him, he was new there and hadn't done anything (yet). She didn't know that. Her response to his presence was entirely justified.

Third: Um... If you are so naive you think that would have helped...

Fourth: I love the "humans tried to solve this peacefully" crap. What you really mean is "they should have shut up and let the humans destroy their world". After all, it's not like anything the humans offered were even close to the same worth as what they already had.

Fifth: Killing several men, women and children is "non-lethal force"?

And sixth: Huh? Thank you for telling me how I watch movies. I could return the favor - you are obviously blind and have had extremely narrow filters when watching it, since you are rooting for the humans. You are deliberately taking everything out of context and stubbornly refuse to see the big picture to justify that.
The point is that I don't have to watch them "painted as good guys". They ARE the good guys. Based only on their actions, that is painstakingly clear. I can't understand how, by only watching their actions alone, you could judge them as being in the wrong.

Edited: As someone posted above - Everyone that rooted for the humans in this must have rooted for the aliens in Independence Day, since it is exactly the same situation. The humans are like locust, their greed has consumed their own planet and now they are travelling the stars to find new places to consume. If you DIDN'T root for the "locust" in that movie, you are immense hypocrites.

I didn't root for the aliens in Idependence Day; mostly because I didn't see Independence Day.

Also the analogy fails because they wanted to consume the planet. The humans here want a mineral under the Tree, which can be obtained without destroying it.

Now, let's assume we don't need it to live, it's just a valuable resource- here's a summary of the exchange with the term switched to something more comprehendable, such as oil in this case-

Humans:Hey, you have a lot of oil we need. Can you move a few miles so I can have it.

Navi: No.

Humans: Ah, here's medicine, education, and technological evolution in exchange, how about now?

Navi: No.

Humans: You're not using it. You have no concievable use for it. Please, just move a few miles; we'll help.

Navi: No.

At this point, considering the importance oil has, and that really is what Unobtainium is in this case, I'd say that the Navi come off as insufferable pricks.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 01:38 AM

I didn't root for the aliens in Idependence Day; mostly because I didn't see Independence Day.

Also the analogy fails because they wanted to consume the planet. The humans here want a mineral under the Tree, which can be obtained without destroying it.

Now, let's assume we don't need it to live, it's just a valuable resource- here's a summary of the exchange with the term switched to something more comprehendable, such as oil in this case-

Humans:Hey, you have a lot of oil we need. Can you move a few miles so I can have it.

Navi: No.

Humans: Ah, here's medicine, education, and technological evolution in exchange, how about now?

Navi: No.

Humans: You're not using it. You have no concievable use for it. Please, just move a few miles; we'll help.

Navi: No.

At this point, considering the importance oil has, and that really is what Unobtainium is in this case, I'd say that the Navi come off as insufferable pricks.

I am sorry, but this naive belief that if the Na'vi just moved a little to the left, the humans would not, eventually, reach that place too is almost funny. The analog with Independence Day is not a TOTALLY perfect one, because the humans would not immediately kill all Na'vi and take over the whole planet at once. They would encroach them, eventually put them into camps, and slowly consume the planet.

Also, I think you watched something else. This is how the dialog went:

Humans (walking in without taking their boots of, making dirt tracks all over the carpet and not giving a damn): Hey, you have a lot of oil we want. Can you please leave your home so we can destroy it for money? We promise not to do the same to the next place you move to?

Na'vi: No.

Humans: Ah, here's medicine, education, and technological evolution in exchange, how about now? Or you can have some glass beads, if you like?

Na'vi: We don't need medicine, we have no use for the knowledge you try to teach you, and we do not want to change our way of life. So No.

Humans: You're not using it. You have no concievable use for it. Please, just move a few miles; we'll help.

Na'vi: Let us get this straight: You want us to abandon our ancestral home, so you can get rich? Hell No.

Dienekes

2010-05-12, 01:40 AM

Second: Yes, she was about to shoot him. Too bad for him, he was new there and hadn't done anything (yet). She didn't know that. Her response to his presence was entirely justified.

Wassuwahhuh? So, by this logic I'm completely justified to go killing illegal aliens, since they aren't supposed to be here and they're new.

I-- well if that's what you think, ok. Well, who am I to talk politics on this board?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 01:49 AM

Wassuwahhuh? So, by this logic I'm completely justified to go killing illegal aliens, since they aren't supposed to be here and they're new.

I-- well if that's what you think, ok. Well, who am I to talk politics on this board?

It's not politics. It is about fighting an invasion force. La Resistance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaResistance).

Dienekes

2010-05-12, 01:52 AM

It's not politics. It is about fighting an invasion force. La Resistance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaResistance).

Which is politics, or at least fueled by political ideals and some form of nationalism.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 01:56 AM

Which is politics, or at least fueled by political ideals and some form of nationalism.

I can't really reply to this without threadlock. Short answer: Disagree.

Trazoi

2010-05-12, 02:02 AM

At this point, considering the importance oil has, and that really is what Unobtainium is in this case, I'd say that the Navi come off as insufferable pricks.
Really? From what I remember, the humans never really bothered offering the Na'vi anything even remotely worth leaving over. It's not as if the Na'vi are going to leave their ancestral home for generations just because some weirdos offer them free baseball lessons and T-shirts.

The main problem I had with that part of the plot was it was the first really big anvil to hit me in the face, showing the direction the movie would go. So the richest seam of unobtainium just happens to be under this ginormous special tree of a nature that screams "massive ecological significance" that would cause any environmentalist to scream murder if you touched. And it also just happens that this is the ancestral home of the nearby Na'vi tribe that you're befriending. Well, there's no point looking for an alternative seam of this mineral that's obviously so common it causes large sections of the geography to be floating rocks. Nor shall we bother trying to come to a treaty to extract this rich seam in an environmentally friendly way that doesn't disturb the giant tree or the natives. No, we've got the burn the whole region to the ground ASAP! But because we're not totally heartless, we'll give you scientists a month to figure out what beads to trade to the natives for their irreplaceable giant tree they've lived in for generations. And don't go bonding too closely with the soon-to-be evictees.

Yeah, it started getting harder to take the plot as more than just a vehicle for the spectacle as that central plot element got expanded. It was so obviously placed to get the groups into conflict rather than seek a whole range of workable solutions that didn't involve razing the giant tree.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 02:05 AM

(snipping tons of text)

I agree with all of this except that I immensely enjoyed this movie nevertheless. The benefit of a sci-fi setting like this is that you can put the unobtanium under the tree with at least a plausible explanation: That kind of tree only grows where the ground is extremely rich with unobtanium. This eliminates the "incredible coincidence" part of it.

Tiger Duck

2010-05-12, 02:09 AM

There was communication between the Na'vi and the avatars it's how they learned English. It was just broken of in the near past for some not elaborated reason.

And again I don't think humans really needed it. Or they would have felt bad taking it, which they did. Even head corporate guy, and you don't become that by being a bleeding heart.

Edit: yeah you make a good point. They (the writers) should have said "the only vain worth digging into" or something.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 02:20 AM

There was communication between the Na'vi and the avatars it's how they learned English. It was just broken of in the near past for some not elaborated reason.

According to the background material, that might show up on the director's cut, the school was burned down by the human troops since a small group of hunters (including Neytiri's kid sister) took refuge there after burning a 'doozer. The school was burned to the ground, and no survivors. This is also one of the reasons why Neytiri kills humans on sight; to avenge her sister (and the kids in the school, I suspect).

Trazoi

2010-05-12, 02:25 AM

I agree with all of this except that I immensely enjoyed this movie nevertheless. The benefit of a sci-fi setting like this is that you can put the unobtanium under the tree with at least a plausible explanation: That kind of tree only grows where the ground is extremely rich with unobtanium. This eliminates the "incredible coincidence" part of it.
Oh, I still enjoyed the film (although it felt about half an hour too long). It's the structural flaws like that that for me stops it from being an all-round good film and more an entertaining audio-visual metaphorical rollercoaster ride.

I can buy some sci-fi handwaving to explain why unobtainium was richest there, but it doesn't excuse all the other evidence that it wasn't exactly hard to find anywhere else (all those floating rocks). Plus it doesn't explain why at the beginning of the film the company was concerned about giving the appearance of being eco-friendly, but then doesn't have too big a concern firebombing a massive landmark tree that the natives use as a village. It would be like if a mining company in Australia started a tree planting program to appear green and then the next moment bulldozed Uluru.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 02:28 AM

I can buy some sci-fi handwaving to explain why unobtainium was richest there, but it doesn't excuse all the other evidence that it wasn't exactly hard to find anywhere else (all those floating rocks). Plus it doesn't explain why at the beginning of the film the company was concerned about giving the appearance of being eco-friendly, but then doesn't have too big a concern firebombing a massive landmark tree that the natives use as a village. It would be like if a mining company in Australia started a tree planting program to appear green and then the next moment bulldozed Uluru.

They had tried to mine the floating rocks, which fell down and killed people. As for being echo-friendly; mr corporate guy points out that the only thing shareholders hate more than bad press is not enough profit. Basically it is worth getting hit with some bad press (burn down the tree, relocate blue monkeys) but not a lot of bad press (genocide).

Trazoi

2010-05-12, 02:48 AM

They had tried to mine the floating rocks, which fell down and killed people. As for being echo-friendly; mr corporate guy points out that the only thing shareholders hate more than bad press is not enough profit. Basically it is worth getting hit with some bad press (burn down the tree, relocate blue monkeys) but not a lot of bad press (genocide).
And again, I almost could buy it the way it is, except it's so obviously leading up to a scene where a bunch of cowboys firebomb a giant tree. :smallbiggrin:

A sensible alternative option for the company would be to try to placate the Na'vi so they could mine under the tree, leaving it still standing. If the Na'vi violently object, then they would be forced to move them.

But burning down the tree? All that does is satisfy the need of the scriptwriter to make the humans look callous. And it could have lead to this scene:

CEO: So were you successful in relocating the Na'vi?
Merc: Yessir, we burned down their Hometree. Bunch of blue elves had no choice.
CEO: Sounds a bit excessive. I guess what's done is done. We start the next phase of mining tomorrow.
Merc: Well sir, there's one tiny problem with that.
CEO: Sorry? The Na'vi are gone, yes?
Merc: Yessir. But the thing is, it seems that giant tree was on giant seam of unobtainium.
CEO: I know that. That's why we wanted to move the Na'vi.
Merc: Yessir. But by tearing the tree down, we sort of... loosened things up a bit. Lightened the load, so to speak.
CEO: **facepalms**
Merc: On the bright side sir, there's no way those Na'vi get back to their tree now it's floating two miles above the ground.

Eldan

2010-05-12, 04:00 AM

Anyway, I thought those dirty humans got off too easy. Getting sent back home was too good for them (except the GOOD humans of course, they got to stay). Greater military power or not, they had the entire planet turn against them (Eywa). I don't know about you, but I can't imagine what kind of technology will protect you when the entire planet decides you need to die.

Ignore it? Because, well, the most serious thing the planet could do in the movie was send large predators to attack the humans. If the humans had used realistic tactics? No real danger whatsoever. Mount a few machine guns around the base and get an electric fence. Humans are very good at killing large predators.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 04:44 AM

Ignore it? Because, well, the most serious thing the planet could do in the movie was send large predators to attack the humans. If the humans had used realistic tactics? No real danger whatsoever. Mount a few machine guns around the base and get an electric fence. Humans are very good at killing large predators.

Even if they come like the Zerg rush in Starship Troopers?

Time to nitpick:
1. At least half of the creatures were herbivores
2. How were they supposed to build an electric fence right there in the middle of the attack?

Besides, they already have all that around the base. And one more thing: maybe the planet would up the ante if that failed. Creating a volcano directly under the base, perhaps?

Eldan

2010-05-12, 04:58 AM

I didn't mean the movie situation. That was mostly human error and bad tactics.

But assume they have established a base on a rich depot of Unobtainium. How is the planet going to take it away from them? Just throwing biomass at them will not defeat humanity, even a small splinter group of it.

Also, how would the planet create a volcano? I'm fully aware that there are more than enough natural desasters which could take out any human settlement. But Eywa, as presented in the movie, was a planetary network of consciousness linking the biosphere, à la Gaia Theory. Not a godlike entity capable of shifting tectonic plates.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:05 AM

But assume they have established a base on a rich depot of Unobtainium. How is the planet going to take it away from them? Just throwing biomass at them will not defeat humanity, even a small splinter group of it.

...Of course it won't defeat humanity; most of humanity is back on earth. It would, however, defeat the base's defenses.

Eldan

2010-05-12, 05:15 AM

That's what I meant with small splinter.
Have a look at earth. Build a mining base in the African savanna (because large herbivores are rare in the jungle, for various reasons). Give it future technology, armed mercenaries, airplanes, explosives and mechs.

How many herds of elephants and lions do you need to take it down? What's running out first, bullets or elephants?

bloodlover

2010-05-12, 05:17 AM

Overrated movie is overrated . I still don't get why everyone is so excited about this movie. It's not the best movie of 2009 (there are movies a lot better than this one), it's not even the best SF of 2009 (that would be Moon imo), it's not the best SF ever (that would be 2001 Space Odyssey), it's not even the best movie made by James Cameron.

Someone could find this movie interesting only if he never saw a 3d movie in his life and maybe get impressed by the special effects. But even so, a film's value is not measure in box office money (since the average viewer can't distinguish a masterpiece from total junk), or special effects.

All in all , I was expecting something that would blow my mind away , but instead I got more that 2 hours of CGI , no story , no real character development (not even Sigourney Weaver saved this movie), no good acting, no nothing.

Eldan

2010-05-12, 05:20 AM

I'd say it was well acted (the actors certainly portrayed strong emotions) and had effects spectacular enough that I could shut off my brain for a time and enjoy the show.

Well, except for thoughts like "Those aren't carnivore teeth!" randomly popping up in my head.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 06:23 AM

How many herds of elephants and lions do you need to take it down? What's running out first, bullets or elephants?

Bullet proof elefants.

Edit: and you have to consider attacks from all sides at once, including the air. Plus, not really elephants, but rather extremely fast rhinos. Elephants can't run, really.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 06:26 AM

Snip stuff

Again, matter of taste. I felt the exact opposite on all points you make. And the average movie viewer can tell the difference between junk and a masterpiece. It is more a matter of snobbery and classifying above average as junk because of it.

Trazoi

2010-05-12, 06:29 AM

How many herds of elephants and lions do you need to take it down?
None. The base will run out of bullets waaaaaaaay before Africa runs out of locusts. :smalltongue:

Eldan

2010-05-12, 06:42 AM

Glass dome.:smalltongue:

Of course, directed natural attacks could be a pain. But not in the way the movie portrayed them.

bloodlover

2010-05-12, 06:49 AM

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 07:33 AM

No sir, the average viewer can't make the difference between a good movie or junk . Just look at Antichrist , Lars Von Tier's latest movie. Average audience was shocked by the movie, while people who work in the field adored it for the camera shooting, scenes , story and atmosphere. It's a matter of taste if i say that American Pie was just an average movie and someone else finds it really good and funny, but when talking about movies that claim to be "more than just another Hollywood blockbuster" it's not a matter of taste. Avatar may be a really good SF movie and create a hype for someone that has really no good knowledge or taste in SF movies or is just easily impressed by any movie full of special effects.

I can easily name you a lot of SF movies that were above Avatar but filmed between 1960-1990. No special effects, no hype, no mass publicity , no bluray/3D versions

Last statement first:
So can I. Unfortunately this is not really relevant since nobody I know went to watch this because it was an SF movie. They watched it because it was an action-adventure movie. There is a huge difference, since SF has a rather pretentious reputation unless it is space opera. People who love SF because it is SF tend to have very specific tastes (and no this is not said in a condescending tone, it is just an observation). This is even more true when it comes to SF literature.

To bring up Von Trier in this debate is a red flag, since even a lot of chritics see him as very overrated these days. Personally I would not dream of watching anything he makes, but I watch movies for entertainment purposes only. His Antichrist was more interesting in the debate that followed, which split the intellectual left in Scandinavia between those who attacked it (and him) for being woman hater afraid of female sexuality, and those who claimed that the movie was proof of the opposite. No matter how you argue, he has a habit of letting his female characters suffer a lot.

And it IS a matter of taste. No matter how much you try to argue otherwise, the fact that other people feel different about it makes it a matter of taste. I did enjoy the story, it was a very competent retelling of the basic "going native" trope. I loved the characters and I drooled at the images and sound. You did not. You can argue until you turn blue (no pun intended) but that will not make me view it any different.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 07:38 AM

Glass dome.:smalltongue:

Of course, directed natural attacks could be a pain. But not in the way the movie portrayed them.

Seriously though; I think you are wrong.

First of all the wildlife is big enough and tough enough AND fast enough. If the attack had been directed at the base instead of the "air fleet", the result would have been the same. Especially since on day-to-day base life only a fraction of the soldiers would be ready for combat at any one time.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 10:32 AM

Seriously though; I think you are wrong.

First of all the wildlife is big enough and tough enough AND fast enough. If the attack had been directed at the base instead of the "air fleet", the result would have been the same. Especially since on day-to-day base life only a fraction of the soldiers would be ready for combat at any one time.

I just wanted to add to this. The small fraction of the planets wildlife that showed up to battle the humans doesn't even start to reveal how powerful that planet is. You have to use your imagination to get there. The wildlife that showed up was only from the local area. If the planet had even diverted 1/200 of its resources at the human, it could have blanketed the entire base with enough weight to literally crush it.

None of the aircraft would have been able to stay airborne and bullets can only cut through so much flesh before they are stopped in their tracks. The sheer bulk of flesh thrown at the humans would have been unstoppable. Just imagine a tidal wave of animals. And i'm talking about the kind of waves you see in 2012, not the kind that only wipes out the first couple miles inland.

That is what is meant by a 'planet-wide intelligence'. If it wants you dead, you aren't going to get away.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 10:34 AM

Even if they come like the Zerg rush in Starship Troopers?

Time to nitpick:
1. At least half of the creatures were herbivores
2. How were they supposed to build an electric fence right there in the middle of the attack?

Besides, they already have all that around the base. And one more thing: maybe the planet would up the ante if that failed. Creating a volcano directly under the base, perhaps?

Last time I checked, forests couldn't create volcanoes.

Anyways, it's really quite simple to keep the wildlife out:
Dig a deep trench around the perimeter. Keeps the land critters out, or they fall in the trench and die. Then you just need to keep everyone enclosed while they're in the compound to deter bird-thing attacks. Eventually you'll shoot enough of them that they get the idea. Meanwhile start burning large portions of forest, destroying the animals habitat meaning they have to travel farther to attack. Eventually it won't be practical anymore and most will die before they can even reach the compound.

I am sorry, but this naive belief that if the Na'vi just moved a little to the left, the humans would not, eventually, reach that place too is almost funny.

And why would they? They're after the space rocks, not the planet. How many mines, for any mineral, are there on this planet? Let's include oil wells too. Bear in mind we're talking about for ALL minerals. And yet it's still an extremely miniscule fraction of a percent of the earth's surface. It isn't like they're going to strip-mine the entire planet. They're after one thing, the space rocks. They're only going to go after the space rocks.

And once again, if the smurfs would have, you know, communicated with the humans rather than just getting all butthurt, a lot could have been avoided.

I just wanted to add to this. The small fraction of the planets wildlife that showed up to battle the humans doesn't even start to reveal how powerful that planet is. You have to use your imagination to get there. The wildlife that showed up was only from the local area. If the planet had even diverted 1/200 of its resources at the human, it could have blanketed the entire base with enough weight to literally crush it.

While either totally devastating the local ecosystem or causing a significant portion of the planet's wildlife to starve to death.

Logistics. A planet can't have them.

EpicLvlKitteh

2010-05-12, 10:38 AM

Avatar was a decent movie. Nothing incredible in terms of plot. However, the overall atmosphere of Pandora did make me all giddy. I enjoyed the visual set up and especially enjoyed how the CGI seamlessly blended with live action. Not bad.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 10:43 AM

While either totally devastating the local ecosystem or causing a significant portion of the planet's wildlife to starve to death.

Logistics. A planet can't have them.

You are missing the point. The planet is Eywa, a plant wide intelligence that willingly responded to Jake's call for help. Every living thing in that world is interconnected and even the dead Na'vi can still be heard by the living through the trees. The movie goes out of its way to explain this to us (through Jake learning the Na'vi ways). Hell, even when the doctor is dying, she claims Eywa is real ("I am with her").

I would argue that the planet, Eywa, is the most intelligent and logical being on (in) that planet. It would be quite capable of logistical thinking and most likely, the only reason it took so long for the animals to join the battle is Ewya having to spread to message. It was explained to Jake that Eywa doesn't interfer and if she does, its only to preserve the balance of life. Humans were seen as a very big threat.

Losing the 'local ecosystem' may have been a necessary loss to the planet, since the entire movie only takes place on a small portion of the planet. Nature can rebuild itself. 1/200 of the planets life forms is nothing of import. There is still 199/200 of it left to rebuild.

Axolotl

2010-05-12, 11:11 AM

Anyone who's ever read Deathworld knows you shouldn't declare war on a planet wide gestalt mind lie the one in Avatar.

Optimystik

2010-05-12, 11:54 AM

And once again, if the smurfs would have, you know, communicated with the humans rather than just getting all butthurt, a lot could have been avoided.

The irony is appalling. Wasn't Jake's mission to, you know, warn the smurfs what would happen if they didn't cooperate? Instead he played Mighty Whitey with an extra dose of Boldly Coming by porking the chief's daughter and neglected to mention anything even up to the eve of the attack.

And you blame the Na'vi for what happened?

chiasaur11

2010-05-12, 12:40 PM

Anyone who's ever read Deathworld knows you shouldn't declare war on a planet wide gestalt mind lie the one in Avatar.

Unless you're Sly Marbo.

In which case, you do whatever you want.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 12:45 PM

And why would they? They're after the space rocks, not the planet. How many mines, for any mineral, are there on this planet?

For 20 million dollars a kg, it is economically feasible to actually strip mine the entire planet. In fact, from an economical standpoint it makes no sense of leaving the planet before it is done.

KnightDisciple

2010-05-12, 12:51 PM

The irony is appalling. Wasn't Jake's mission to, you know, warn the smurfs what would happen if they didn't cooperate? Instead he played Mighty Whitey with an extra dose of Boldly Coming by porking the chief's daughter and neglected to mention anything even up to the eve of the attack.

And you blame the Na'vi for what happened?Yeah. I really don't like Jake.

Grace? She was a solid character, likeable and such. She was trying to help both sides.

Jake was like "bah, who cares about the humies? Hooray hot blue space elf chick! Yeehaw!".

For 20 million dollars a kg, it is economically feasible to actually strip mine the entire planet. In fact, from an economical standpoint it makes no sense of leaving the planet before it is done.Because the space rock was under 100% of the planet's surface, amiright?:smallconfused:

The Glyphstone

2010-05-12, 12:52 PM

For 20 million dollars a kg, it is economically feasible to actually strip mine the entire planet. In fact, from an economical standpoint it makes no sense of leaving the planet before it is done.

Yeah, but that assumes the entire planet is worth 20mil/kg - that was just the price of the space rocks, i doubt the ordinary ores are worth that much. The space rocks can clearly pay for their own shipping back to Earth, no guarantee the other ores are, and if they're not, then the company loses money by mining them.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 12:57 PM

Because the space rock was under 100% of the planet's surface, amiright?:smallconfused:

No, but you have small deposits all over the place.
First you mine the really big ones that are easy to get.
Then you mine the really big ones that are hard to get.
Then you start picking smaller and smaller places to mine until they are all gone.

There is an enormous difference in what is economically feasible when the mineral is so incredibly valuable. The actually ratio of unobtanium vs bedrock can be much smaller and still give a profit compared to gold, silver or iron for example. Adding to this is the fact that you have limited transportation possibilities; you really don't want to return home with a half-empty shuttle. It is most likely worth almost any amount of work to fill it completely before returning.

Yeah, but that assumes the entire planet is worth 20mil/kg - that was just the price of the space rocks, i doubt the ordinary ores are worth that much. The space rocks can clearly pay for their own shipping back to Earth, no guarantee the other ores are, and if they're not, then the company loses money by mining them.

See above; I am only talking about unobtanium. Most likely there is also gold etc but that is not the fuel cost to get it back to earth, most likely.

Fiery Diamond

2010-05-12, 01:00 PM

nyarlathotep

2010-05-12, 02:16 PM

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-12, 03:34 PM

Edited: As someone posted above - Everyone that rooted for the humans in this must have rooted for the aliens in Independence Day, since it is exactly the same situation. The humans are like locust, their greed has consumed their own planet and now they are travelling the stars to find new places to consume. If you DIDN'T root for the "locust" in that movie, you are immense hypocrites.

That analogy is very flawed. The locusts had the stated goal of killing everything on Earth and stripping all of its resources before moving on to another and that this was the way their society lived and worked. I didn't see any proof that the locusts even had their own planet and always figured that they were a nomadic species. While the humans of Avatar tried time and time and time again to settle things peacefully. They tried negotiating. They tried sending in Jake to negotiate. They tried having the scientists form a cultural bridge with them. The bulldozers rolled only after all that failed. And THEN when they learned that they wrecked a sacred place Parker even let Jake and Grace try settling things peacefully AGAIN.

And the conflict in Independence Day was between aggressors and aggressees that was started by a surprise attack to cause the most casualties possible. The Na'vi weren't some helpless victims. They were fighting an undeclared war with the humans if the arrows in the dozers and Neytiri's willingness to shoot a man in the back were any sign. Furthermore the locusts started their attack by killing people in huge numbers while there's every sign that the humans were trying to keep things peaceful as I said before.

Lastly you just can't compare the two. The humans of Avatar, before they were made to look more evil at least, were...humans. Just that. They had their share of bad people but they were at worst a grey faction against the Na'vi's grey. The locusts were just plain evil, or at best too alien to understand and dedicated to kill everyone. If the humans were so evil they wouldn't have cared about bad press and just gone straight to the killing.

But whatever. I disagree with your opinions on this but that's fine. I just object to being called a hypocrite when I share an opinion that somebody else dislikes.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 03:39 PM

If the humans were so evil they wouldn't have cared about bad press and just gone straight to the killing.

I would label those humans as evil. Evil never cares about the consequences of their actions save when those consequences would have a direct effect on them. Evil would have to be stupid not to care about publicity and bad press. That can lead to their investors pulling out and leaving them high and dry.

Don't mistake the illusion for the reality. Evil hides very well in plain sight. The best way to get people to believe a lie is to put a grain of truth in it.

To the public: "Oh, we care about the Na'vi, we are trying to settle this peacefully."

To their partners: "We all know we will wipe out this blue monkeys sooner or later. Let's just make it look like we care so it doesn't bit us in our ass."

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 03:59 PM

But whatever. I disagree with your opinions on this but that's fine. I just object to being called a hypocrite when I share an opinion that somebody else dislikes.

The point it boils down to is that if the humans are in the right when they take what they "need" with force, then the locust are in the right too.

For the rest of the argument: I still find the argument about "trying to settle things peacefully" amusing.
The humans came to Pandora without permission, and their attempts to a "peaceful" solution was "look, we are going to do this whether you allow us or not, so you better take the glass beads and beat it or we kill you".
Again: The humans had nothing the Na'vi wanted. The Na'vi were not obligated to agree to an offer that was not of the same value as what they would give up (and to make it clear, they did not have to take any offer, period).

And the bulldozers were already being used, just not on settlements; they still destroyed the Na'vi's world.

As for "undeclared war"... As I said, they were fighting invaders destroying their world. It was totally justified on all levels.

...Anyway, to get back a bit: My personal favorite moment in the movie is the "wolf rescue" scene. I really like the acting there, plus her accent is really cute.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 04:12 PM

For 20 million dollars a kg, it is economically feasible to actually strip mine the entire planet. In fact, from an economical standpoint it makes no sense of leaving the planet before it is done.
And at $75 a barrel, it makes no sense to not drill the entire earth for oil.
Oh wait...

There is an enormous difference in what is economically feasible when the mineral is so incredibly valuable. The actually ratio of unobtanium vs bedrock can be much smaller and still give a profit compared to gold, silver or iron for example.
Just because mining is economically feasible with smaller amounts of material still does not equate to strip-mining the entire planet.

Once you're spending more money to extract, process, and transport the mineral than you can sell it for, it ceases to be economically viable. Now, transportation is monstrously expensive. It takes 5 years, and they thought that the ungodly sum sucked down by the avatar project was a fine investment. Bearing in mind that the original point of the avatar project was to get the smurfs to serve as a labor force for harvesting the space rocks, we can assume with a reasonable degree of certainty that the cost of transportation for personnel alone would exceed the cost of the avatar program. Now, judging from the ship we see in the movie (http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/avatar_movie_space_ships-wide.jpg), they seem pretty modular, so let's assume that they trasport space rocks and passengers in similar modules, and therefore at similar cost.

So that right there is going to take a huge portion of your profits.

They also need to refine the stuff. There's two ways you can do this: You can refine it on-planet, or you can ship it off-planet to have it be refined elsewhere. When dealing with relatively pure ore, it's a no-brainer... refine it on-planet to save on the aforementioned absurd transportation costs. But, if you're dealing with significant amounts of impure ore, you need to have bigger and more frequent shipments of the chemicals and equipment needed to refine the ore, again, with ever-increasing costs.

Mining is costly and time-consuming, and the equipment to do it is massive... and therefore massively expensive to ship.

Basically, while yes, the stuff is valuable enough to be economically viable to collect in slightly more difficult circumstances, it's still nowhere near valuable enough to justify strip-mining an entire planet.

Furthermore, I would posit that as it is, the stuff doesn't exist in huge quantities to begin with. It took them what, 10 years to exhaust their first vein? I went to a copper mine in Mexico that had been open for about 200 years, and they estimated it would continue to yield copper for another 75 years. There was another mountain next to it, and they said "And that mountain is also made of copper, and we expect to get 150 years from it". The mining equipment available to the humans seemed pretty much on-par with modern equipment.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 04:18 PM

The point it boils down to is that if the humans are in the right when they take what they "need" with force, then the locust are in the right too.
The Locust didn't spend 10 years attempting to negotiate, with the only thing to show for their trouble is getting shot at.

The humans came to Pandora without permission, and their attempts to a "peaceful" solution was "look, we are going to do this whether you allow us or not, so you better take the glass beads and beat it or we kill you".
The movie starts 10 years or so after the humans arrived, remember. In the interim the humans were attempting negotiations, while near as I can tell the smurfs were going around being belligerent and totally unhelpful.

Again: The humans had nothing the Na'vi wanted. The Na'vi were not obligated to agree to an offer that was not of the same value as what they would give up
And the humans weren't obligated to even offer them anything for the space rocks, as they later prove. What's your point?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 04:23 PM

And the humans weren't obligated to even offer them anything for the space rocks, as they later prove. What's your point?

Actually... this is the crux of the matter. They WERE. Since Might NEVER Makes Right, and the humans had no right to even be on the planet to begin with. The fact that they don't see that, proves that they were evil bastards.

warty goblin

2010-05-12, 04:28 PM

The bit that baffles me about the various pro-human arguments is this: I'll grant, for sake of argument, that the Na'vi were perhaps being a bit rude by not negotiating or selling.

So what? Last I looked, 'unwillingness to engage in commerce' is not a crime. It is in fact a veritable underpinning of any notion of trade- if you are free to trade, you must also be free not to trade. The Na'vi saw nothing to be gained from trading, so they didn't. It's a perfectly rational, morally justifiable, course of action.

Now of course having your peaceful advances shut down hard is annoying. Being annoyed, and wanting something however are hardly reasonable justifications for violence, or even continuing to hang around the property of somebody who has made it quite clear they no longer wish your company. The humans shooting stuff at this point aren't the actions of rational or moral beings, they're the tantrums of a three year old who's angry the person in the candy shop isn't giving them all the chocolate bars in exchange for some used bubble gum and is trying to get them to go away and stop pestering them with nonsense.

chiasaur11

2010-05-12, 04:35 PM

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-12, 04:36 PM

The point it boils down to is that if the humans are in the right when they take what they "need" with force, then the locust are in the right too.

Of course the humans weren't in the right for taking things by force. That was the whole plot of the second act and why the movie isn't anything better than fun for me. The first bit, both sides are shown as 'human' for lack of a better word, with neither humans nor Na'vi being wholly good or evil. Then suddenly the humans start kicking the dog just to get me to root for these other less than admirable people? It could have been so much better than that.

For the rest of the argument: I still find the argument about "trying to settle things peacefully" amusing.
The humans came to Pandora without permission, and their attempts to a "peaceful" solution was "look, we are going to do this whether you allow us or not, so you better take the glass beads and beat it or we kill you".
Again: The humans had nothing the Na'vi wanted. The Na'vi were not obligated to agree to an offer that was not of the same value as what they would give up (and to make it clear, they did not have to take any offer, period).

Well they could have just killed all the Na'vi in their when they learned that Pandora instead of trying to find some kind of compromise. They could have not offered the glass beads at all and just burned down the forest from day one. It probably would have made mining easier actually...all those trees would be out of the way. Heck they could have nuked the planet from orbit in the preceding ten years and gone in when the radiation settled down. And whether or not the humans had anything the Na'vi wanted is irrelevent. The point is that instead of coming out and just killing everything in sight they negotiated first to get what they wanted without anyone being killed.

That sounds pretty peaceful to me.

And the bulldozers were already being used, just not on settlements; they still destroyed the Na'vi's world.

As for "undeclared war"... As I said, they were fighting invaders destroying their world. It was totally justified on all levels..

Your "destroying their world" is my "digging for minerals" and completely subjective, as is whether it was justified or not. I personally think that attacking and provoking newcomers on the planet to be stupid at the least, hostile at worst, and unproductive all around.

...Anyway, to get back a bit: My personal favorite moment in the movie is the "wolf rescue" scene. I really like the acting there, plus her accent is really cute.

Mine would have to be when Jake wakes up in his avatar for the first time and realises that he can walk, especially how it's contrasted witht he scientists' reaction to it.

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-12, 04:38 PM

White_North

2010-05-12, 04:38 PM

That analogy is very flawed. The locusts had the stated goal of killing everything on Earth and stripping all of its resources before moving on to another and that this was the way their society lived and worked. I didn't see any proof that the locusts even had their own planet and always figured that they were a nomadic species. While the humans of Avatar tried time and time and time again to settle things peacefully. They tried negotiating. They tried sending in Jake to negotiate. They tried having the scientists form a cultural bridge with them. The bulldozers rolled only after all that failed. And THEN when they learned that they wrecked a sacred place Parker even let Jake and Grace try settling things peacefully AGAIN.

Well, my comparison wasn't aimed at everyone, but rather at this one poster who actually said ''No negotiation, just kill them all and go to the next planet''. But yeah, the humans did try to negociate. The problem I have is that, once negotiations failed, they tried to take the unobtainium by force. I don't understand the people who say that the unobtainium was necessary to human survival. The expedition was led by a private company, guarded by what are explicitely stated to be mercenary ex-militaries. If Pandora was really the only way for the human race to survive, they would have sent a lot more than a bundle of humans with a bunch of airships. The unobtainium is a valuable commodity, but not an essential one, and it is made abundantly clear in the movie that the company's prime aim is profit. They never say anything even remotely close to ''people on Earth need this stuff''. Just, ''it sells for 20 million dollars a kilo'' and ''shareholders won't be happy''. So yeah. I don't think that there's any basis for saying that the stuff is essential to human survival.

Also, one of the reason the Na'vi didn't just move to the left and let the humn mine is because Pandora is litterally aware and they are part of it. Large-scale mining on that place would be like lobotomizing the planet-wide consciousness and, by extention, the creatures that are part of it. So yeah. It's not the Na'vi being sociopaths and refusing the human's propositions for the heck of it. It's the Na'vi refusing to let large-scale, potentially irreparable harm to the planet and themselves because the humans refuse to believe that Eywa even exists, depite their repeated attempts to show them.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 04:39 PM

warty goblin

2010-05-12, 04:41 PM

Their peaceful (if secretly jerkish in intent, but really, they hadn't spilled that fact yet) advances were not merely ignored. That, as you say, would be a trifle uncouth, but in no way deserving of penalty.

The response from the Na'vi, however, was attempted murder.

Which is pretty good reason to call the Na'vi sociopaths.
Not really. If a large armed force showed up next to your house, and kindly offered you the right to live in your backyard while they played beer pong in your former bedroom and stripmined your front lawn, I think most people would consider any violent response on your part fairly justified defense of house and home.

And even if they are sociopaths towards humans, that hardly gives humanity the right to kill them and take their land. All it means is that they really don't want our company, in which case the proper response is to get the hell outa Dodge.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 04:46 PM

Your "destroying their world" is my "digging for minerals" and completely subjective, as is whether it was justified or not. I personally think that attacking and provoking newcomers on the planet to be stupid at the least, hostile at worst, and unproductive all around.

Its not subjective at all. Pandora is alive. The planet has a conciousness and the bulldozing of the trees and enviroment is causing direct harm to the network of conciousness. Natural disasters happen and cause harm too, but this is intentional distruction and would be a very heavy handed slap in the faces of the Na'vi.

The Na'vi live in harmony with their enviroment and it just so happens that their enviroment has a conciousness. Perhaps the human were too blind to see this or turned a deaf hear when they were told about it. Perhaps the Na'vi couldn't understand why the humans didn't know this right away. Everything in their world is connected, so why not the humans?

The humans became the bad guys when they decided they were taking what they want without regards to the Na'vi's wishes. I whole-heartedly believe the Na'vi actions in response to the humans were entirely justified, even up to shooting someone in the back, though that might have been a little extreme. Unless we've read the history of what lead up to the movie, and not just seen the movie itself, we have nothing to base the Na'vi's action on.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 04:46 PM

Your "destroying their world" is my "digging for minerals" and completely subjective, as is whether it was justified or not. I personally think that attacking and provoking newcomers on the planet to be stupid at the least, hostile at worst, and unproductive all around.

Mine would have to be when Jake wakes up in his avatar for the first time and realises that he can walk, especially how it's contrasted witht he scientists' reaction to it.

The difference here is that I put myself in their heads: You live in harmony with this wast jungle, and have for as long as your people can remember. Then these huge metal monsters come along and tear down trees, trample vegetation and bare the barren rock... Of course I am going to judge you as an aggressor, and the only reasonable way I can see your actions is as a "destroyer".
At the same time you start prospecting and can't understand why the 'dozers come back with 6 feet long arrows in them. All you do is digging for minerals.

And yes, that is my second favorite. (Btw it's obvious that the avatars are late teens or early 20ies something. Sigourney looks exactly (well except for being blue and ultra-tall) like she did at that age :smallbiggrin:)

chiasaur11

2010-05-12, 04:49 PM

The problem with that reasoning is that the mere establishing of the base and landing site for the shuttle, would be enough to be deemed as an attack by the Na'vi. The 'dozers, even if they "only" strip "regular" jungle, is too.

So, wait.

Humans even show up, it's an invasion, and the Na'vi can do whatever they want to us.

And bare no moral responsibility for their actions.

Well, geeze. Where'd they get their moral unimpeachability, because I know I want some of that.

"Oh, no officer. He didn't 'do' anything, per se, but he was looking at my house kinda funny, so that rocket launcher was necessary."

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 04:52 PM

And yes, that is my second favorite. (Btw it's obvious that the avatars are late teens or early 20ies something. Sigourney looks exactly (well except for being blue and ultra-tall) like she did at that age )

The scene where Jake wakes up in the Avatar body is my favorite scene as well. I have a brother who shares a similar condition with Jake (military related, wheelchair) though can still walk with the aid of a prostetic. When Jake digs his toes into the dirt, it really means something to me. That's something my brother can't do.

So, wait.

Humans even show up, it's an invasion, and the Na'vi can do whatever they want to us.

And bare no moral responsibility for their actions.

Well, geeze. Where'd they get their moral unimpeachability, because I know I want some of that.

"Oh, no officer. He didn't 'do' anything, per se, but he was looking at my house kinda funny, so that rocket launcher was necessary."

No, humans show up. (OK, hi, how are you?)
Humans tear up a big section of jungle to build a base. (Hold on there!)
Human start tearing up more jungle without repairing or giving back to the jungle, and keep taking and taking. (Ok, now we're angry!)

Its like someone burning down your favorite rose bush in the garden and putting a toilet there, where they crap every morning and expect you to deal with it. Better example, toilet in your kitchen, crapping while you eat and then asking you why you don't give them privacy.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 04:56 PM

So, wait.

Humans even show up, it's an invasion, and the Na'vi can do whatever they want to us.

And bare no moral responsibility for their actions.

Well, geeze. Where'd they get their moral unimpeachability, because I know I want some of that.

"Oh, no officer. He didn't 'do' anything, per se, but he was looking at my house kinda funny, so that rocket launcher was necessary."

No, the correct quote would be:
"Oh no officer, He didn't 'do' anything, per se, just burning down my barn and asphalted my back yard and declared he lives there now"

Edit: Ninjad by Eldonauran, who said it much better.

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-12, 04:57 PM

The difference here is that I put myself in their heads: You live in harmony with this wast jungle, and have for as long as your people can remember. Then these huge metal monsters come along and tear down trees, trample vegetation and bare the barren rock... Of course I am going to judge you as an aggressor, and the only reasonable way I can see your actions is as a "destroyer".
At the same time you start prospecting and can't understand why the 'dozers come back with 6 feet long arrows in them. All you do is digging for minerals.

And yes, that is my second favorite. (Btw it's obvious that the avatars are late teens or early 20ies something. Sigourney looks exactly (well except for being blue and ultra-tall) like she did at that age :smallbiggrin:)

Then why not look at it from the dozer drivers' perspective? You come to this place because of a good job opportunity. The company is paying you big bucks for this mineral in the ground. It's a dangerous place but as long as you stay inside the truck you're fine. Then these big blue guys start shooting arrows at you without any warning. You think a few WTFs and suddenly are afraid to go out there again in case they just jump out of the jungle to kill you. Heck, those guys don't know what's going on until the business guys and scientists start talking to them.

I guess they'd grow them to be that age for peak physical fitness. Heh...I thought it was a nice touch too to play basketball with the avatars. Being nine feet tall would sure help

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:01 PM

Then why not look at it from the dozer drivers' perspective? You come to this place because of a good job opportunity. The company is paying you big bucks for this mineral in the ground. It's a dangerous place but as long as you stay inside the truck you're fine. Then these big blue guys start shooting arrows at you without any warning. You think a few WTFs and suddenly are afraid to go out there again in case they just jump out of the jungle to kill you. Heck, those guys don't know what's going on until the business guys and scientists start talking to them.

I guess they'd grow them to be that age for peak physical fitness. Heh...I thought it was a nice touch too to play basketball with the avatars. Being nine feet tall would sure help

Twelve feet, actually AFAIR. And if you look at the propotions where actual humans on foot are right beside (like in the lab) they do look pretty exactly twice as tall. But yes, that was fun to watch.

And you are right, but they should be able to guess.

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 05:05 PM

because the humans refuse to believe that Eywa even exists, depite their repeated attempts to show them.
What attempts would those be? Shooting their trucks? Or would that be the part where they go around shooting people in the back? Maybe when they refused to communicate at all? Yeah, doing a real good job showing them.

The only reason any humans knew about the smart jungle was because the smurfs told the marine, and the marine told the scientists, and the one scientist did such a half-assed and terrible job of explaining herself to the corporate guy, that he was pretty justified in blowing her off. As far as anyone important (read: capable of making decisions) knew, the trees were just trees. And the only reason any humans at all knew, was because the marine infiltrated their society.

Axolotl

2010-05-12, 05:05 PM

Then why not look at it from the dozer drivers' perspective? You come to this place because of a good job opportunity. The company is paying you big bucks for this mineral in the ground. It's a dangerous place but as long as you stay inside the truck you're fine. Then these big blue guys start shooting arrows at you without any warning. You think a few WTFs and suddenly are afraid to go out there again in case they just jump out of the jungle to kill you. Heck, those guys don't know what's going on until the business guys and scientists start talking to them.Isn't that the whole Clerks arguement of people working on the Death Star though? You have to accept the risks which come with invadeing other peoples homes.

Also to the people saying the Navi are evil or sociopathic, do you also consider White blood cells to be evil and monstrous things?

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:08 PM

I am sorry, but this naive belief that if the Na'vi just moved a little to the left, the humans would not, eventually, reach that place too is almost funny. The analog with Independence Day is not a TOTALLY perfect one, because the humans would not immediately kill all Na'vi and take over the whole planet at once. They would encroach them, eventually put them into camps, and slowly consume the planet.

Wow, the level of assumptions and misinterpretation in your post is almost funny. 'Naive?' They wanted the Unobtainium, not the Navi's little hellhole of a planet. If there were other large quantities of it, they wouldn't be wasting the time and effort with this one. Next, 'Camps,' Really? Did you see a single scene implying the humans wanted the Navi's land? Once the mineral is gone, they couldn't care less, and again, you're assuming they'd strip mine the planet when there is zero implication that there are large quantities of this stuff anywhere else on the entire planet.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 05:10 PM

What attempts would those be? Shooting their trucks? Or would that be the part where they go around shooting people in the back? Maybe when they refused to communicate at all? Yeah, doing a real good job showing them.

The only reason any humans knew about the smart jungle was because the smurfs told the marine, and the marine told the scientists, and the one scientist did such a half-assed and terrible job of explaining herself to the corporate guy, that he was pretty justified in blowing her off. As far as anyone important (read: capable of making decisions) knew, the trees were just trees. And the only reason any humans at all knew, was because the marine infiltrated their society.

If anyone of importance (Note: able to make decisions) had cared about the Na'vi, they would have made more of an effort to find out why they are so pissed off. They were worried about making money and had a timeline. Screw the Na'vi. Let's give the scientist a month to figure it out and then bulldoze everything becuase, that's right, we're going to be there in a month anyway!

And the Na'vi did try to teach the scientist when the school existed but as the 'shaman' of the tribe said, You can not fill a cup that is already full. In this context, that means you can't explain something to someone that thinks they know everything already.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:13 PM

Wow, the level of assumptions and misinterpretation in your post is almost funny. 'Naive?' They wanted the Unobtainium, not the Navi's little hellhole of a planet. If there were other large quantities of it, they wouldn't be wasting the time and effort with this one. Next, 'Camps,' Really? Did you see a single scene implying the humans wanted the Navi's land? Once the mineral is gone, they couldn't care less, and again, you're assuming they'd strip mine the planet when there is zero implication that there are large quantities of this stuff anywhere else on the entire planet.

"The largest deposit within 20 clicks in any direction". That is all.

Oh and this is what their jungle would look like after the humans were done. I think that, alone, justifies killing humans on sight.
http://www.stri.org/english/about_stri/media/press_releases/fotos/PR_STR_Flight_1022_1519.jpg

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-12, 05:13 PM

Twelve feet, actually AFAIR. And if you look at the propotions where actual humans on foot are right beside (like in the lab) they do look pretty exactly twice as tall. But yes, that was fun to watch.

And you are right, but they should be able to guess.

Twelve then. That sort of bugs me in a nitpicking kind of way...when they say "So and So are this big" but just looking at the screen shows something different. Not that I care mostly, just that when it's pointed out it's kind of annoying. Ah well. The whole scene with the banshees was preety cool too...don't know why but when I hear someone call someone else a 'scown' I just laugh.

I'll definitely say that that aspect could have been much worse though, the showing other sides point of view thing I mean.

pinwiz

2010-05-12, 05:16 PM

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 05:16 PM

"The largest deposit within 20 clicks in any direction". That is all.

Oh and this is what their jungle would look like after the humans were done. I think that, alone, justifies killing humans on sight.
http://www.stri.org/english/about_stri/media/press_releases/fotos/PR_STR_Flight_1022_1519.jpg

I agree 100%. And remember, this is probably what the base looked like before they actually started building it, after they torn the trees down. I would have gone all ninja on the human had I seen that from the back of my banshee.

Hooray for "justified" murder. Murder + Murder =/= harmony.

Actually, from the Na'vi perspective, it would be entirely justified. You take life from the land without due regard and give nothing back? Well, your life will feed the land and it will rise anew from your blood!

"All energy is only borrowed. One day, you have to give it back."

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:23 PM

"The largest deposit within 20 clicks in any direction". That is all.

Oh and this is what their jungle would look like after the humans were done. I think that, alone, justifies killing humans on sight.

Considering the sheer trouble the Navi end up being, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't try another large deposit if one existed. I'm sorry, but was their mention of strip mining until well into the film, when tensions were reaching the boiling point?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:26 PM

Hooray for "justified" murder. Murder + Murder =/= harmony. Neither side was perfect.

Again: La Resistance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaResistance), not murder.

(Besides, where is this weird notion that killing != living in harmony with nature coming from? Not asking you, per se, but I have seen a lot of posts about this movie where that is an argument against the Na'vi)

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:28 PM

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 05:29 PM

Considering the sheer trouble the Navi end up being, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't try another large deposit if one existed. I'm sorry, but was their mention of strip mining until well into the film, when tensions were reaching the boiling point?

The humans were not prepared for the onslaught from the Na'vi and the planet. They though they were nothing but savages with bows and arrows. They thought they had the biggest stick and could crush them at any time. If the Na'vi were nothing more than a minor nuisance, why not crush them when the next largest despoit is fartehr out than I am willing to wait for my next paycheck?

Mining was mentioned fairly early in the movie. With vehicles that big, nothing short of 'strip mining' could be assumed. It was the main reason Jake was sent to learn from the Na'vi.

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:31 PM

As Eldonauran points out, and I failed to point out apparently, this is also how the base and landing area would have looked like before the tarmac and the buildings were raised. Of course the Na'vi thinks it's an attack.

Ah, the base, not the mining then; thought we were still on that topic; now forgive my ignorance, but I saw the film in theaters and didn't want to shell money on the DVD so my memory is a little sketchy, but are there other Navi' tribes? And if so, do all of the tribes live in harmony, or is there tension between them on occasion as well?

The humans were not prepared for the onslaught from the Na'vi and the planet. They though they were nothing but savages with bows and arrows. They thought they had the biggest stick and could crush them at any time. If the Na'vi were nothing more than a minor nuisance, why not crush them when the next largest despoit is fartehr out than I am willing to wait for my next paycheck?

Mining was mentioned fairly early in the movie. With vehicles that big, nothing short of 'strip mining' could be assumed. It was the main reason Jake was sent to learn from the Na'vi.

Why bother try negotiation then? Why not crush them at the start, then? The Navi are the ones escalating the issue here, not the humans(for once), considering that the Navi are the ones attacking Dozers, while the humans are still attempting to work out things with the tribe.

pinwiz

2010-05-12, 05:35 PM

Again: La Resistance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaResistance), not murder.

(Besides, where is this weird notion that killing != living in harmony with nature coming from? Not asking you, per se, but I have seen a lot of posts about this movie where that is an argument against the Na'vi)

I think it's conterproductive to kill people for any reason. That's a personal opinion that I believe applies to the movie. If neither the Na'vi nor the humans murdered each other, then the talks might have succeeded, which I think is a point the movie tries to make.

Actually, from the Na'vi perspective, it would be entirely justified. You take life from the land without due regard and give nothing back? Well, your life will feed the land and it will rise anew from your blood!

"All energy is only borrowed. One day, you have to give it back."

So then if the world is a living thing, wouldn't the death of the plants and animals give rise to a new life?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:36 PM

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 05:36 PM

Ah, the base, not the mining then; thought we were still on that topic; now forgive my ignorance, but I saw the film in theaters and didn't want to shell money on the DVD so my memory is a little sketchy, but are there other Navi' tribes? And if so, do all of the tribes live in harmony, or is there tension between them on occasion as well?

Oh, yes. Tons of other tribes. In fact, Jake gathered those tribes to fight back, but he didn't even come close to gathering all of the Na'vi.

All the Na'vi live in harmony with nature. The movie doesn't show much about them aside from the rallying to fight the humans, but they are quite diverse and even gather together when a big enough threat appears. I am quite sure there are some minor disputes between tribes, but it is never mentioned.

Why bother try negotiation then? Why not crush them at the start, then? The Navi are the ones escalating the issue here, not the humans(for once), considering that the Navi are the ones attacking Dozers, while the humans are still attempting to work out things with the tribe.

That one is easy. Bad press. There are apparently still enviromentalists and humanitarians during that future time of the movie. The mining company probably didn't want to get their investors angry.

Mr. Scaly

2010-05-12, 05:36 PM

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:38 PM

So then if the world is a living thing, wouldn't the death of the plants and animals give rise to a new life?

Only if it is allowed to. They always pray over kills, for example, and I am sure that the humans screw the whole deal up by making the land barren, so new plants CANT grow there. Part of the whole "cover with asphalt / concrete" deal.

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:40 PM

Well the mining would probably look like that too, and that was my intent with that picture.

And yes, several tribes. Remember the Horse Clan and the Sea CLiff side clan?

Anyway, as far as I understand it from reading some background material there are occasional tensions (which is why they are also Proud Warrior Guys) but at this moment the tensions had been dying down for quite a while. Apparently there used to be more infighting earlier in their history (probably before her great grandfather united the tribes last time).

Then why do the primary Navi' clan have anymore right to any portion of the jungle than the humans? I'm not talking about the village over the Home Tree here, but say, the area for the base. There is one village, how far out from said village does their right really extend?

pinwiz

2010-05-12, 05:41 PM

Only if it is allowed to. They always pray over kills, for example, and I am sure that the humans screw the whole deal up by making the land barren, so new plants CANT grow there. Part of the whole "cover with asphalt / concrete" deal.

This may be semantics, but covering things with concrete/asphalt is a very temporary barrenness. With as diverse a plant life as exists on Pandora, the humans would've had to turn the entire planet into a moon like rock to really make it so plants can't grow there.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 05:42 PM

Only if it is allowed to. They always pray over kills, for example, and I am sure that the humans screw the whole deal up by making the land barren, so new plants CANT grow there. Part of the whole "cover with asphalt / concrete" deal.

Adding to this.

Ewya is a real entity to the Na'vi and proven real when the 'doctor' is dying and acknowledges the existance of Ewya. The Na'vi pray to Ewya to accept the animal spirit and pray to the animal spirit to apologize for taking its life and urging it to join with Ewya to be reborn.

I am not sure if the Na'vi believe an unclean kill breaks this process or not, but it is a very important part of their belief system to make a clean kill. It is what makes Jake worthy of claiming a Banshee and being 'reborn' in to the Na'vi as one of their own.

Then why do the primary Navi' clan have anymore right to any portion of the jungle than the humans? I'm not talking about the village over the Home Tree here, but say, the area for the base. There is one village, how far out from said village does their right really extend?

There is no legal system. Its more tribal and a reflection of the native american culture. The Na'vi live in harmony with nature and do not over-populate the area or over-hunt it either. The tribes are probably spaced out so they do not put a strain on the resources of the planet.

Besides, having a 'right' to the land doesn't exist in the Na'vi culture. It is not their land. The land belongs to everyone and no one. You lose the 'right' to the land if you abuse the land. The humans did a lot more than abuse the land. To the Na'vi, they desicrated and tortured the land.

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:46 PM

There is no legal system. Its more tribal and a reflection of the native american culture. The Na'vi live in harmony with nature and do not over-populate the area or over-hunt it either. The tribes are probably spaced out so they do not put a strain on the resources of the planet.

They have no unified government though, so really, how far does one village's right get to extend? They've been battles, and one tribe doesn't rush to aid another until Jake shows up, so the tribes are separate entities not directly bound to each other, rather than united states or cities.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:47 PM

Then why do the primary Navi' clan have anymore right to any portion of the jungle than the humans? I'm not talking about the village over the Home Tree here, but say, the area for the base. There is one village, how far out from said village does their right really extend?

I think you see a problem where there is none. Borders only exists if there is nations.

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:48 PM

I think you see a problem where there is none. Borders only exists if there is nations.

Then why the point about the base being worthy of attack?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 05:49 PM

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 05:49 PM

They have no unified government though, so really, how far does one village's right get to extend? They've been battles, and one tribe doesn't rush to aid another until Jake shows up, so the tribes are separate entities not directly bound to each other, rather than united states or cities.

A unified government is not necessary for the Na'vi. They are bound to each other by Ewya, the planet and their dead-but-still-present ancestors. The Na'vi can link with Ewya and all the animals in the world, even with themselves. 'Every plant is connected to every plant by their roots, in a vast network that spans the entire planet'. Ewya is like a god to them and Ewya protects the balance of life. Therefor, the Na'vi do as well.

Then why the point about the base being worthy of attack?

If you saw the picture of strip mining ... that is what the humans did to the land in order to build their base. This would have set off the Na'vi fairly quickly.

doliest

2010-05-12, 05:54 PM

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-12, 06:02 PM

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 06:03 PM

My point in all this is that the humans have as much right to any given piece of land as the Navi do if it's outside the basic borders of a village. Considering how long it takes for the humans to figure out about the hive-intelligence(really, the Navi couldn't have brought up the concept better? A simplistic-'We plug our hair into things and they respond' could have explained it pretty well.) I'd say that the Navi were being pretty rash early on.

There are a few issues with that, however.

1) The humans have no rights to the land. It is not their planet. To the Na'vi, land can not be owned, only shared. Owning the land gives people the idea that they can do whatever they want with it without consequence. If anyone 'owns' the land, that would be Ewya. Saying the Na'vi/humans own the land would be like saying the bacteria in your body owns your body. ALl life on the planet exists on an even greater lifeform made from the combination of the whole.

2) The Na'vi know nothing about the humans. They first thought them visitors from the sky. How where the Na'vi supposed to know that where the humans come from, they have no Ewya? For all the Na'vi know, the human just came down and started kill everything without regard to hurting their Ewya (god).

3) There was a language barrier at first and some terms might not have been easily translated (like planet wide intelligence that you are hurting without regard). Even afterwards, the humans stopped caring when they found the big deposit and realised the Na'vi had primitive weapons and posed little threat to them.

doliest

2010-05-12, 06:04 PM

I disagree; but you already know that :smallsmile:.

About the explaining part: Imagine explaining the concept of eyesight to a creature that has not evolved eyes? Same thing. It's extremely difficult.

How about 'Show don't tell' then? I understand the importance of the stuff on an almost religious scale, but really, drag a suited scientist to the tree, show them someone plugging in, and BOOM! An explanation that makes a whole lot more sense to the humans and requires little effort.

There are a few issues with that, however.

1) The humans have no rights to the land. It is not their planet. To the Na'vi, land can not be owned, only shared. Owning the land gives people the idea that they can do whatever they want with it without consequence. If anyone 'owns' the land, that would be Ewya.

2) The Na'vi know nothing about the humans. They first thought them visitors from the sky. How where the Na'vi supposed to know that where the humans come from, they have no Ewya? For all the Na'vi know, the human just came down and started kill everything without regard to hurting their Ewya (god).

3) There was a language barrier at first and some terms might not have been easily translated (like planet wide intelligence that you are hurting without regard). Even afterwards, the humans stopped caring when they found the big deposit and realised the Na'vi had primitive weapons and posed little threat to them.

The humans still cared, with the exception of Colonel Mcawesome, or again, they would have nuked the village from SPACE. In the case of 2, both of them were ignorant of the other, it's not really a good excuse for immediate violence.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 06:18 PM

How about 'Show don't tell' then? I understand the importance of the stuff on an almost religious scale, but really, drag a suited scientist to the tree, show them someone plugging in, and BOOM! An explanation that makes a whole lot more sense to the humans and requires little effort.

Ah, I share the same 'religious scale' understanding that you do, however, its not that easy. The sites where the Na'vi can 'plug' into the network are considered holy and forbidden to outsiders. Also, I can't say the Na'vi hadn't already tried to do this, since much of what happened at the school was never mentioned. The 'shaman' did mention that they had tried to teach the other scientist but they didn't learn. "It is difficult to fill a cup that is already full".

The humans still cared, with the exception of Colonel Mcawesome, or again, they would have nuked the village from SPACE. In the case of 2, both of them were ignorant of the other, it's not really a good excuse for immediate violence.

I wouldn't say they cared. They made the decision to take the land by force in the end, even if they had the best intentions at first. I would argue they were more worried about bad PR and press. If they could have gotten away with it, I honestly believe they would have considered nuking the Na'vi and taken what they wanted by force. Whats the difference in wearing a mask to mine so you can breathe or a suit to protect from radiation? Not much.

Also, considering the best the humans could have done was blow up a tree with mining explosives, I believe they didn't have access to a nuke. All the 'military' personel on site were merely rented by the mining corporation or hired as mercs. The true 'military' wasnt even present on Pandora

pinwiz

2010-05-12, 06:27 PM

Ah, I share the same 'religious scale' understanding that you do, however, its not that easy. The sites where the Na'vi can 'plug' into the network are considered holy and forbidden to outsiders. Also, I can't say the Na'vi hadn't already tried to do this, since much of what happened at the school was never mentioned. The 'shaman' did mention that they had tried to teach the other scientist but they didn't learn. "It is difficult to fill a cup that is already full".

So the Na'vi said "oh, we can't show them logically what is happening to our planet, because our belief says it's forbidden, so lets murder them all instead." Is that what you're saying?

Not saying that it would've helped, what with most of the scientist being hired by the mining company, but might it not have been better to shelve their religion for a day or two to simply avoid an immense conflict?

doliest

2010-05-12, 06:28 PM

In this case, 'Nuke' was merely a hyperbole to imply wiping them out with a massively superior force. If PR was the problem, they wouldn't have chosen violence period. As a side note, I'm really hoping for a sequel where the actual military shows up and beats up the Navi, mostly because it would be a hilarious Curbstomp which could evolve into a better exploration of the 'Planet Loci' concept the movie brought up.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 06:40 PM

So the Na'vi said "oh, we can't show them logically what is happening to our planet, because our belief says it's forbidden, so lets murder them all instead." Is that what you're saying?

No, that's twisting the words around to make them sound harsher than they really are. The Na'vi were perfectly willing to teach the humans their ways and once accepted in the Na'vi (like Jake), they would have been shown the sacred areas. What can be concluded from the movie is that the scientist were either unable to learn what was being taught or ignorant enough to disregard it.

And, honestly. If you were told by someone that there is a vast network of intelligence preserving the balance of life on the planet but they had no concrete way to show this to you, would you be skeptical? Oh, you stuck you weird tentacle hair thing on the tree and its talking to you? I can't hear anything but neat trick!

Not saying that it would've helped, what with most of the scientist being hired by the mining company, but might it not have been better to shelve their religion for a day or two to simply avoid an immense conflict?

I wouldn't call it religion. It is simply how the world works to the Na'vi. The areas were considered sacred to protect them and keep them from harm. And honestly, do you believe the humans would have listened? I dont. I think they would have tried to weasel and cloud their way past this excuse but instigating an even bigger conflict and taking it another way.

I'm hurting your god! Well, you're hurting mine! Mine says to kill your's and you too! Oh, you just killed one of my people because he pissed on your tree! I declare war!

I believe that would have happened, very honestly.

If PR was the problem, they wouldn't have chosen violence period. As a side note, I'm really hoping for a sequel where the actual military shows up and beats up the Navi, mostly because it would be a hilarious Curbstomp which could evolve into a better exploration of the 'Planet Loci' concept the movie brought up.

PR was a problem, but not a big enough problem for them to keep them from taking everything by force. They just needed to find a way to justify what they were doing, even if it was questionable justification.

As much as I would feel for the Na'vi if the military came and stopped them down, I welcome this with open arms. It will give the humans a real taste of what the plaent (Ewya) can do. I don't care how big your army is, you are like a grain of sand to the planet and it WILL crush you.

Seraph

2010-05-12, 06:40 PM

Its more tribal and a reflection of the sterilized and parodically incorrect view of native american culture held by modern white americans in a misguided attempt to feel better about themselves without actually having to do anything positive.

fixed that for you. Native Americans did have a system for crime and punishment, they just didn't call it as such. It was the system of "be enslaved to the person you wronged until they feel like letting you go, or be executed (depending on what you did.)"

Borders only exists if there is nations.

wrong.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 06:45 PM

fixed that for you. Native Americans did have a system for crime and punishment, they just didn't call it as such. It was the system of "be enslaved to the person you wronged until they feel like letting you go, or be executed (depending on what you did.)"

Thanks! I was generalizing when I posted that. I am well aware of the system for crime and punishment (I didn't want to get into another debate that would side track the thread when the inevitable person trying to argue with me attempts to pick my posts apart and ignore the bulk of th topic). It wasn't perfect (nothing is) but my ancestors had a few good ideas (I am part Native American).

The Big Dice

2010-05-12, 06:49 PM

Here's the thing with Avatar: it's far too obvious. You knew exactly where the movie was going to go when you saw the trailer. Because the plot is just that obvious.

And the allegories are just as obvious. The Na'vi are the Native Americans, the Earth guys are the gold mining companies during the Gold Rush years.

It's that simple. James Cameron has guilt issues with American history, just look at his treatment of the Vietnam war, aka Aliens.

I predict that the sequel will see the humans return to Pandora and move the Na'vi onto reservations at gunpoint. And then when Unobtanium veins are found in the Na'vi reservations, the company will send troops in to drive them out. At which point we'll get more bows and arrows against the lightning kind of 3D action sequences.

pinwiz

2010-05-12, 06:50 PM

No, that's twisting the words around to make them sound harsher than they really are. The Na'vi were perfectly willing to teach the humans their ways and once accepted in the Na'vi (like Jake), they would have been shown the sacred areas. What can be concluded from the movie is that the scientist were either unable to learn what was being taught or ignorant enough to disregard it.

And, honestly. If you were told by someone that there is a vast network of intelligence preserving the balance of life on the planet but they had no concrete way to show this to you, would you be skeptical? Oh, you stuck you weird tentacle hair thing on the tree and its talking to you? I can't hear anything but neat trick!

I wouldn't call it religion. It is simply how the world works to the Na'vi. The areas were considered sacred to protect them and keep them from harm. And honestly, do you believe the humans would have listened? I dont. I think they would have tried to weasel and cloud their way past this excuse but instigating an even bigger conflict and taking it another way.

I'm hurting your god! Well, you're hurting mine! Mine says to kill your's and you too! Oh, you just killed one of my people because he pissed on your tree! I declare war!

I believe that would have happened, very honestly.

I like those answers. I phrased them as questions to reflect my confusion and misunderstanding. Though i'm confused at what the "I'm hurting your god!..." thing at the end of your post is trying to say....

Anyway, the point i'm trying to reflect with posting in here is that it's wrong to say that one side is Good and one side is Bad, both sides have their flaws. Though I wouldn't argue that the Humans weren't worse.

Here's the thing with Avatar: it's far too obvious. You knew exactly where the movie was going to go when you saw the trailer. Because the plot is just that obvious.

And the allegories are just as obvious. The Na'vi are the Native Americans, the Earth guys are the gold mining companies during the Gold Rush years.

It's that simple. James Cameron has guilt issues with American history, just look at his treatment of the Vietnam war, aka Aliens.

I predict that the sequel will see the humans return to Pandora and move the Na'vi onto reservations at gunpoint. And then when Unobtanium veins are found in the Na'vi reservations, the company will send troops in to drive them out. At which point we'll get more bows and arrows against the lightning kind of 3D action sequences.

And I agree with this as for my opinion on the movie. While every story has been told, some amount of unpredictability is favorable in my mind. It was a good movie, just not the epic awesome masterpiece of the ages that some people like to tout it as.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-12, 06:54 PM

As much as I would feel for the Na'vi if the military came and stopped them down, I welcome this with open arms. It will give the humans a real taste of what the plaent (Ewya) can do. I don't care how big your army is, you are like a grain of sand to the planet and it WILL crush you.

I think you're underestimating what humans can do when really pissed off and unconcerned with things like PR or budget limits. For example, as much as Ewya has (agreeably) tremendous, almost indescribably physical assets with which to wage war, quite possible more than there are bullets and missiles to kill them, consider its vulnerabilities. It'd be vastly not-worth it for the humans to conquer Pandora acre-by-acre with conventional weaponry, especially the sort they've shown in-film.

But every single species on the planet, every planet and animal, is biologically compatible into this gestalt consciousness. Imagine how much devastation could be wrought with a single, fatal and highly contagious virus/plague, genetically tailored towards Pandora's unique (and sentient) biosphere then set loose? Ewya's no Tyranid/Zerge hivemind, it's beyond absurd to assume that it could someone instantly evolve proper defenses...and in a world where every single living organism is in harmony, you're hideously open against a deliberate, customized attack at the biological level that's been designed to bypass the defenses you do have (identified via samples, which they must have, since they were able to grow clones of the predominant native species in a lab).

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 07:07 PM

Anyway, the point i'm trying to reflect with posting in here is that it's wrong to say that one side is Good and one side is Bad, both sides have their flaws. Though I wouldn't argue that the Humans weren't worse.

I agree both sides had their flaws but I firmly believe the humans were 'the bad guys' in this movie. I can accept that all the killing at first was a misunderstanding and could have been moved past but the humans took advantage of the situation and keep pushing. Nothing is perfect but the Na'vi reactions to the humans is completely and utterly justifiable if you can center your mind around the Na'vi culture and teachings.

The humans could have apologized and been the better man. They chose to repeat their past mistakes (take everything they want when they are the stronger party). This time, it bit them in the ass.

I think you're underestimating what humans can do when really pissed off and unconcerned with things like PR or budget limits. For example, as much as Ewya has (agreeably) tremendous, almost indescribably physical assets with which to wage war, quite possible more than there are bullets and missiles to kill them, consider its vulnerabilities. It'd be vastly not-worth it for the humans to conquer Pandora acre-by-acre with conventional weaponry, especially the sort they've shown in-film.

But every single species on the planet, every planet and animal, is biologically compatible into this gestalt consciousness. Imagine how much devastation could be wrought with a single, fatal and highly contagious virus/plague, genetically tailored towards Pandora's unique (and sentient) biosphere then set loose? Ewya's no Tyranid/Zerge hivemind, it's beyond absurd to assume that it could someone instantly evolve proper defenses...and in a world where every single living organism is in harmony, you're hideously open against a deliberate, customized attack at the biological level that's been designed to bypass the defenses you do have (identified via samples, which they must have, since they were able to grow clones of the predominant native species in a lab).

Oh, I can imagine what evils the humans can do but you have to remember, Ewya has a secret (or not so secret) weapon now. Jake Sully. Jake knows all about human history and what they can and will do. I bet the Pandoran world is going to go through a lot of changes in the next few decades that it takes humans to gather and send their military. By then, Ewya could have altered all the animals genetic codes so that virus targeting its structure fail, improved the armor of the next generation of rhino-beasts to withstand higher calibur rounds, and other things.

Ewya has been around a very long time and for all we know, has a very vast pool of knowledge about what changes it can make or affect without harming itself.

Tyrant

2010-05-12, 07:17 PM

I more or less agree with Texas Ben's outlook on all this (and Pita's). I think that the Na'vi did act like complete jerks. Yes, they have the right to refuse the offer. However, I think it's just polite to at least hear the offer even if you have every intention of turning it down. Does that justify the human "reaction", probably not. Having said that, if this were something that was in any way important for the humans, they showed tremendous restraint and I would find the humans completely justified in wiping them out to obtain it (if they refused to even attempt to negotiate). This movie doesn't even come close to what people would really do if they were anywhere near as evil as we are supposed to believe from this movie. If the humans were that evil, they would just kill the Na'vi at will and not even bother with trying to cultivate any kind of relations. Instead we get water downed evil, that people are playing up to the point of cheering the deaths of the humans. Please. The people in this movie aren't even close to the levels humans can reach when they want something that someone else has. I think it's a clear sign of advancement that they even tried to communicate peacefully at first.

The humans at least tried to reach an agreement. They spent a ton of money on the Avatar project and serious time. They tried to let things work out. If the Na'vi would've tried explaining things to the scientist, or if Jake would've done his job on any level, things could've been quite different. I can only imagine the scientific possibilities of what the wildlife on Pandora is capable of could be a very valuable commodity. Possibly valuable enough to either slow down the mining or to convince them to stop and find a less inhabited area. But no. We can't have that when we have a moral anvil to hit people with. Instead we are left with either rooting for the jerks with backward ways, lead by a traitor. Or, the company who at least attempted civility before going into relocation mode and only going into full extermination mode as a defensive measure. Honestly, I was rooting for the humans and I felt sorry for the other Na'vi tribes that got sucked into the madness.

I blame Jake for all of it.

As for the cries of hypocrisy, that's funny. I assume everyone posting here is using a computer, which is made of parts that are oil byproducts or mined minerals. Fueled by electricity that is likely either coal or nuclear in nature, both of which are mined*. Wearing clothes I am going to assume they didn't make themselves with materials they didn't collect (not to mention there are likely unnatural and metallic components). The same with their food. And living in a house made of either wood (from "murdered" trees) or concrete (which contains stone that has to be quarried and ties up water supplies). While praising a movie that is only possible due to our advanced technology that is a byproduct of this "evil" system of progress. That's without even going into the massive waste of resources the movie itself represents and what the money used in it's production and that it generated could've done to actually try to improve things. This is right up there with using cutting edge technology to tell people technology will kill them (T2, awesome movie though it was).

I wonder why Cameron thought the Xenomorphs in Aliens had to be wiped out with nuclear force? The humans were the inavders there too, so the colonists all got what they deserved right? I mean, they worked for the evil corporation and were there to transform the planet. They were even worse than the humans in Avatar because they actually did plan on taking over the planet. I guess the same rights don't apply if your species isn't cute and fuzzy and is given an unapologetic portrayal.

*Or windmills, made of metal, which is mined and refined (releasing some lovely chemical byproducts). Or hydroelectric plants, which require the blocking and redirecting of waterways and flooding areas, and they use lots of metal and concrete (which contains stone that is quarried). I suppose solar is less intrusive.

Edit to add:

Oh, I can imagine what evils the humans can do but you have to remember, Ewya has a secret (or not so secret) weapon now. Jake Sully. Jake knows all about human history and what they can and will do. I bet the Pandoran world is going to go through a lot of changes in the next few decades that it takes humans to gather and send their military. By then, Ewya could have altered all the animals genetic codes so that virus targeting its structure fail, improved the armor of the next generation of rhino-beasts to withstand higher calibur rounds, and other things.

Ewya has been around a very long time and for all we know, has a very vast pool of knowledge about what changes it can make or affect without harming itself.
Really? The guy who wasn't bright enough to at least try to do the job that was given to him is supremely knowledgeable of any and all possible counterattacks from Earth. And, the same planet wide intelligence that waited until the last minute instead of just killing the humans at the start is going to be anywhere near as proactive as you are saying it will be (even if we make the giant assumption that it can be that proactive). What's the big plan when the humans simply set up shop in orbit with a larger facility ready to attack in a biological manner once they have a viable sample or simply start nuking the surface at will? The humans were there long enough to apply everything we know about damaging our own planet to start really screwing up Pandora.

Nothing is perfect but the Na'vi reactions to the humans is completely and utterly justifiable if you can center your mind around the Na'vi culture and teachings.
Amazingly, no one blames the Na'vi for not trying to understand the humans yet they expect the humans to bend over backwards to understand them (which they did, that was the whole point of the Avatar project). Being human, I completely understand the human idea that "enough is enough".

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 07:28 PM

I more or less agree with Texas Ben's outlook on all this (and Pita's). I think that the N'avi did act like complete jerks. Yes, they have the right to refuse the offer. However, I think it's just polite to at least hear the offer even if you have every intention of turning it down. Does that justify the human "reaction", probably not. Having said that, if this were something that was in any way important for the humans, they showed tremendous restraint and I would find the humans completely justified in wiping them out to obtain it (if they refused to even attempt to negotiate). This movie doesn't even come close to what people would really do if they were anywhere near as evil as we are supposed to believe from this movie. If the humans were that evil, they would just kill the N'avi at will and not even bother with trying to cultivate any kind of relations. Instead we get water downed evil, that people are playing up to the point of cheering the deaths of the humans. Please. The people in this movie aren't even close to the levels humans can reach when they want something that someone else has. I think it's a clear sign of advancement that they even tried to communicate peacefully at first.

The humans at least tried to reach an agreement. They spent a ton of money on the Avatar project and serious time. They tried to let things work out. If the N'avi would've tried explaining things to the scientist, or if Jake would've done his job on any level, things could've been quite different. I can only imagine the scientific possibilities of what the wildlife on Pandora is capable of could be a very valuable commodity. Possibly valuable enough to either slow down the mining or to convince them to stop and find a less inhabited area. But no. We can't have that when we have a moral anvil to hit people with. Instead we are left with either rooting for the jerks with backward ways, lead by a traitor. Or, the company who at least attempted civility before going into relocation mode and only going into full extermination mode as a defensive measure. Honestly, I was rooting for the humans and I felt sorry for the other N'avi tribes that got sucked into the madness.

All I have to say to this is: The original colonists played nice too, until they grew powerful enough to take what they wanted from the Native Americans. They had to play nice. They had no idea what the Native Americans could do in response. (Do they have guns? Bigger weapons? Something we've never seen? Let's be cautious so we don't get killed first)

As for the cries of hypocrisy, that's funny. I assume everyone posting here is using a computer, which is made of parts that are oil byproducts or mined minerals. Fueled by electricity that is likely either coal or nuclear in nature, both of which are mined*. Wearing clothes I am going to assume they didn't make themselves with materials they didn't collect (not to mention there are likely unnatural and metallic components). The same with their food. And living in a house made of either wood (from "murdered" trees) or concrete (which contains stone that has to be quarried and ties up water supplies). While praising a movie that is only possible due to our advanced technology that is a byproduct of this "evil" system of progress. That's without even going into the massive waste of resources the movie itself represents and what the money used in it's production and that it generated could've done to actually try to improve things. This is right up there with using cutting edge technology to tell people technology will kill them (T2, awesome movie though it was).

I'm ignoring this part of the post because it has nothing to do with the arguement. This isnt about what is being done to the earth. We don't have a world wide network of plants and animals that form a vast, intelligent being that communicates with us in some measurable fashion. Pandora does and that changes EVERYTHING.

I wonder why Cameron thought the Xenomorphs in Aliens had to be wiped out with nuclear force? The humans were the inavders there too, so the colonists all got what they deserved right? I mean, they worked for the evil corporation and were there to transform the planet. They were even worse than the humans in Avatar because they actually did plan on taking over the planet. I guess the same rights don't apply if your species isn't cute and fuzzy and is given an unapologetic portrayal.

Those Xenomorphs are only semi-intelligent and vastly more dangerous and harmful to humans as a whole. Completely different movie with completely different story that has nothing at all in common with Avatar aside from Cameron.

EDIT: Adding in response to edited post above

Really? The guy who wasn't bright enough to at least try to do the job that was given to him is supremely knowledgeable of any and all possible counterattacks from Earth. And, the same planet wide intelligence that waited until the last minute instead of just killing the humans at the start is going to be anywhere near as proactive as you are saying it will be (even if we make the giant assumption that it can be that proactive). What's the big plan when the humans simply set up shop in orbit with a larger facility ready to attack in a biological manner once they have a viable sample or simply start nuking the surface at will? The humans were there long enough to apply everything we know about damaging our own planet to start really screwing up Pandora.

I didnt claim Jake Sully had a 'supreme knowledge of any and all possible counterattacks from earth'. Jake Sully is ex-military and has a fair idea about what the army has done and can do. Hell, even middle school students in our time know biological warfare is possible.

As for Ewya not taking action at first, that is explained in the movie. 'Ewya preserves the balance of life. She does not take sides' This is said when Jake prays to Ewya for help. Obviously, Ewya changed her mind when Jake told her that humans killed their mother (their Ewya), whether true in a literal sense or not.

Bombardment from space is something Cameron has to deal with, not me. I have no idea what/if Ewya can do about that.

Amazingly, no one blames the Na'vi for not trying to understand the humans yet they expect the humans to bend over backwards to understand them (which they did, that was the whole point of the Avatar project). Being human, I completely understand the human idea that "enough is enough".

Humans are the visitors, they have an obligation to learn. Also, humans have been in this situation before (and they take advantage like before). The Na'vi have not and are ignorant to a degree (innocent is another word).

Being human, I completely understand the human idea that 'enough is enough' as well, but that doesn't change the fact the it was the humans responsiblity to learn to coexist in the first place.

comicshorse

2010-05-12, 07:28 PM

I wonder why Cameron thought the Xenomorphs in Aliens had to be wiped out with nuclear force? The humans were the inavders there too, so the colonists all got what they deserved right? I mean, they worked for the evil corporation and were there to transform the planet. They were even worse than the humans in Avatar because they actually did plan on taking over the planet. I guess the same rights don't apply if your species isn't cute and fuzzy and is given an unapologetic portrayal.

It wasn't the Aliens home planet, they'd been carried there by a ship that had subsequently crashed
Also I'm not sure if Aliens are sentient

I know it's not really relevent, shoot me I'm picky

The Glyphstone

2010-05-12, 07:32 PM

Oh, I can imagine what evils the humans can do but you have to remember, Ewya has a secret (or not so secret) weapon now. Jake Sully. Jake knows all about human history and what they can and will do. I bet the Pandoran world is going to go through a lot of changes in the next few decades that it takes humans to gather and send their military. By then, Ewya could have altered all the animals genetic codes so that virus targeting its structure fail, improved the armor of the next generation of rhino-beasts to withstand higher calibur rounds, and other things.

Ewya has been around a very long time and for all we know, has a very vast pool of knowledge about what changes it can make or affect without harming itself.

Yeah, but Jake's a soldier - how much does he really know about the Avatar project period, let alone the genetic and scientific knowledges that would be most valuable? His real value to the Pandoran 'community' is his tactical skills and military ability, making the entire planet as competent in human-style warfare as he is and letting Ewya do more than Zerg rush its enemies. He's not going to be much help against the sort of insidious attack that a viral-based weapon would be - if anyone's going to be of help there, it's the scientist (Grace?) - and all even she can really do is warn Ewya that it could be vulnerable to a gene-tailored attack. It's up to the planet at that point to engineer a defense, and there's no guaranteee that it could create something, even in a few decades, that'd be 100% effective at blocking a biological weapon without potentially severing the hive-mind and basically killing itself.

Basically, if the humans did decide to come back with a vengeance and destroy Pandora effectively, the smartest way for them to do it, and the most likely to succeed vs. the expense, would be bio-warfare...and this is all assuming Pandoran life is built on the same protein structures and chemical bonds that we are. If they're not, then a chemical-based attack (i.e, targeting whatever forms their core molecular chains the way carbon is the basis of Earth life) becomes viable and potentially unstoppable - though, the basis of tech necessary for that line of attack isn't even hinted at in the films, so its wild guessing at best.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 07:38 PM

It's up to the planet at that point to engineer a defense, and there's no guaranteee that it could create something, even in a few decades, that'd be 100% effective at blocking a biological weapon without potentially severing the hive-mind and basically killing itself.

Yeah, I can see where you are going but arguing over what we can do versus what Ewya can do is pointless. We only know a small amount about Ewya and what she can do. I only know that it won't end pretty, so the human should stop while they are ahead. I'll put my money on Ewya though. Having absorbed Grace (the doctor) into her consciousness and having handled Jake's when the body transfer took place, I feel that Ewya already has more than enough knowledge to get her where she needs to be.

EleventhHour

2010-05-12, 07:38 PM

Ewya has been around a very long time and for all we know, has a very vast pool of knowledge about what changes it can make or affect without harming itself.

Even if we assume that Jake remembers that he's supposed to know things, and we give Ewya the benefit of the doubt and it can evolve animals at a HiveMind level, it still has the most glaring weakness, ever. Most of it's intelligence is stored in trees. Napalm and orbital missles will clear a lot of foilage with no responce, seeing as there's no animal that survives in space, or can get there under natural power.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-12, 07:41 PM

Yeah, I can see where you are going but arguing over what we can do versus what Ewya can do is pointless. We only know a small amount about Ewya and what she can do. I only know that it won't end pretty, so the human should stop while they are ahead.

That's definite at least - and on the flip side, we don't know a whole lot about what humans have either. All we see in the movie is a private security force, the equivalent of modern-day Blackwater. The real military always keeps the best goodies for themselves, they might have mass-produced micro fusion bombs for all we know, or disintegrator lasers. It's impossible to speculate on.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 07:41 PM

Even if we assume that Jake remembers that he's supposed to know things, and we give Ewya the benefit of the doubt and it can evolve animals at a HiveMind level, it still has the most glaring weakness, ever. Most of it's intelligence is stored in trees. Napalm and orbital missles will clear a lot of foilage with no responce, seeing as there's no animal that survives in space, or can get there under natural power.

Ah, see, we don't know that all the knowledge is stored in the trees. All we know is that the trees and plant life can communicate with each other and together, this forms what the Na'vi call Ewya. For all we really know is that this is just an extention of Ewya's sensory organ and her real location remains a mystery.

Speculating is fun. :smallsmile:

The Glyphstone

2010-05-12, 07:47 PM

Maybe Pandora is just a giant egg, and Ewya is the god-like entity slumbering in its core. It feeds on unobtanium as a nutrient, and when the stars are right, it will hatch and destroy us all. Till then, it grows blue space elves to live on its shell and keep people from poking holes in it.:smallbiggrin:

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 08:05 PM

Being human, I completely understand the human idea that 'enough is enough' as well, but that doesn't change the fact the it was the humans responsiblity to learn to coexist in the first place.
Which they did. For 10 years. At enourmous financial cost.
And what did the smurfs do to facilitate this learning and coexistance? Cease to communicate and shoot them in the back.

Good show chaps.

By then, Ewya could have altered all the animals genetic codes so that virus targeting its structure fail, improved the armor of the next generation of rhino-beasts to withstand higher calibur rounds, and other things.
Yeah uh... pretty sure it can't do that. No reason to believe it can.

nyarlathotep

2010-05-12, 08:11 PM

comicshorse

2010-05-12, 08:11 PM

Posted by The Glyphstone

Maybe Pandora is just a giant egg, and Ewya is the god-like entity slumbering in its core. It feeds on unobtanium as a nutrient, and when the stars are right, it will hatch and destroy us all. Till then, it grows blue space elves to live on its shell and keep people from poking holes in it.

Hmmm, weird alien rituals, tree-worship, strange biological monstrosities, huge fertility.

IT'S SHUB-NIGGURATH !!!

BURN THE PLANET ! NOW !

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 08:15 PM

Ah, see, we don't know that all the knowledge is stored in the trees. All we know is that the trees and plant life can communicate with each other and together, this forms what the Na'vi call Ewya. For all we really know is that this is just an extention of Ewya's sensory organ and her real location remains a mystery.
Actually I'm pretty sure that we do. Science lady says the trees form a neural network.

And we're very good at killing trees. Incendiary bombs and artillery, Defoliant sprayed from aircraft, introduction of invasice species, the list goes on... all of these available to us today, and very effective.

If the humans decide to go to war with the planet, the planet loses.

Tyrant

2010-05-12, 08:15 PM

Long reply

All I have to say to this is: The original colonists played nice too, until they grew powerful enough to take what they wanted from the Native Americans. They had to play nice. They had no idea what the Native Americans could do in response. (Do they have guns? Bigger weapons? Something we've never seen? Let's be cautious so we don't get killed first)
They were after the land and resources (and maybe the people too given the time period). The humans have no interest in living and multiplying on Pandora and only want one thing. If they wanted it all, they would wipe out or enslave the Na'vi.

I'm ignoring this part of the post because it has nothing to do with the arguement. This isnt about what is being done to the earth. We don't have a world wide network of plants and animals that form a vast, intelligent being that communicates with us in some measurable fashion. Pandora does and that changes EVERYTHING.
I don't think it changes anything if no one that's part of this "intelligent" network ever tells the people destroying it about it's nature. I don't blame people for acting on their available information when the other side is willfully withholding critical knowledge.

It is also at the very heart of the issue. You can't have it both ways. You either want the noble savage existence or you accept that the modern world is built upon and to a degree sustained by the strong conquering the weak and that by virtue of being online you are directly benefitting from those conquests. That's the hypocrisy at the core of this movie and it's (fanatical) fandom (note, not all fans of the movie are fanatical). Either you want to live in the jungle with the animals (literally animals) or you want to benefit from thousands of years of conquest and technological advancement.

Those Xenomorphs are only semi-intelligent and vastly more dangerous and harmful to humans as a whole. Completely different movie with completely different story that has nothing at all in common with Avatar aside from Cameron.
My point was, where do you draw the line? The Xenomorphs posed no threat so long as no one went back there. The humans were apparently in the right to come along and alter that planet as they saw fit and try to exterminate the one life form they came across (a life form that showed some levels of intelligence). Yet, the xenomorphs are vicious predators and the Na'vi are loveable jerks so it's okay to nuke the evil xenos but not okay to move the Na'vi.

I didnt claim Jake Sully had a 'supreme knowledge of any and all possible counterattacks from earth'. Jake Sully is ex-military and has a fair idea about what the army has done and can do. Hell, even middle school students in our time know biological warfare is possible.
Middle school students know a lot of things are possible. I assume Pandora has viruses, so Ewya should understand the basic concept (if it has any true intelligence). That isn't the same as actually understanding how it is works, which a third grader or the average ex-military guy isn't likely to know. Granted the doctor might, but even that may not be enough to actually defend against it.

As for Ewya not taking action at first, that is explained in the movie. 'Ewya preserves the balance of life. She does not take sides' This is said when Jake prays to Ewya for help. Obviously, Ewya changed her mind when Jake told her that humans killed their mother (their Ewya), whether true in a literal sense or not.
So, it's not smart enough to see an obvious threat to it's balance and Jake can potentially dupe it with a metaphor with no evidence Earth ever had an Eywa? And this is the entity that is going to counteract biological warfare on a planetary scale?

Humans are the visitors, they have an obligation to learn. Also, humans have been in this situation before (and they take advantage like before). The Na'vi have not and are ignorant to a degree (innocent is another word).
You know what's funny? The humans do try to understand. They named the movie after the attempt, in fact.

Being human, I completely understand the human idea that 'enough is enough' as well, but that doesn't change the fact the it was the humans responsiblity to learn to coexist in the first place.
Yeah it's a shame the humans didn't spend years trying to learn their ways and communicate with them. Oh wait....

Texas_Ben

2010-05-12, 08:17 PM

Maybe it's just me but it would seem as though everyone he is assuming a false dichotomy here either claiming that the na'vi or humans are either all evil or all good.
Not really. I mean sure there's shades of grey, but in the end people are coming down in favor of one side or the other. And this being an internet discussion, it's polarizing.

Eldonauran

2010-05-12, 09:45 PM

Long reply

They were after the land and resources (and maybe the people too given the time period). The humans have no interest in living and multiplying on Pandora and only want one thing. If they wanted it all, they would wipe out or enslave the Na'vi.

At the moment, this is true. It can and most likely, will change in the future as the earth is over populated and Pandora subdued[/quote]

I don't think it changes anything if no one that's part of this "intelligent" network ever tells the people destroying it about it's nature. I don't blame people for acting on their available information when the other side is willfully withholding critical knowledge.

I wouldn't call it willfully with holding information. Perhaps its a flaw that the Na'vi assumed the humans knew that they were hurting Ewya. They can communicate with Ewya, did the humans not possess the same ability? Who's to say Ewya knows how to communicate with a completely alien race of people?[/quote]

It is also at the very heart of the issue. You can't have it both ways. You either want the noble savage existence or you accept that the modern world is built upon and to a degree sustained by the strong conquering the weak and that by virtue of being online you are directly benefitting from those conquests. That's the hypocrisy at the core of this movie and it's (fanatical) fandom (note, not all fans of the movie are fanatical). Either you want to live in the jungle with the animals (literally animals) or you want to benefit from thousands of years of conquest and technological advancement.

I never claimed to support or oppose the savage existance. I was simply choosing to use my imagination and imagine myself in the Na'vi culture. You know, try to see things from their perspective. A 'savage existence' is not appealing to me but I can see the merits if one's whole world was an interconnected network of life. People assume way too much on the internet

My point was, where do you draw the line? The Xenomorphs posed no threat so long as no one went back there. The humans were apparently in the right to come along and alter that planet as they saw fit and try to exterminate the one life form they came across (a life form that showed some levels of intelligence). Yet, the xenomorphs are vicious predators and the Na'vi are loveable jerks so it's okay to nuke the evil xenos but not okay to move the Na'vi.

The Na'vi can be reasoned with and a truce can be made, whether or not the humans like not being able to rip down trees. The Xenomorphs can and will try to kill you regardless of what you say or do.

Middle school students know a lot of things are possible. I assume Pandora has viruses, so Ewya should understand the basic concept (if it has any true intelligence). That isn't the same as actually understanding how it is works, which a third grader or the average ex-military guy isn't likely to know. Granted the doctor might, but even that may not be enough to actually defend against it.

I am pretty sure Grace (the doctor) would have an extensive knowledge of biochemisty and neurology, and even found a way to combine the two to Eywa's benefit. Who knows what is possible since only Grace's body died and her consciousness lives on in Ewya. I'm not saying its fool proof, but it will give Ewya a fighting chance.

So, it's not smart enough to see an obvious threat to it's balance and Jake can potentially dupe it with a metaphor with no evidence Earth ever had an Eywa? And this is the entity that is going to counteract biological warfare on a planetary scale?

Dupe? Jake was connected to Ewya, hearing the voices of the Na'vi ancestors. Who's to say that Eywa couldn't read his thoughts, sense the truth in his words and realise that she needs to act if he is telling the truth? The destruction the humans were causing wasn't even close to something a planet would notice for a good long time, but the Na'vi knew that if it continued it would only get worse.[/quote]

You know what's funny? The humans do try to understand. They named the movie after the attempt, in fact.

Not sure where you are going with this. The 'humans' that named the movie were not the ones 'in' the movie. I am always referring to the human within the movie and their past (which I assume is similar to our own).

Yeah it's a shame the humans didn't spend years trying to learn their ways and communicate with them. Oh wait....

Verbal communication was not the problem. Learning their ways and UNDERSTANDING them was the problem. Apparently there was a problem, whether through human ignorance or failure to comprehend what they were being told, or even the Na'vi not phrasing it correctly.

I am saying, the humans did not try hard enough or long enough.

The Extinguisher

2010-05-13, 12:12 AM

I think everyone is overestimating just what this Ewya thing is. It's NOT some omnipotent all mighty god that lives in the trees. It's a planet-wide intelligent biosphere. It's all swarm theory. That's all Pandora is, a giant swarm of collective intelligence. There's no way it can "alter all the animals genetic codes" of anything on Pandora. The ant swarm has no influence of the evolution of the swarm. The swarm's collective intelligence isn't some mysterious entity behind the actions of the swarm, which is what a lot of people here are suggesting Ewya is.

nyarlathotep

2010-05-13, 12:39 AM

Yeah if Ewya was something like the planet in Blue Gender we'd have probably seen more effects of it's desires.

thubby

2010-05-13, 01:20 AM

ever since i saw avatar i always felt they created a rich and exotic world that all the budget was spent on so they couldn't do anything with it.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-13, 03:27 AM

Here's the thing with Avatar: it's far too obvious. You knew exactly where the movie was going to go when you saw the trailer. Because the plot is just that obvious.

You mean like all hollywood movies?

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-13, 03:34 AM

Those Xenomorphs are only semi-intelligent and vastly more dangerous and harmful to humans as a whole. Completely different movie with completely different story that has nothing at all in common with Avatar aside from Cameron.

Plus, the Xenos were just as much strangers to that planet as we were. The planet was DEAD until it was terraformed. Nuking the xenos would not mess up anything that humans hadn't created to begin with. Completely different story.

Avilan the Grey

2010-05-13, 03:44 AM

Maybe it's just me but it would seem as though everyone he is assuming a false dichotomy here either claiming that the na'vi or humans are either all evil or all good. It seems far more like the na'vi's behavior was immoral but was primarily motivated by fear and lack of information and the humans were mostly just not taking enough time to consider the impact of their actions. (they're also evil because James Cameron hates corporations and is getting less subtle about it with age but we're talking in context)

Avilan the Grey would I be correct in summarizing that you believe that the forest's destruction is evil simply because it is the destruction of forest? If so you might want to state that because it seems like everyone else is not operating with that idea in mind.

The humans were not Evil. Some of the Na'vi were bastards. It is actually right there in the movie. The problem is intent vs act (alignment debate all over again): The humans range from Neutral to Lawful Neutral in their outlook, but their acts are Lawful Evil. Mostly because they don't know better. The Na'vi are also mostly of the same alignment, though Hot princess action-girl is probably Chaotic Neutral, but their actions never slide over in the Evil, it stays Neutral or Good (killing for defending their home, etc).

No, I think the destruction of the forest is evil to the Na'vi just because it is the destruction of forest. An important distinction there.
And it is their opinion that matters. See your own text about fear etc above.