View Single Post
Old 01-17-2010, 09:00 AM   #106 (permalink)
Saint Marcos
Senior Member
Saint Marcos's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by better dylan View Post
No actually leaving it unexplained makes perfect sense. It was the fact it was given a stated name and value that created the plot hole.

. . .

I see what you mean that we don't have a context for the economy of earth but the do talk about the expense of sending people out and the astronomical price of growing an avatar.

So this boils down a lot of points . . . The suitcase was never explained, so you feel Pulp Fiction is valid. How, in the context of zero economic knowledge of the Marines' home planet (or planets), do you think a name and a price explains it all? You assume $74 trillion (or whatever) would bankrupt the planet, but you are also assuming there is just one planet depending on the item, and you seem to be assuming that unobtanium is some sort of luxury item, when it could be more urgent a need. These assumptions sway you in a weird direction of hating the movie (just to be clear, I'm not saying any of those assumptions are wrong or invalid, just a weird direction). How's this for a completely valid scenario about unobtanium, staying within the broad limits about the metal that the movie allowed:
The Earth is dying due to a contamination of the world water supply (not too far-fetched, considering our current treatment of the environment). Unobtanium (whose supply is so small keeps the price at astronomical levels) is the required element needed to purify drinking water. Only with large amounts of Unobtanium can the contamination can be reversed & the planet saved.
(Be sure to read in movie-voice.)

With this background, the price of unobtanium suddenly becomes irrelevant. $74 Trillion or $200 Trillion, the price doesn't matter, I could even agree with you & say it will bankrupt the economy. It is now a requirement for sustained planetary survival. . . and in the movie, the price of it 'back home' becomes nothing more than a passing comment, because there's not enough of it back home to save the planet. So I make an equal or more number of assumptions, I just give them a context that doesn't weigh on me for the rest of the movie (and beyond).

Originally Posted by breethevampire View Post
It was an ok movie. I wouldnt want to see it again or buy it on dvd. It was like a tissue use it once and throw it away.

There was really no reason to see it in 3D it was just random objects that just sort of sticked out some.
I agree with the tissue comment & the 3D comment seems to be a common statement. The 2D version would keep me in the 'other world' better. The 3D version kept taking me out of the moment by randomly sticking out objects. It kept reminded me that I was watching a sci-fi movie.

"Hahaha too easy" -- Trent said in the thread about the story about Trent
(Offline)   Reply With Quote