Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?
- Thread starter droowl
- Start date
I cetaintly believe there are life out there, in space. But again, the whole evolutinary path thing. Life out there isn't like ours. But, a view of this "alien life" is something we probably wont experience in our life time. So we can just imagine what's out there. And we can make up our own thoughts. You can go with blue cat humans if you'd like, but I'd go with the greenwall, etc ^^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 can. 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.
Last edited:
How about you keep your comments on the movie?
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.
Time is infinite, for sure. But not in the manner in which it pertains to this conversation. The future is infinite. And, the past is probably infinite. However, the time that has passed since the Big Bang is definitely finite. 100 Billion years from now, the time that will have passed since the Big Bang will still be a finite number.
Genetic mutations never run out. They're just always new. From now until forever, every genetic mutation will be unique. When you mention that time is infinite, and that all we need is time, it's like you're trying to count to infinity. Go ahead. Start counting. Tell me when you get there. The moment you can count to infinity is the moment that a humanoid species evolves on another planet.
I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but...
"San Diago. The translation has been lost, but scholars maintain it is Welsch for 'whale's vagina.'"
"Um, no. No, I'm pretty sure it's Spanish for 'St. Diego."
"Agree to disagree."
Now, which one of us is Ron Burgundy? Depends on who you ask, I guess.
Ahem.
The Universe is overwhelmingly likely to be finite and flat, provided Einstein was right all along.
EDIT: Time isn't infinite, either, unless you guys are trying to argue for some kind of metaverse.
EDIT THE SECOND: And for the record, it's entirely plausible that there is an abundance of human-like (not just sapient) life on other planets. Our understanding of evolution comes from only our own biosphere, so...
The Universe is overwhelmingly likely to be finite and flat, provided Einstein was right all along.
EDIT: Time isn't infinite, either, unless you guys are trying to argue for some kind of metaverse.
EDIT THE SECOND: And for the record, it's entirely plausible that there is an abundance of human-like (not just sapient) life on other planets. Our understanding of evolution comes from only our own biosphere, so...
Last edited:
All this talk of evolution makes me want to jump in:
I like to maintain that to say Man just happened to evolve from amonia is like saying a tree fell over one day and happened by chance to split apart and accidentally form a Ducati motorcycle.
But that's my opinion - don't mean to step on anyone else's.
Hey - what happened to this thread, anyway? Why are we talking about Evolution? Let's get back to talking about the largest grossing movie of all time.
And feel free to hop on my other thread I made about Titanic. That's a movie so unoriginal it makes me sick........
I like to maintain that to say Man just happened to evolve from amonia is like saying a tree fell over one day and happened by chance to split apart and accidentally form a Ducati motorcycle.
But that's my opinion - don't mean to step on anyone else's.
Hey - what happened to this thread, anyway? Why are we talking about Evolution? Let's get back to talking about the largest grossing movie of all time.
And feel free to hop on my other thread I made about Titanic. That's a movie so unoriginal it makes me sick........
Well, sure we only know our own biosphere, but the biggest things we've learned about evolution have come from our understanding of what happens at the smallest level. You're thinking too big when you talk about biosphere. Retrain your thoughts to a single gene. If you can understand what's going on at that level, then maybe you'll understand how completely ridiculous an idea it is that there would be humanoids anywhere other than Earth.
And, ROC, I love you brother, and you're welcome to keep your opinion on evolution, but you should know that your opinion is in stark disagreement with ALL OF SCIENCE. The jury is not out on this one. If you continue to believe what you do, you are completely rejecting science, as a whole.
Same here bro. I'm just throwing my opinion out there - take it with a grain of salt.
What science am I disagreeing with? There sure are a lot of them. Physics and Chemistry sure can't agree on what an atom is. Not to mention theory in cytology contradicts high schools of evolution. All science, you say?
Are you for the Vedic theory's of evolution? Or Darwin's? Which he cobbled together from transplanted European versions of Vedic theories alongside French-English conquest of India... Sure there are some truisms in there but it could be missing a few pieces.
What are the odds that something as "simple" as the human eye evolved from mud?
And boy has Science gotten us far. Too bad we don't understand ourselves enough to not have nuclear scares and a future race lying dead in a radioactive street.
This subject fascinates me and I'd love to get further into it but I'd not want my post to get deleted or my ability to stick up for Avatar taken away by a temp ban..
Dude I'm all for discussion.
What science am I disagreeing with? There sure are a lot of them. Physics and Chemistry sure can't agree on what an atom is. Not to mention theory in cytology contradicts high schools of evolution. All science, you say?
Are you for the Vedic theory's of evolution? Or Darwin's? Which he cobbled together from transplanted European versions of Vedic theories alongside French-English conquest of India... Sure there are some truisms in there but it could be missing a few pieces.
What are the odds that something as "simple" as the human eye evolved from mud?
And boy has Science gotten us far. Too bad we don't understand ourselves enough to not have nuclear scares and a future race lying dead in a radioactive street.
This subject fascinates me and I'd love to get further into it but I'd not want my post to get deleted or my ability to stick up for Avatar taken away by a temp ban..
Dude I'm all for discussion.
Last edited:
Punctuated equilibrium.
Genetic drift.
Like I said, you're thinking way too big. If you think an understanding of punctuated equilibrium gives you an understanding of evolution, you're way off base.
Figure out genetic drift. And genetic fitness. Think about these phenomena on the level of an individual gene. Then, maybe you'll get it.
Just have to say that ALL OF SCIENCE is a big group. Just from my life experiences I've learned that there are always "experts" on every side of a subject. I put experts in parenthesis because I think the term is relative. A good example of this would be Global Warming...there are "experts" on both sides who would swear on their mothers that they are right.
I know I'm off topic from the original thread, but I'm on topic for what it has digressed into.
In my opinion, we are on topic, since we are debating the science fiction of Avatar, and Avatar is the topic. Besides, it's agreed that the current line of discussion is fun, isn't it?
M1chael and Wombat et al are right. Respectfully, Cracker Funk is wrong.
=D Heheh.
The "infinite" randomness of mutations, there not being any such things as "paths," as in destinations(?), and four year degrees notwithstanding, I'm afraid, Cracker Funk, that you are suffering from something similar to what I've coined the Claw Fallacy.
The Claw Theorem says that we must make our fictional aliens otherworldly, and the way to do that is to give them "lobster" claws. But, how can said lobster-clawed aliens climb up out of their primordial forests, or whatever the hell those folks have up in there, and make spaceships to fly to earth and cause science fiction mischief? How many movies have we seen in which technologically advanced aliens run around the galaxy with their lobster claws for hands, and we’re supposed to believe that they built spaceships and shoot ray guns? Or, they have hands with two or three scary looking fingers, each with enormous claws at their tips?
Can somebody please tell me how exactly they were able to make with those big, unhandy claws of theirs, one: chalk boards, two: chalk, and then, three: work out all those complex physics and chemistry problems in classrooms filled with claw-handed students in order to, after the requisite accumulation of knowledge, probably over centuries, four: make it possible to design and build an interstellar space vehicle in which they could travel here in order to harvest our hypothalamuses?
Such a species ain't gonna have claws for hands. How would they hold their screw drivers?
That is the Claw Fallacy. The Claw Fallacy accepts what Wombat said about only having our own biosphere as a measure. That's science. I don't have to tell anyone here how important observation is to science. Science observes what is observable, not what nebulous fantasies we can cook up when imagining how things might be radically different in some far flung part of the universe. Now, a clever writer might come up with reasonable alternatives, I guess. Perhaps the aliens could have tentacles that could hold their screw drivers. Perhaps, if there is such a thing, they could use their telepathy. But the point of the Claw Fallacy is that those tentacles or that telepathy had better have at least as much control and dexterity as the human hand, or else! Or else what? Well, they won't be adaptive, that’s what. At least, they won't be adaptive for building spaceships.
Okay, I know no one's arguing that the Pandorans should have had claw-hands. Back to Pandora and the humanoid business.
Yes, life on other planets with different rules might very well be quite different. But, how different can those rules be? I'll bet not much. The laws of physics are the laws of physics, for example. And, however random mutations might be, the fact is that for species like ourselves, whatever random mutations that do occur, and, more importantly, are kept, had better be adaptive. For all I know, Cracker Funk, you're right about emphasizing the super duper randomness of mutations. But as far as the evolution of species go, the only mutations that really matter are those that are adaptive and are consequentially kept according to the law of the jungle and who successfully reproduces before they die. I would imagine that this would be true for both sexual and asexual reproduction.
That is natural selection. Natural Selection is what's important when you want to, as a science fiction creator, evolve, so to speak, an alien species on a planet like Pandora, who can have meaningful interactions with invading humans and thus drama commence. The meaningful interaction part is pretty important since the audience is a human audience, after all.
Part of the reason why so many very earnest speculators about intelligent alien life forms make the assertion (assumption) that they must be so very different than us, I’m afraid, is because of some underlying idea that it's somehow unethical to think otherwise, as if to do so would be something like ethnocentrism, or terracentrism, if you will. Horse apples. Back to my, and I think Wombat's, point, all we have for sure to go by is what we know for sure, which is based upon what we can actually observe and study --our own planet, our own biosphere, our own example of the tree of life, and the physics and the chemistry which is available to us to observe and work out.
My strong inclination is to think that if there is any life out there, and I think that's a very big if, and no matter how many galaxies there are, it will exist within more or less similar parameters as life as we know it here.
So, M1chael is right. Given a biosphere that is reasonably like ours, which -is- likely to be the case for a complex biosphere given the so far knowable laws of physics etc, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the humanoid design could turn up on Pandora, as well.
Let's not get hung up on things being "humanoid" or "hominid." Let's just consider it the "primate" configuration. This is what we know for sure: In the biosphere available for us to observe, the "monkey" or "primate" design has been very damn successful. It produced our species which has hands which can write, make flint tools, and maybe even build interstellar spaceships.
Sure, the Pandorans weren't building spaceships, but the point is that given just how successful and adaptive the primate "design" has been given the only perimeters of life that we can say for sure exist in this universe, it is perfectly reasonable to not be surprised if natural selection would come with something similar on an alien, but similar planet.
Yes, it might be a stretch to have Pandorans and Clingans being just so very similar to our own species, but that's what suspension of disbelief is for! Anyways, wasn't there an episode of Next Generation that posed an explanation for why the Star Trek species were so similar... specifically, that they had all been seeded by someone else? An interesting topic in itself.
Anyways, sorry for another absurdly long post. It just happens to be a subject that I enjoy.
M1chael and Wombat et al are right. Respectfully, Cracker Funk is wrong.
=D Heheh.
The "infinite" randomness of mutations, there not being any such things as "paths," as in destinations(?), and four year degrees notwithstanding, I'm afraid, Cracker Funk, that you are suffering from something similar to what I've coined the Claw Fallacy.
The Claw Theorem says that we must make our fictional aliens otherworldly, and the way to do that is to give them "lobster" claws. But, how can said lobster-clawed aliens climb up out of their primordial forests, or whatever the hell those folks have up in there, and make spaceships to fly to earth and cause science fiction mischief? How many movies have we seen in which technologically advanced aliens run around the galaxy with their lobster claws for hands, and we’re supposed to believe that they built spaceships and shoot ray guns? Or, they have hands with two or three scary looking fingers, each with enormous claws at their tips?
Can somebody please tell me how exactly they were able to make with those big, unhandy claws of theirs, one: chalk boards, two: chalk, and then, three: work out all those complex physics and chemistry problems in classrooms filled with claw-handed students in order to, after the requisite accumulation of knowledge, probably over centuries, four: make it possible to design and build an interstellar space vehicle in which they could travel here in order to harvest our hypothalamuses?
Such a species ain't gonna have claws for hands. How would they hold their screw drivers?
That is the Claw Fallacy. The Claw Fallacy accepts what Wombat said about only having our own biosphere as a measure. That's science. I don't have to tell anyone here how important observation is to science. Science observes what is observable, not what nebulous fantasies we can cook up when imagining how things might be radically different in some far flung part of the universe. Now, a clever writer might come up with reasonable alternatives, I guess. Perhaps the aliens could have tentacles that could hold their screw drivers. Perhaps, if there is such a thing, they could use their telepathy. But the point of the Claw Fallacy is that those tentacles or that telepathy had better have at least as much control and dexterity as the human hand, or else! Or else what? Well, they won't be adaptive, that’s what. At least, they won't be adaptive for building spaceships.
Okay, I know no one's arguing that the Pandorans should have had claw-hands. Back to Pandora and the humanoid business.
Yes, life on other planets with different rules might very well be quite different. But, how different can those rules be? I'll bet not much. The laws of physics are the laws of physics, for example. And, however random mutations might be, the fact is that for species like ourselves, whatever random mutations that do occur, and, more importantly, are kept, had better be adaptive. For all I know, Cracker Funk, you're right about emphasizing the super duper randomness of mutations. But as far as the evolution of species go, the only mutations that really matter are those that are adaptive and are consequentially kept according to the law of the jungle and who successfully reproduces before they die. I would imagine that this would be true for both sexual and asexual reproduction.
That is natural selection. Natural Selection is what's important when you want to, as a science fiction creator, evolve, so to speak, an alien species on a planet like Pandora, who can have meaningful interactions with invading humans and thus drama commence. The meaningful interaction part is pretty important since the audience is a human audience, after all.
Part of the reason why so many very earnest speculators about intelligent alien life forms make the assertion (assumption) that they must be so very different than us, I’m afraid, is because of some underlying idea that it's somehow unethical to think otherwise, as if to do so would be something like ethnocentrism, or terracentrism, if you will. Horse apples. Back to my, and I think Wombat's, point, all we have for sure to go by is what we know for sure, which is based upon what we can actually observe and study --our own planet, our own biosphere, our own example of the tree of life, and the physics and the chemistry which is available to us to observe and work out.
My strong inclination is to think that if there is any life out there, and I think that's a very big if, and no matter how many galaxies there are, it will exist within more or less similar parameters as life as we know it here.
So, M1chael is right. Given a biosphere that is reasonably like ours, which -is- likely to be the case for a complex biosphere given the so far knowable laws of physics etc, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the humanoid design could turn up on Pandora, as well.
Let's not get hung up on things being "humanoid" or "hominid." Let's just consider it the "primate" configuration. This is what we know for sure: In the biosphere available for us to observe, the "monkey" or "primate" design has been very damn successful. It produced our species which has hands which can write, make flint tools, and maybe even build interstellar spaceships.
Sure, the Pandorans weren't building spaceships, but the point is that given just how successful and adaptive the primate "design" has been given the only perimeters of life that we can say for sure exist in this universe, it is perfectly reasonable to not be surprised if natural selection would come with something similar on an alien, but similar planet.
Yes, it might be a stretch to have Pandorans and Clingans being just so very similar to our own species, but that's what suspension of disbelief is for! Anyways, wasn't there an episode of Next Generation that posed an explanation for why the Star Trek species were so similar... specifically, that they had all been seeded by someone else? An interesting topic in itself.
Anyways, sorry for another absurdly long post. It just happens to be a subject that I enjoy.
Last edited:
Nice post Richy.
I think, again, it's impossible to sway certain people. They are vigorously taught certain things, and they stay inside that box. No offense, I respect others' opinions and education--I'm sure most of it is sound (as far as our current knowledge base is concerned).
Cracker, you have overlooked so many of my points, and you refuse to see it like it is. You refuse to see the sheer volume of the Universe, and you refuse to step outside the box even for a moment. All we know is here on our planet. And we are so often wrong Cracker. Things we thought we knew so well (well enough to kill and banish) have been retracted time and time again.
I'm actually quite shocked that the schooling system on Evolution is teaching that similar life on other planets does not exists. It even seems they are teaching that all of the millions of life forms on our planet are utterly unique in all the Universe. That's shocking to me.
I'm just asking you to look at the big picture...and stop talking about how unique genetic mutation is. Trust me I understand how unique it is, I live on a planet where I see a myriad living things every day...scurrying on the ground, peeing on a tree, buzzing around my head. I get it. But you're *far* too stuck on this. It doesn't matter how random and unique mutation is...the Universe is massive, and the only planet we've been able to study is our own. We can't even get out of our solar system, let alone other galaxies. We have zero idea of how life evolves on other planets...but as mentioned above it's always adaptive. And if a planet is similar to ours, life will adapt in recognizable, similar ways (when I say recognizable, I'm taking *all* Earth's lifeforms into account...they are all unique and recognizable). I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I am not. All we know is here, yes, and we see what the Universe gives us based on our environments, and so we then must assume that similar environments will produce similar concepts of evolution. Just because another planet is given the spark of life, does not mean that the Universe will create entirely different structures for swimming, seeing, eating, feeling...there seems to be a pretty solid plan in place. I don't think our DNA code here on Earth is going to be vastly different than another life-giving code on another planet. We all share the same periodic table, and as far as we know chemistry and physics are consistent. Sure our DNA may be different (in complexity and structure), but it's still going to follow the same concept and equation--it has to...as far as our science can determine, all of known existence is related.
If you can concede that somewhere out there on another planet, a unique life form has developed that resembles, say, a bacterium, or a fish, or a sea cucumber...then you must then concede that it's possible for another bipedal creature to evolve. I think the Universe follows a flow...it has 'figured out' what works best for certain circumstances. A sensor or 'eye' works best for recognizing light. A skeletal system works best for supporting weight under pressure and activity. A 'mouth' works best for feeding or communicating. Yes this planet all evolved from the same code (DNA), so all forms of life here have recognizable traits...but I don't think your 'all unique' argument works...because the Universe has a way it works (adaptive as mentioned above), and given an environment, similar things will be introduced. Not only that, but certain things are going to be reused in this reality...like eyes, mouths, etc. This is reality.
And who was it that said time isn't infinite? Don't even get me started...lol. That's just silly.
You can't have non-existence. That's why there is no end to existence. Only what we can *see* and understand.
Also, telling me the Universe is 'flat' is like ancient humans telling people the world is flat. I'm not saying it isn't disc shaped or the like...but we can only speculate the size and shape of something we can't even see a fraction of. Speculation is fun...but I don't think we can even fathom the shape of the Universe, because we don't even know what the 'Universe' is...as far as our minds work, we can't fathom non-existence...and even in considering an 'end' to the Universe, we have to consider 'non-existence', which we are incapable of.
So, you see, to make this on point...the Na'vee are not a far stretch--neither for science nor the imagination.
I think, again, it's impossible to sway certain people. They are vigorously taught certain things, and they stay inside that box. No offense, I respect others' opinions and education--I'm sure most of it is sound (as far as our current knowledge base is concerned).
Cracker, you have overlooked so many of my points, and you refuse to see it like it is. You refuse to see the sheer volume of the Universe, and you refuse to step outside the box even for a moment. All we know is here on our planet. And we are so often wrong Cracker. Things we thought we knew so well (well enough to kill and banish) have been retracted time and time again.
I'm actually quite shocked that the schooling system on Evolution is teaching that similar life on other planets does not exists. It even seems they are teaching that all of the millions of life forms on our planet are utterly unique in all the Universe. That's shocking to me.
I'm just asking you to look at the big picture...and stop talking about how unique genetic mutation is. Trust me I understand how unique it is, I live on a planet where I see a myriad living things every day...scurrying on the ground, peeing on a tree, buzzing around my head. I get it. But you're *far* too stuck on this. It doesn't matter how random and unique mutation is...the Universe is massive, and the only planet we've been able to study is our own. We can't even get out of our solar system, let alone other galaxies. We have zero idea of how life evolves on other planets...but as mentioned above it's always adaptive. And if a planet is similar to ours, life will adapt in recognizable, similar ways (when I say recognizable, I'm taking *all* Earth's lifeforms into account...they are all unique and recognizable). I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I am not. All we know is here, yes, and we see what the Universe gives us based on our environments, and so we then must assume that similar environments will produce similar concepts of evolution. Just because another planet is given the spark of life, does not mean that the Universe will create entirely different structures for swimming, seeing, eating, feeling...there seems to be a pretty solid plan in place. I don't think our DNA code here on Earth is going to be vastly different than another life-giving code on another planet. We all share the same periodic table, and as far as we know chemistry and physics are consistent. Sure our DNA may be different (in complexity and structure), but it's still going to follow the same concept and equation--it has to...as far as our science can determine, all of known existence is related.
If you can concede that somewhere out there on another planet, a unique life form has developed that resembles, say, a bacterium, or a fish, or a sea cucumber...then you must then concede that it's possible for another bipedal creature to evolve. I think the Universe follows a flow...it has 'figured out' what works best for certain circumstances. A sensor or 'eye' works best for recognizing light. A skeletal system works best for supporting weight under pressure and activity. A 'mouth' works best for feeding or communicating. Yes this planet all evolved from the same code (DNA), so all forms of life here have recognizable traits...but I don't think your 'all unique' argument works...because the Universe has a way it works (adaptive as mentioned above), and given an environment, similar things will be introduced. Not only that, but certain things are going to be reused in this reality...like eyes, mouths, etc. This is reality.
And who was it that said time isn't infinite? Don't even get me started...lol. That's just silly.
You can't have non-existence. That's why there is no end to existence. Only what we can *see* and understand.
Also, telling me the Universe is 'flat' is like ancient humans telling people the world is flat. I'm not saying it isn't disc shaped or the like...but we can only speculate the size and shape of something we can't even see a fraction of. Speculation is fun...but I don't think we can even fathom the shape of the Universe, because we don't even know what the 'Universe' is...as far as our minds work, we can't fathom non-existence...and even in considering an 'end' to the Universe, we have to consider 'non-existence', which we are incapable of.
So, you see, to make this on point...the Na'vee are not a far stretch--neither for science nor the imagination.
Last edited:
I liked Avatar. Didn't think it was the best movie ever but was worth 2 hours of my time. I saw it on DVD first and still liked it. The script was off, I know. It surprises me that with a 300 million dollar budget they couldn't set aside 200,000 for a few rewrites. I sense they were under a lot of time pressure so they couldn't do that.
*
A far as it being a 'kids'/'dumbed down'/'for the masses' movie? Well I don't really know what high art is. I have different criteria to other people.
On one level, the movie is a very obvious comment on our modern military industrial complex, which is rampaging through god knows what foreign countries causing untold permenant damage to obtain resources/territory.
If Avatar made a few people meditate on the destruction we are enabling with our taxes, our indifference, our greed, then it is a very successful project with a profound social resonance. I'm not just interested in art for the sake of art. I like movies that are able to effect social change or teach something, no matter how subtly. In a world such as this I would be wasting my life if I just made movies for the sake of it. I need something more. That's just me though, I understand and appreciate some people just want to make pure art.
Is a movie railing against environmental and military devastation a kids movie? Well that's what I see around me. Respect for others is something the human race needs to learn. In truth, I think we're all over-sized kids squabbling over meaningless crud. It may be a kids movie, but we're acting like spolit, vindictive children in a 5 star biosphere.
*
Cracker Funk,
When we're discussing something as vast as the cosmos, you can't sling a four year degree at someone and use it to assert any kind of intellectual authority over the argument. Would you defer to an economist or a doctor just because of their degrees? Even Phd's can be dead wrong about a lot of things. Academia is full of misconceptions and fashions passing themselves off as fact. We can't even start discussing the subject if we don't begin with a clean slate and an admission that we are ALL groping in the dark and speculating wildly, credentials or not.
The truth is we have no idea at all what life on other planets looks like. There are plenty of arguments both ways.
*
A far as it being a 'kids'/'dumbed down'/'for the masses' movie? Well I don't really know what high art is. I have different criteria to other people.
On one level, the movie is a very obvious comment on our modern military industrial complex, which is rampaging through god knows what foreign countries causing untold permenant damage to obtain resources/territory.
If Avatar made a few people meditate on the destruction we are enabling with our taxes, our indifference, our greed, then it is a very successful project with a profound social resonance. I'm not just interested in art for the sake of art. I like movies that are able to effect social change or teach something, no matter how subtly. In a world such as this I would be wasting my life if I just made movies for the sake of it. I need something more. That's just me though, I understand and appreciate some people just want to make pure art.
Is a movie railing against environmental and military devastation a kids movie? Well that's what I see around me. Respect for others is something the human race needs to learn. In truth, I think we're all over-sized kids squabbling over meaningless crud. It may be a kids movie, but we're acting like spolit, vindictive children in a 5 star biosphere.
*
Cracker Funk,
When we're discussing something as vast as the cosmos, you can't sling a four year degree at someone and use it to assert any kind of intellectual authority over the argument. Would you defer to an economist or a doctor just because of their degrees? Even Phd's can be dead wrong about a lot of things. Academia is full of misconceptions and fashions passing themselves off as fact. We can't even start discussing the subject if we don't begin with a clean slate and an admission that we are ALL groping in the dark and speculating wildly, credentials or not.
The truth is we have no idea at all what life on other planets looks like. There are plenty of arguments both ways.
Last edited:
Back to the film, my favourite character was Giovanni Ribisi. He brought a lot of subtlty to the role. You hated what he stood for but as a human he was charismatic and warm enough to make you like him. A properly conflicted character... I think a lot of people in the MIC are really like this. More or less good guys doing bad jobs. The touch of him eating and playing putting games while he was doing this diabolical work were great. I don't know if he was written better or if he made the script work for him but I don't remember cringing at any of his lines.
What I sense from the film was there was no organic development of actor's lines on set. You had an all star cast spewing bad dialogue. Why? Were there no table reads? Is Cameron not flexible as a director? No time to change things? Not enough rehearsals? Sometimes I get the feeling that the CGI was paramount and some acting scenes were filmed almost as an afterthought. I think this is because of budget constraints, not a weakness of Cameron as a director.
What I sense from the film was there was no organic development of actor's lines on set. You had an all star cast spewing bad dialogue. Why? Were there no table reads? Is Cameron not flexible as a director? No time to change things? Not enough rehearsals? Sometimes I get the feeling that the CGI was paramount and some acting scenes were filmed almost as an afterthought. I think this is because of budget constraints, not a weakness of Cameron as a director.
I'm happy to carry on the 'life on other planets' theme as well, it's an interesting subject. It's more or less on topic because we are debating the believability and scientific accuracy of Avatar.
High art: Star Wars is a film about courage, honesty, integrity, determination, doing the right thing, standing up to imperialism, using the fullness of intuition and being true to yourself. How many people combine all those qualities every day? I know I don't. It introduces those qualities to a wide audience, therefore.. to me. It's high art.
Just cos your making a slow paced black and white flick about a grandmother in a Romanian village and her struggle to rationalise Marxism with her existential yearnings doesn't make it high art, bubba.
Some of the biggest films ever are high art, they are just so adept at hiding their messgae that it bypasses us. And that's their success.
High art: Star Wars is a film about courage, honesty, integrity, determination, doing the right thing, standing up to imperialism, using the fullness of intuition and being true to yourself. How many people combine all those qualities every day? I know I don't. It introduces those qualities to a wide audience, therefore.. to me. It's high art.
Just cos your making a slow paced black and white flick about a grandmother in a Romanian village and her struggle to rationalise Marxism with her existential yearnings doesn't make it high art, bubba.
Some of the biggest films ever are high art, they are just so adept at hiding their messgae that it bypasses us. And that's their success.
Last edited: