Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?

[M1chae1]

The story wasn't bad...it just wasn't that original. There are so many re-tellings...so few plot devices. I could name a hundred movies identical to one another...just like a I could name a hundred camp fire stories similar to one another. It's what we see as humans. It's what we notice. That's life.

There has also been a dozen remakes of A Christmas Carol...so what. It's a different take. I don't enjoy it any less knowing it's 'been done before.'

So there's not the most amazing dialog in the world in Avatar. So what. I'm very critical, yes, and I personally didn't find the dialog, nor the telling of this plot device irritating. That's not what this movie is about.

I don't care what Ebert says. Nor should you. You should judge it on your own...just like I have. We can disagree with one another, and that's the freedom of a message board. But don't tell me it's a gimmick, because it's not. JC isn't shooting this thing with 'gimmick' in mind...it was shot from the ground up with a new perspective on the medium...not a gimmick. I'm sure he and the others involved were like kids in a candy store...excited about their project...not about the paycheck they'd receive. It was artfully and skillfully crafted. If the execs want to make more money off of this new technology, let them...I don't blame them. It's a business just like *all* big budget movies. I'm also, as it happens, a CG artist, so I admire the art in modeling, texturing, composite work...and they nailed it all...in spades.

Use my imagination to make it 3d? OK...whatever that means.

The primary reason for 3d is money? Hmmmm...isn't this Hollywood we are talking about? It's one big business my man. EVERY movie is about making money...at least every movie that hits the theaters.

I'm a sheep? How's that? I think for myself. I made my own decision, and wasn't swayed by a single review or argument. I'm not a sheep.

You don't like my patronizing tone? Well I'm sorry. But look who's calling the kettle black. You're even worse than me. But that's OK right? Because you're just defending someone? He doesn't need a hero. I wasn't that harsh. And I said several times that I didn't want him to take it personally...I made the point several times that I was including a mass of people...not just him. Did you skim that part?

My quote about YOUR last feature is a common saying in my area. It was sort of an inside joke. It means people are so quick to criticize, when they themselves haven't the skill to shoot *one* of those scenes. Yet they bash. I know the audience is allowed to have their own opinion, but don't expect people to go quietly into the night when you bash something that doesn't deserve it. I've been involved in many films, both as an actor, and as a crew member...and when less experienced people find a reason to flame a movie it annoys me. Especially when they are--in my eyes--dead wrong. JC shot a kickass action flick, and it looked beautiful and at the same time revolutionized many different tools of the trade. Be constructive...but don't spout out phrases that are being echoed by others. I just don't agree with you on so many levels...and you don't agree with me. Fine. I'm sorry. Let's leave it at that.

I didn't criticize YOU. And me disagreeing with you doesn't make me an armchair critic. That's not what an armchair critic is...it relates to movie critics at home in their parents basement who don't have a single feature under their belt, and they bash movies they were let down by...or didn't gel with...or were jealous of. If this isn't you, then fine, I'm not saying it is. But trust me, they are out there. It's OK to bash...this is a free world (for the most part)...but expect a rebuttal by passionate folks in the business your bashing.

Listen, we can get passionate. But I wasn't a total ass. I was just being forthcoming about my opinion. And I made the point not to point fingers directly. And if I did, I apologize.

The Family Guy statement makes perfect sense. Sorry you didn't get that.

Cheers. Water under the bridge.

I don't want to get in a flame fest.

Sorry to veer a little off subject for a minute Uranium. However, the majority of our squabble *is* on point. I don't want to get too personal, and I apologize if I have. I apologize to all of you.

Now let's all go make a Smurf version of Dances with Wolves and be done with it!

 

[Cracker Funk]

Also, creativity can't be measured. Saying: "Well Person A is the best guitar player in the world but only 50% creative, whereas Person B is only half as good in playing guitar but twice as creative, who's the better artist?", it doesn't work that way. An artist is someone who creates pieces of art; and I already mentioned what I find characteristic for pieces of art.

EXACTLY! That's exactly my point. Creativity cannot be quantified. Nor can artistic quality. YOU can say that something is really artistic, while something else is just technically proficient, but that is of course 100% subjective opinion. There is no way to possibly and reasonably delineate betweet art and technical mastery. IT'S ALL ART!

 

[Cracker Funk]

There is a classic movie that is beloved by the masses. I watched it, hopes high, really wanted to get into it. Meh. I didn't like it. Most of the time, I agree with the general public on big movies that everyone knows and loves, but on this occasion, nope. I don't like it. I'm not going to name the movie, because I don't want to go off on another tangent, but suffice it to say, most of you would be shocked and perhaps even appalled to hear that I don't like this film.

Anyway, imagine if I started talking about your beloved film. I list all the reasons I don't like it. That's perfectly fair game. That's just a good, fun debate. But then, what if I stopped talking about the movie, and started talking about the people who are fans of this movie -- you? The only reason you like it is because "fill-in-the-blank", some sort of reference as to why you were a sucker to fall for the contraptions of this highly-popular movie. You'd probably be a little offended.

I've had to deal with this quite often. Thankfully, it hasn't happened much around these forums, but a lot of the people I've come into contact with that bash "Avatar" end up bashing me. People who like "Avatar" were lulled into a sleep by the 3D graphics. We're just suckers for eye-candy. Suckers for marketing.

I'm college educated, B.A. in Anthropology, and I did quite well in it. I'm about as nerdy as can be. There are few things I enjoy as much as an engaging discussion over different subjects in science, with other people who've studied science. Like most other people, I also enjoy social/political talks, as well. I read the news daily. I play chess. And I'm actually good at it. So, you might imagine I recoil a little bit when somebody says something like the following:

I understand what it was, a gimmick film for middle America so people who don't like thinking in the movie theater can have stuff flying around their faces and the point of the movie be something they can grasp without thought. People talk about dumb phones and smart phones all the time. So i'm going to say to me this was a "dumb" movie. It was a dumbed down film directed that those who do not want to think.

LIFE, I didn't respond to this before, because I know you didn't intend it as any sort of attack, and I can honestly say I'm not offended by any of your comments. I only bring it up now, because the conversation has strayed a little bit, and maybe become a little too personal in recent posts.

I think you're really not giving enough credit to the filmgoing public. Movies that are truly stupid can make some good money on openning weekend, but then the numbers drop off sharply. The average person is not stupid. We all do stupid things from time-to-time, but very few of us are stupid. For a movie to gain such overwhelmingly positive reviews, across the entire world, there's got to be something to it. You don't have to like the movie. But don't look down on those of us who do.

Oel gnati kameie, ma'tsukan.

 

[chilipie]

TYou don't have to like the movie. But don't look down on those of us who do.

But do we have to apply the same to Sex & The City 2?

 

[Cracker Funk]

Well, for me it didn't fell that realistic... I mean, why would an alien from another planet that has taken a completely different evolutinary path look exactly like us?

You're absolutely right. There's absolutely now way, in heck, complex life forms on another planet would resemble anything even remotely similar to what exists on Earth. Evolution would definitely take a very different path, and all life would be COMPLETELY foreign to us. But if you make it realistic in that respect, then you have no movie.

You also have no "Star Wars". Or "Star Trek". Or pretty much ANY sci-fi that's ever been made, in which we come into contact with life on another planet.

Come to think of it, the psuedo-science behind "The Matrix" doesn't make any sense, either. Same can be said of "Blade Runner". And "Aliens". And all of your other celebrated sci-fi movies. NONE OF THEM make any sense, when you really get down to the brass tax of real science. That's where the "fiction" part of sci-fi comes from.

And if we're going to throw out all of the sci-fi movies, because we can't believe them, then we need to throw out all fantasy movies as well. Because if it's not scientifically accurate, we just can't buy into it. Bye-bye, "LOTR". So long, "Sixth Sense". It was nice knowing you, "It's a Wonderful Life". None of you are realistic, at all.

Not only that, but they had the same culture as some old human civilisations, like Indians and mayan and all those old school american natives. I just didnt really buy it.

Sorry, Hamster, that's your lack of education, on this particular subject, speaking. The Na'vi don't represent pre-Columbian Native Americans any more than any other hunter-gatherer tribe. There are many things that hunter-gatherer societies share in common, from Africa to America, to Asia to Europe, Australia and the Pacific Islands, as well. It was natural for you to associate the Na'vi with Native Americans because, well, that's what most of us know. In truth, the Na'vi are a damn fine representation of what a hunter-gather society MIGHT look like on another planet.

 

[M1chae1]

On a side note...there's nothing wrong with assuming that another species on another planet would resemble us in some humanoid way. Especially when you're talking about a planet that resembles Earth--water, vegetation, atmosphere. Because the planet has water on it, we can assume that it's in the 'safe zone' or 'belt' which is the perfect minute area near a sun which is the perfect candidate for life. And if this is so, then why not have a species similar.

Look at planet Earth. Look at all the millions of different looking species on the planet. Look how evolution has taken so many different paths. Then look at how many creatures have a torso, head and either four legs or two. Life in general is obviously not common place, but when you're dealing with an 'M' class planet (Star Trek jargon), it's feasible to think there are bipedal creatures living there.

And so they are bipedal...OK...they are also 8ft tall and blue with living USB ports on their tails...not extremely similar to us I'd say. And they don't have nipples! lol.

 

[Cracker Funk]

On a side note...there's nothing wrong with assuming that another species on another planet would resemble us in some humanoid way. Especially when you're talking about a planet that resembles Earth--water, vegetation, atmosphere. Because the planet has water on it, we can assume that it's in the 'safe zone' or 'belt' which is the perfect minute area near a sun which is the perfect candidate for life. And if this is so, then why not have a species similar.

Look at planet Earth. Look at all the millions of different looking species on the planet. Look how evolution has taken so many different paths. Then look at how many creatures have a torso, head and either four legs or two. Life in general is obviously not common place, but when you're dealing with an 'M' class planet (Star Trek jargon), it's feasible to think there are bipedal creatures living there.

And so they are bipedal...OK...they are also 8ft tall and blue with living USB ports on their tails...not extremely similar to us I'd say. And they don't have nipples! lol.

Sorry, man. It's just not realistic, not even slightly. Evolution is one of those things that everyone thinks they understand, but in my experience, most people don't. The concept is simple, but the finer details are a little more complicated.

Many animals on Earth share similarities -- of course they do. They share DNA; they evolved from the same place. It's not like we took different paths to get to the same place. It's that we took the same path, splitting off from each other at some point, to reach a similar, but different place.

On another planet, the evolutionary path would be completely unique from ours. Evolution is driven by environmental pressures, sure. But the genetic variation that allows for it to happen exists in complete randomness. Genetic mutations are straight-up 100% random, and that's why life on another planet would bear NO resemblence to ours.

 

[M1chae1]

Sorry, man. It's just not realistic, not even slightly. Evolution is one of those things that everyone thinks they understand, but in my experience, most people don't. The concept is simple, but the finer details are a little more complicated.

Many animals on Earth share similarities -- of course they do. They share DNA; they evolved from the same place. It's not like we took different paths to get to the same place. It's that we took the same path, splitting off from each other at some point, to reach a similar, but different place.

On another planet, the evolutionary path would be completely unique from ours. Evolution is driven by environmental pressures, sure. But the genetic variation that allows for it to happen exists in complete randomness. Genetic mutations are straight-up 100% random, and that's why life on another planet would bear NO resemblence to ours.

You're assuming that evolution would take a different path on Pandora then it would on Earth...a total assumption. Life in itself is improbable. Saying it's not 'realistic' to speculate similar lifeforms on other planets just doesn't fit the whole rarity of it all in the first place. If it can happen here, it HAS happened elsewhere--there are billions and billions of *galaxies* out there...do you know how many planets that makes? Lots.

I completely understand we all evolved from, say, 'the same primordial sludge'...and we split off at different times and depending on where a life-form was geographically, it would evolve differently. I understand evolution, at least on a decent educational level.

But if you look at Pandora...it is very similar to Earth on many different levels. This alone makes for a probability factor no more crazy then life in general for similar species. Nature is crazy, and there are millions of different types of lifeforms out there, but the Universe still works in the same way it does here, as it does on the other side of the galaxy. Why not assume that a bipedal creature walks upright on a planet with water, vegetation, and atmosphere? It's no more crazy then to think about how WE got here, and how WE became who we are.

I mean, how many different 'forms' can life take? On our planet alone...incredible diversity. And because our planet is 'M' class...this allows for a specific window of variation. And if two planets are very similar to one another, why not assume that life will evolve in a similar way?

It's all assumption, but my theory isn't off-the-wall. I'm basing mine off of science and probability. Just as perhaps you are. The 'code' the Universe follows is mathematical with a method to its madness. And in certain circumstances, life creates a specific *kind* of set of lifeforms...as we see from our own geological differences here on Earth (land, sea, extreme temperatures, pressure, etc)...if a life form splits off and evolves in a similar environment to Earth...it's completely reasonable to say that one of the millions of lifeforms on the planet *may* resemble us.

I don't think the Universe is going to use a different 'code' to fashion a set of lifeforms on a different planet. Reality is setup the way it is...here, or billions of light years away. Lifeforms have eyes, sensors, bones if need be, lungs, stomachs...lifeforms all crave the same thing. We are all connected, because we all originated from the same 'speck' of matter pre-big bang. So if two very similar circumstances arose for life to build upon...it's not ludicrous to think a humanoid creature may evolve.

And let's not even get into sentience....a *completely* different set of mind-bending probability counts and numbers. Telling me it's not 'realistic' to have intelligent, humanoid life on Pandara is insane. How realistic is it that we here on Earth are what we are today? That's not in the slightest 'realistic'...or is it completely realistic?

Ummm...lol...another jaunt from the point. But it's fun! I'm a huge space, science geek...so don't get me started.

 

[Cracker Funk]

You're assuming that evolution would take a different path on Pandora then it would on Earth...a total assumption.

Yes, but it's a VERY safe assumption to make -- one based on the knowledge garnered with a 4-year degree on this very subject.

I completely understand we all evolved from, say, 'the same primordial sludge'...and we split off at different times and depending on where a life-form was geographically, it would evolve differently. I understand evolution, at least on a decent educational level.

Which is to say you really don't understand it. I'm not trying to sound patronizing, but the subject of evolution is much more complex than we've been led to believe. I don't think you fully grasp the randomness of it all.

Imagine rolling dice, except instead of six sides, you have an infinite number of sides. You will NEVER produce the same results, no matter how many times you roll those dice. Some of those mutations will end up being selected for, based on environmental pressures, but if the environmental conditions aren't JUST RIGHT, they'll just drift around, never amounting to anything.

Maybe we need to throw out this word "path", because that kind of confuses the situation. Evolution doesn't follow a path. It just bounces around all over the place, like the leaf blowing through the air, in the opening and closing shots of "Forrest Gump".

Think about this -- approximately 4 million years ago, the ecosystem underwent a dramatic change in East Africa. What was once an expansive jungle dried up. lost a bunch of that vegetation, and changed into savannah grasslands.

Thankfully (for us), there just so happened to be a species of ape living there that was rather intelligent, and it kind of already walked half-upright. And since it lived in trees, it had opposable thumbs, making tool-use possible. Phew! And here we are. To think that the same thing would happen on another planet is just absurd.

But if you look at Pandora...it is very similar to Earth on many different levels. This alone makes for a probability factor no more crazy then life in general for similar species. Nature is crazy, and there are millions of different types of lifeforms out there, but the Universe still works in the same way it does here, as it does on the other side of the galaxy. Why not assume that a bipedal creature walks upright on a planet with water, vegetation, and atmosphere? It's no more crazy then to think about how WE got here, and how WE became who we are.

Yes, it is quite crazy, actually. It'd be like playing the Lotto twice, getting the same result both times.

I mean, how many different 'forms' can life take? On our planet alone...incredible diversity. And because our planet is 'M' class...this allows for a specific window of variation. And if two planets are very similar to one another, why not assume that life will evolve in a similar way?

Because they wouldn't share the same DNA. And if you understood how random genetic mutation is, you'd understand that the same genetic traits would not be selected for on different planets.

It's all assumption, but my theory isn't any more off-the-wall than yours is. I'm basing mine off of science and probability. Just as perhaps you are. The 'code' the Universe follows is mathematical and mind boggling. And in certain circumstances, life creates a specif *kind* of life...as we see from our own geological differences here on Earth (land, sea, extreme temperatures, preasure, etc)...if a life form splits off and evolves in a similar environment to Earth...it's completely reasonable to say that one of the millions of lifeforms on the planet *may* resemble us.

Nope. It's not even slightly reasonable. There is no plausibility to this scenario, whatsoever. Yes, I'm assuming. But again, I devoted four years of my life to learning about human evolution. Complex life on another planet wouldn't be even slightly recognizable to us.

I think, probably, your primary misunderstanding is one shared by most people. A lot of us have this notion that evolution took us where it was supposed to go. We misuse and misunderstand the phrase "survival of the fittest" and think that humans are the most fit species of all time. We are the champions of evolution, and it is only natural to assume that the same thing would happen all over again, if we could reboot life on Earth. Give a planet enough time, and eventually, the most fit will emerge - us!

But evolution doesn't take any specific path. There is nowhere that it needs to go. It is, as I've mentioned before, completely random. And when I say random, I mean random.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I don't think the Universe is going to use a different 'code' to fashion a set of lifeforms on a different planet. Reality is setup the way it is...here, or billions of light years away. Lifeforms have eyes, sensors, bones if need be, lungs, stomachs...lifeforms all crave the same thing. We are all connected, because we all originated from the same 'speck' of matter pre-big bang. So if two very similar circumstances arose for life to build upon...it's not ludicrous to think a humanoid creature may evolve.

This 'code' you speak of -- it's called DNA. And yes, it would be completely different on another planet. We don't have eyes and lungs and stomachs because the 'code' of our universe dictates it, but because they came out of a whole bunch of completely random genetic mutations. I hate to patronize you, but you severely misunderstand how evolution works.

And let's not even get into sentience....a *completely* different set of mind-bending probability counts and numbers. Telling me it's not 'realistic' to have intelligent, humanoid life on Pandara is insane. How realistic is it that we here on Earth are what we are today? That's not in the slightest 'realistic'...or is it completely realistic?

Ummm...lol...another jaunt from the point. But it's fun! I'm a huge space, science geek...so don't get me started.

Well, we're here. Soooooo.....I guess it's pretty "realistic" that we're here.

There might be intelligent life somewhere else. Maybe. Or, there might not be life at all. You have to at least consider the possibility that we could be going it alone.

But IF there's intelligent life elsewhere (and that's a big if), it wouldn't resemble us, physically, in any shape or form.

And, technically, I think we're staying on point here, because we're talking about the plausibility of the pseudo-science in "Avatar". That may not be the specific conversation the OP intended, but I think it's perfectly fair game.

 

[M1chae1]

OK. Clearly you won't reason.

'It's not even slightly reasonable'? So, you think it's even slightly reasonable to think that we evolved here on this planet, and became sentient creatures who are now creating P5 processors and discussing this here and now?

Dude. The Universe is far too vast for you to use the term 'reasonable' and 'likely' and all that jazz in relation to life *not* being out there that resembles a single species on our planet. If there are billions and billions of galaxies out there, it's entirely probable that two dice would roll the same, no matter how many sides that dice had. And like I said, the Universe follows a CODE...it's already in place. This CODE isn't just DNA dude...I'm talking about physics and metaphysics. DNA isn't the only code running in this Universe (think of the Matrix...is that code they are viewing only DNA info? Of course not). DNA isn't the only code that has been a factor in how life develops. It's not like a different reality is rolling along elsewhere (at least in our viewable Universe).

Evolution works the same here, as it would on any planet that harbors life. The same steps are taken...no matter how crazy those steps are, they still follow the code/s of the Universe.

What do you think life on other planets resemble? Are you telling me that in all the other life-harboring planets out there, not a single species on that planet would resemble a single species on our planet? That's total malarkey. Of course they would resemble something on our planet. There are so many different scenarios on our planet (hot and cold to extremes, vastly different pressure), and life has taken so many different forms. Millions in fact. To say that out of the zillions of planets out there (millions upon millions of which might have life), not a single one of those species would resemble in any way a single species on our planet?

Now who's being unreasonable now?

It's all math. And by probability alone, life similar to ours is out there. I don't think you're taking the scope of the Universe into account (and the time it's been around, and will be around).

I don't think we can truly discuss this. Your kind of personality will always find and quote specific things you think you can rebuttal, but you glaze over most of what I say, and you contradict yourself by using words like probable and reasonable, when all you have to do is look at US and realize it's insane as it is...but in this insanity there is a method--the same method followed all over the Universe.

 

[M1chae1]

Dude. You are patronizing me. I DO understand how evolution works. And I understand mutations. What *you* don't understand are probability factors and beyond.

I get it...your one of those 'life doesn't exist anywhere else' kind of people. And no matter what I tell you, I won't change that opinion--and that opinion is not conducive to any of my theories.

But IF there's intelligent life elsewhere (and that's a big if), it wouldn't resemble us, physically, in any shape or form.

It wouldn't? Jesus...I'm glad *someone* can see across he Universe and make that call. lol. Whew. Well, now that that's settled...


Thanks for the insight. Cheers.

 

[Blanc/Noir]

Dude. You are patronizing me. I DO understand how evolution works. And I understand mutations. What *you* don't understand are probability factors and beyond.

I get it...your one of those 'life doesn't exist anywhere else' kind of people. And no matter what I tell you, I won't change that opinion--and that opinion is not conducive to any of my theories.



It wouldn't? Jesus...I'm glad *someone* can see across he Universe and make that call. lol. Whew. Well, now that that's settled...


Thanks for the insight. Cheers.

M1chae1....You're my type of guy. I agree with everything on your side on the conversation. The universe is the most unexplored topic in science. Billions of galaxies would equate to winning to winning to lottery probably over a thousand times. And why can't Earth exist on other planets?Why must earth be home to the greatest things ever created? That sounds extremely selfish.

And this isn't that related but what pseudo-science are you refering to in Blade Runner. I felt like most of it was reasonable for the far future...

 

[M1chae1]

M1chae1....You're my type of guy. I agree with everything on your side on the conversation. The universe is the most unexplored topic in science. Billions of galaxies would equate to winning to winning to lottery probably over a thousand times. And why can't Earth exist on other planets?Why must earth be home to the greatest things ever created? That sounds extremely selfish.

And this isn't that related but what pseudo-science are you refering to in Blade Runner. I felt like most of it was reasonable for the far future...

Thank you for the support Blanc. I very much enjoy these topics, but it's nearly impossible to change someones mind when they are thinking inside the box and only using knowledge that we on Earth possess. Even a single term like 'quantum entanglement' opens so many possibilities of shared existence...we must think outside the box, and play the numbers game...it's not only probable there is intelligent bipedal life out there, but it's very likely.

It's all theory, because we just don't know. And this is my theory. But there are certain aspects of math (volume and time) that can't be overlooked...and when they *are* overlooked, it's impossible to rationally argue with someone about it.

 

[Cracker Funk]

You're arguing human evolution with someone who has a college degree in human evolution. Think about that for a sec. I don't think I'm being "unreasonable" by falling back on my education. Sure, it may sound like I'm patronizing you, but it's really difficult for me to not sound that way when I'm trying to tell you that you're just misinformed on this subject (as are most people).

And you're wrong about these "codes" that you think exist in the universe that would somehow dictate evolution on another planet. Genetic variation and environmental pressure are the only two factors that would determine the evolution of a species.

I don't care how many planets there are, or how old our universe is. Our universe is finite. Genetic mutations are infinite. Do you see the difference? EVERY genetic mutation is unique. Every. Single. One of them. You're still not quite grasping the random nature of it all. Take all the time you want -- you'll never produce the same results twice.

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm just pointing out that you don't completely understand something that I studied for four years. I don't know why that's offensive.

And let's not forget that we're on the same team. We can't let in-fighting tear us apart, ma'tsmukan. If one of us is Jakesoolly, then the other needs to be Tsute. So let's put our differences aside, and prepare for battle. The Skypeople are coming!

 

[M1chae1]

You're arguing human evolution with someone who has a college degree in human evolution. Think about that for a sec. I don't think I'm being "unreasonable" by falling back on my education. Sure, it may sound like I'm patronizing you, but it's really difficult for me to not sound that way when I'm trying to tell you that you're just misinformed on this subject (as are most people).

And you're wrong about these "codes" that you think exist in the universe that would somehow dictate evolution on another planet. Genetic variation and environmental pressure are the only two factors that would determine the evolution of a species.

I don't care how many planets there are, or how old our universe is. Our universe is finite. Genetic mutations are infinite. Do you see the difference? EVERY genetic mutation is unique. Every. Single. One of them. You're still not quite grasping the random nature of it all. Take all the time you want -- you'll never produce the same results twice.

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm just pointing out that you don't completely understand something that I studied for four years. I don't know why that's offensive.

And let's not forget that we're on the same team. We can't let in-fighting tear us apart, ma'tsmukan!

Time, my friend, is infinite. Time. And as far as our devices can measure, the Universe is currently infinite.

Even if every single genetic mutation is unique (which I fully understand), this doesn't mean that there isn't a planet out there with *similar* biological offspring. It doesn't mean that somewhere out there a planet has something similar to a beetle, or a fish, or a human...or a virus.

Clearly this fictional world of Pandora is similar to Earth, and clearly similar life sprang from the sludge and followed a relatively familiar spread...you're saying that's impossible...I'm saying it's highly probable based on the sheer volume of the Universe, and the infinite nature of time.

Obviously your schooling on evolution has placed you inside a box and told you what is and what isn't possible.

Goodness, let's not even get into ID. lol...that would blow your wig!



And we are still friends my man, no worries. I hold no ill-will I assure you.

 

[Blanc/Noir]

First off just because every mutation is unique. I don't think Mike is trying to same there is other humans but there could be creatures that resemble the Na'vi or however there spelled. Maybe the whole USB Port Hair thing probably isn't there. But having a humanoid structure is very possible. The universe has no end, so that also gives no end to possibilities.

 

[jeremy]

There were some bits in the story that left quite a bit to be desired.

For example, Norm was a snappy, jealous, dick for 5 minutes then Jake just mentions in one of his logs that Norm is not being a dick anymore. I never got why they'd go down that road if they weren't going to do anything with it. It was a pointless few minutes they could have shaved out of a very long movie.

Also, why is it that no one even mentions that it's a little weird that this guy is turned on by 9 foot tall blue aliens. Wouldn't someone bring it up? I'm not exactly a member of Peta, but that is pretty outragous.

Beyond those odd decisions, there wasn't a moment that surprised me anywhere. I always knew what was going to happen.

Overall, despite those factors I watched it twice. It was very good for a plethora of other reasons. I wouldn't put it in my top 5 for the year though.

 

[NuclearHamster]

M1chae1....You're my type of guy. I agree with everything on your side on the conversation. The universe is the most unexplored topic in science. Billions of galaxies would equate to winning to winning to lottery probably over a thousand times. And why can't Earth exist on other planets?Why must earth be home to the greatest things ever created? That sounds extremely selfish

well, sure. There are an endless amount of solar systems out there... But, you have to consider Earth very rare. Complex life on earth only exsist cuz
-We have the right sun, that doesn't burn up to fast
-We are on right spot away from the sun, tto close it's too warm, too far away too cold
-We have the right ingredients for life, water etc.
-Our planet is active enough to give us the righ amount of CO2 to remain the right tempture for life. Again, not too hot, too cold
-Jupiter, a massive planet that pulls lots of big meteors and stuff into it self. If jupiter didnt exsist, our planet would constantly be hit by stones from space.
-Our planet is the right size, too small, like mars, and the atmosphere runs away into space.
-We have the perfect moon (forgot why ^^)
-Certain disasters have driven our evolution. If a certain disaster(snowball earth) didnt happen, we would be nothing but bakteria.
-Our atmosphere is important for complex life. and it only exsist cuz a group of bakterie evolved photosynthesis.

There are lots of other things that suddenely made earth home to complex life. I highly doubt there are planets like earth out there, there might be life... but nothing like ours, could be everthing... perhaps just a greenwall that feeds on random material in the air. Even in this endless universe I doubt it.

Either way, Avatar is sci-fi, not logic, just entertainment and is not suppose to be realistic... in realistic way, I guess.

Okay back to topic, Avatar's plot is unorignal, cliche... the entire movie is overrated, the 3d is annoying, the actors are awesome, the movie wierdly keep you entertained from time to time, I give it it a 7/10 as a movie, but then a 5/10 cuz.. well it's overratedness.

 

[M1chae1]

well, sure. There are an endless amount of solar systems out there... But, you have to consider Earth very rare. Complex life on earth only exsist cuz
-We have the right sun, that doesn't burn up to fast
-We are on right spot away from the sun, tto close it's too warm, too far away too cold
-We have the right ingredients for life, water etc.
-Our planet is active enough to give us the righ amount of CO2 to remain the right tempture for life. Again, not too hot, too cold
-Jupiter, a massive planet that pulls lots of big meteors and stuff into it self. If jupiter didnt exsist, our planet would constantly be hit by stones from space.
-Our planet is the right size, too small, like mars, and the atmosphere runs away into space.
-We have the perfect moon (forgot why ^^)
-Certain disasters have driven our evolution. If a certain disaster(snowball earth) didnt happen, we would be nothing but bakteria.
-Our atmosphere is important for complex life. and it only exsist cuz a group of bakterie evolved photosynthesis.

There are lots of other things that suddenely made earth home to complex life. I highly doubt there are planets like earth out there, there might be life... but nothing like ours, could be everthing... perhaps just a greenwall that feeds on random material in the air. Even in this endless universe I doubt it.

Either way, Avatar is sci-fi, not logic, just entertainment and is not suppose to be realistic... in realistic way, I guess.

Okay back to topic, Avatar's plot is unorignal, cliche... the entire movie is overrated, the 3d is annoying, the actors are awesome, the movie wierdly keep you entertained from time to time, I give it it a 7/10 as a movie, but then a 5/10 cuz.. well it's overratedness.

Let me show you something:





This is the Hubble Deep Field image. This is an incredibly minute amount of our nearby surroundings. This image you see here consists of over 10,000 galaxies. Do you know how many stars are in a single galaxy? No...that's because no one knows. Now try and count the planets...

This image is from a portion of space smaller than 1/8th of the moon. It's as if you were looking up at the moon, and you cropped out one of the 'eyes' of the moon and placed this image inside there...even with this incredibly small fraction of the *known* Universe, we already have mathematical probability of life sustaining planets.

Now, multiply this by millions and you'd have an itty-bitty fraction of the Universe--of course I can only guess...because we honestly don't know how big it is. It could go on forever...there isn't a single theory that can prove it doesn't. We can only speculate based on computer generated models.

Now tell me there aren't other planets out there that 'suit life.' Not only are there planets similar to our planet out there...there are millions like it. I don't think you guys are truly grasping how large the Universe is...even what we can see is incomprehensible...and that's a tiny fraction of existence.

It's a silly argument, really. To think Earth is one of a kind. And to think that intelligent life is only here.

I get chills thinking about the possibilities. Our imaginations can't even scratch what's out there. And if you think science and current knowledge can tell us enough to determine there isn't an 8ft tall blue bipedal intelligent creature out there, you're only fooling yourself.

Now go make some movies you sexy homo erectuses.