what makes me hate the movie avatar (i guess its kinda a spoiler)

[TeddyPicker]

Didn't read through the whole thread, but I have this question:

The humans need to wear oxygen masks to be able to go out into Pandora. I'm assuming that means there's no oxygen on the planet. Why, then, can Jake light a match, fire a gun, and there's water to drink... I thought that all required the presence of some oxygen.

*slurp* annnnnnd done.

[Saint Marcos]

Originally Posted by Bucho

You cheeky bastard Marcos; "misread you" my ass. 33 years I've been talking English and listening to it spoken by people from every nation under the sun, not to mention hundreds of thousands of hours hearing it from American TV, films, radio and podcasts. And yet I still run across phrases used in a way I've never heard before.

And that is your miracle Saint Marcos. You took a phrase that's established to mean one thing and converted it to mean another.

Thanks? (But seriously, it was a play on words, re-read it in its original context with that in mind. Somewhere in my comments I make repeated mention that I didn't think it was good story-tellling.)

Originally Posted by TeddyPicker

Didn't read through the whole thread, but I have this question:

The humans need to wear oxygen masks to be able to go out into Pandora. I'm assuming that means there's no oxygen on the planet. Why, then, can Jake light a match, fire a gun, and there's water to drink... I thought that all required the presence of some oxygen.

*slurp* annnnnnd done.

I don't think there was no oxygen, merely that something in the air was poisonous to humans (cyanide?).

Also you can fire a normal gun in outer space.

*slurp* <--Not in a nerd way, more in a Teddy Picker is hawt way.

[better dylan]

Sorry to everyone that I haven't been keeping up with this thread.

Originally Posted by Saint Marcos

Okay, but you said it was 'the story of Unobtanium'. My point is that since it is an entirely replaceable concept, including being able to exchange it with something vastly different (e.g. someone 'wants his castle built there') and still get to the same place, it seems a ridiculous piece to focus on as to why you "hate the movie".

So you "hated" it because they didn't explain what Unobtanium was. . .
From Wikipedia: "....unobtainium is a humorous concept for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application."* Unobtanium is now explained. In fact, calling it Uobtanium actually very clearly says, "Hey, this thing is not the point of the movie, accept it for being silly & move on."

Are you upgraded to 'okay' with the film now? or is Cameron responsible for your lack of knowing what something was? If you didn't know what a Marine was, was he supposed to stop & explain why they are stereotyped for being arrogant, having, little regard for life, and have a win-at-any-cost mentality? or would you have simply been able to realize that the colonel guy was a jerkoff from way back and move on. (To be clear, I also didn't previously know what unobtainium was, but I also found it clearly irrelevant enough to move on & didn't hinge my entire like or dislike of the movie to it, as you have stated you have.)


*It should be mentioned that the Wikipedia entry barely mentions Avatar at all, and when it does, its only in passing. I only point this out so that it is understood that the entry isn't based around the movie, its based around Unobtanium and its past uses & references.

You are ignoring the second half of my original post which boils down to economics. One ton of this stuff costs 74 trillion dollars. Ten tons would (i assume) bankrupt the entire planet.

Originally Posted by Ansur

Please go read my explanation back on page 2. If you disagree, let me know.

The arguement of inflation doesn't hold water because they already explained that sending people out there was "very expensive" thus unobtainium would need to be more expensive to make it worth while to get.

Originally Posted by spooky

To put this in something more up to date(I assume many if not most haven't seen Notorious), if I had to guess, I would bet that Dylan hated Pulp Fiction because whatever was in the suitcase was a huge plot hole, as it was deliberately left unexplained. Thus, Pulp Fiction sucked, as Dylan never would have gone after the suitcase.

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.

Originally Posted by DWarrior

The unobtanium struck you as the most unexplained story element? This is not even worth expanding. That's just stupid.

No I didn't say it was the most unexplained story element. It's just the one that pushed my dislike of the movie into the hate realm.

Originally Posted by Bucho

The economics didn't bug me, we weren't told anything about the economic reality back on Earth beyond knowing that Unobtanium is worth mining for so there's no context in which it can fail.

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.

Originally Posted by Saint Marcos

I'd like to think that better dylan simply overstated his subject line when saying "what makes me hate the movie avatar" -- to hinge your whole opinion of a movie on this single innocuous detail is silly. As though, if it weren't for the lack of description, he would have LUVED it. (And, as you mention, its clearly not a 'plot hole', although BrownEyedBtch continues to call it one.)

I should have said "what pushes my dislike of the movie avatar into the realm of hate." There were plenty of other things I didnt like about it but this is just something i just kinda cant stop harping on.

Originally Posted by Saint Marcos

Then I feel tricked -- Not Nice.

But seriously, sensationalistic headlines doesn't make the focus in the body of his 'article' any less silly when there are numerous other valid things to poke at,

It's a totally valid arguement.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

I trust Dylan. And obviously he's going to disagree with me. So he will self-destruct.

You're right.
Ya know what just occured to me is last quarter in school I took microeconomics. I'm in no way proclaiming myself an economist or saying I know more of economics than anyone here. I am saying that my recent exposure to the rules and concepts of economy could be the reason this bugged me so much.



Once again sorry this took so long to get back to.

[breethevampire]

My dad dragged my family and I to go see Avatar a couple weeks ago.

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'm not a fan of Star Wars or Lord of The Rings /gasp the horror! So I dont really get why these kinds of movies need to be three hours long when it could have been just a standard one hour and however minutes long

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by breethevampire

I'm not a fan of Star Wars or Lord of The Rings /gasp the horror! So I dont really get why these kinds of movies need to be three hours long when it could have been just a standard one hour and however minutes long

Cause the nerds need a place to hide from the bullies and forget the wedgies. The longer, the better. Ouch.

[Saint Marcos]

Originally Posted by better dylan

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

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.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Saint Marcos

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.

Yes, also when the object would be popped out, but cut off in the frame.

[better dylan]

Originally Posted by Saint Marcos

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).



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.

I would think at a point when our water was poisoned and we had interplanetary travel we would call earth a wash and just ship everyone over to somewhere new.

[Ansur]

The movie topped $1.6 billion on the 5th weekend. The highest grossing movie ever was Titanic at $1.8 billion after 41 weeks in the theater (it made most of its money in 15 weeks, just stayed in theaters forever). So, Avatar is closing in on that record with at least another month theaters to go (could be a lot longer), and still coming in at #1 each weekend since release.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by Ansur

The movie topped $1.6 billion on the 5th weekend. The highest grossing movie ever was Titanic at $1.8 billion after 41 weeks in the theater (it made most of its money in 15 weeks, just stayed in theaters forever). So, Avatar is closing in on that record with at least another month theaters to go (could be a lot longer), and still coming in at #1 each weekend since release.

The only reason I can think of that the movie continues to make so damn much money is because the word is going around that it must be seen in IMAX 3D. So people who already saw it in regular format are seeing it again in 3D. Otherwise, I don't really know why the movie would make so much money. It was beautful and an okay story, but not one worth seeing two or three times in the theaters.