I've seen that same argument 3 times on Escapist forums alone. For me, the debate usualy ends with "I hate 3D animation. I wouldn't even play games with 3D untill 2005. The graphics don't impress me. F**k Pixar & everyone like them."
PINPOINT THE ISSUE! Avatar Debate gone bad
- Thread starter x434343
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, it's pretty much come down to the idea that it was made for entertainment. If Cameron actually wanted to make a difference and a statement, he would have spent the money on charity or some such instead of making a film, which indeed looks very nice in 3-D, which was meant to entertain the populace. People are still just looking for things to get their knickers in a twist over.
I couldn't help to notice that more than 50% of the debate was about the rocks. Felt like a poor excuse to judge it.
Sure enough they could have made a long scene where they explain everything about the rocks and their purpose, but that would make it look very cliché, no matter how you put it. And, as we all know, cliché moments are embarrassing and should be avoided at all cost.
Sure enough they could have made a long scene where they explain everything about the rocks and their purpose, but that would make it look very cliché, no matter how you put it. And, as we all know, cliché moments are embarrassing and should be avoided at all cost.
Better yet, when introducing Unobtanium, they coulda done this.iLikeHippos said:
"Unobtanium. This is why we're here. $20 million a kilo, a price well worth it to (back up our currency/fuel our starships/armor our machines/improve our circuitboards/IT PRINTS MONEY/feed the terrifying ChuckNorrisMr.TArnoldSchwartzenegger monster). Don't forget it."
I mean, they mentioned it was worth $20 million. That became her "propertires of unobtanium": It was worth money and humans are greedy bastards. Would it have killed them to add a sentence about what its used for? Is it more important to know gold's value or properties?
It doesn't matter why the stuff was valuable. That is simply a premise of the movie. Alien planet has valuable stuff. Humans want it. Drama ensues.x434343 said:
There are actually issues with it. One theory says the floating mountains are because of the material. Why not mine those? That also was the ruse-drive of the movie: "You're doing this for our sweet sweet rocks." I don't know about you, but did I find it odd that Jake didn't ask what it was? I mean, he has to be told what it is, so wouldn't an obvious question be "What's it do?" or "Why are we mining it?" Saying its simply a premise is like saying that the Force is simply a premise in Star Wars. In other words, its non-vittal to the plot unless needed. The only two reasons Episode 1 was average? They gave a (shitty) explanation as to how the Force, and Liam Neeson. Couldn't we get a simple sentence on what Unobtanium does, or are theories merely enough?BringBackBuck said:
I can relate to one of those occurrences occur in Gears of War. There they had Imulsion that was the beginning conflict. At first I didn't know what it was for, nor did I care.x434343 said:
I just wanted to make some Locust heads to explode.
But the game later told it was one awesome fuel (I found some newspaper that I read). I understood more what it was used for. But I didn't care more. It was only like "decoration" in the story line if you could call it that. Looks ugly without it, but can live without it as well.
And I would probably gone bored if some guy had talked to me what the Imulsion was about for 1-2 min (maybe less).
Also, I doubt explaining what the rocks exactly do would improve the movie. Humans come. Huge mother load under the smurfs huge home tree. Humans tried negotiate with smurfs. Makes avatars to negotiate with the blue smurf people. Human in avatar falls in love with the blue smurf culture. Same human finds out the humans are evil. The humans attack the smurfs mother load tree. (Because of the rocks, but you don't need a full biography of it, just make it some "newspaper" that you can read if you want to learn more about it.) And than the serious shit begins.
At that point, there's no way anyone could care about the rocks. Nor did they. The humans even ignored the tree and went for their most sacred place. Seems to me the rocks weren't as valuable. At all.
Y'know where everything went horribly, terribly wrong?x434343 said:
When you made a facebook account.
Also, pokemon avatar.
You could've also avoided the whole thing by... simply not having the debate at all.
Lastly, you were not asking the right question at all. Clearly he was relating whatever that thing was to a gemstone. Precious rock of great value for it's rarity and... prettyness? I guess.
I haven't seen Avatar so I can't really give you my opinion on the movie, and that guy seemed pretty dumb, but with each post you lowered yourself closer to his level.
"Why do they want it?"
"Because it's valuable."
"But why is it it valuable!?"
"Because it's worth money."
*Facepalm*
And then the moron has the gall to act all superior.
EDIT: It also thinks the Navi are in fact called Avatars. I haven't even seen the film and I know this.
EDIT 2: You know that whole protect peoples id thing? Well on part 6, your friends name is at the top of the chat box. you crossed out the name in the actual message, but not the name at the top. Just thought you'd like to know.
"Because it's valuable."
"But why is it it valuable!?"
"Because it's worth money."
*Facepalm*
And then the moron has the gall to act all superior.
EDIT: It also thinks the Navi are in fact called Avatars. I haven't even seen the film and I know this.
EDIT 2: You know that whole protect peoples id thing? Well on part 6, your friends name is at the top of the chat box. you crossed out the name in the actual message, but not the name at the top. Just thought you'd like to know.
Sadly, I would have accepted it if they said decoration. They simply said Humans want Money.Tears of Blood said:
That's basically like this.
"I see you play video games. Why?"
"I beat the game!"
"Ok, why do you play video games."
"Because I beat the game."
"No, I can see that, but for what reason do you play video games?"
"Are you so stupid you cannot understand that I beat the game?"
Depends. If they were there for deco, that's not cool. Currency backing, neutral. Energy souce that has zero emissions in 30 years on a few milligrams of it? That'd probably be justified. And like I said, thay could just say "We use it for (blank)." Fuel, armor, Goron food. Take your pick. It'd take like 3 seconds.iLikeHippos said:
I just don't see why it bothers you so much.x434343 said:
In "Being John Malkovich" it is never explained how some random door in a room leads into john Malkovich's head. It is a premise of the movie. Accept this premise and enjoy the film.
In "Pulp fiction" it's never explained what is in the case or why Tarantino and Samuel L jackson's boss wants it. Accept this premise and enjoy the film.
I think these are both good films. Presumably you don't.
Avatar is about some valuable mineral on a faraway planet with funny creatures. Why is the rock valuable? How did we find the planet? how far away is it? which galaxy is it in? What are Avatars made out of? How does the link between person and avatar work? Does Jake Sully have itchy balls? These are not plot holes.
I liked Pulp Fiction. I assumed the Holy Grail was in the case.BringBackBuck said:
Fridge Logic is why this bugs me. Unlike PF, where Tarantino said "It's open to interpretation", Cameron could justify it in a flash and either absolve or demonize the company.
The link is a potential hole. It's shown to be electronic while being organic. Where's the exchange? Are there components in the avatar brains?
The avatar's were stated to be made out of "Na'vi DNA mixed with a specific person's DNA."
Avatar is an analogy for how evil white settlers were to the natives of the Americas.
I believe the planet was said to be a moon of a planet of Alpha Centauri.
Whilst the CryEngine 3 is beautiful, I take it you're not being serious as it being a contender for what Avatar does?
I think one of the points was that they needed to demonstrate Anakin's potential because, as we all know, he never actually met it (in terms of power). And if you never see it, there wasn't much else that we saw that gave the impression of that power-to-be.
I don't understand the problem that people have with the midi-chlorian explanation in Star Wars.BringBackBuck said:
I think one of the points was that they needed to demonstrate Anakin's potential because, as we all know, he never actually met it (in terms of power). And if you never see it, there wasn't much else that we saw that gave the impression of that power-to-be.
Yeah, but his answer was actually valid in this case. You asked why they wanted it. He said 'cause it's valuable. You should've said "Okay, so who are they going to sell it to and why would that person need it?"x434343 said:
Also, like I said, it was totally pointless in the first place to even be debating it. I understood what you were trying to say, but asking him the same thing over and over again will not produce a response you are looking for. He assumed that the people trying to get it were going to use it rather than to simply sell it or use it in trade and whatnot. You have to understand what they are misunderstanding, then change what you're saying to guide them on the path you want them.
Or, better yet, drop it and let morons be morons.
That's not what you said though, is it?x434343 said:
"effects have never looked so incredibly realistic."
You: "me points at CryEngine 3, which did that tech in late 2008-early 2009."
And on that basis, Avatar. Because the CryEngine 2 (3 ain't here yet) didn't do that tech. You had 2 different methods and were comparing which looked the best. Not which was more technically impressive.
Some food for thought on Avatar:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/Avatar.htm
I thought it was okay. Too long. And I totally disagree with that whole "Revolutionise story-telling" thing. The whole thing was alright, but there was nothing new in it. Still, I wonder what we would think if it had come out ten or twenty years ago?
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/Avatar.htm
I thought it was okay. Too long. And I totally disagree with that whole "Revolutionise story-telling" thing. The whole thing was alright, but there was nothing new in it. Still, I wonder what we would think if it had come out ten or twenty years ago?
