Avatar

[warpus]

They were there cause they looked pretty, a common hollywood movie-making tactic.

 

[Winner]

It makes sense for mountains containing large amount of superconductive materials to float when placed in a region of strong magnetic fields, or for mountains containing high levels of magnetically polarized minerals to float over superconductive materials. This is explained by the Meissner effect.

The Force is a lot harder to explain scientifically.

I don't really need to add anything here

EDIT: Actually I do:

That, however, is not the explaination given. In fact, there never was an explaination given in the movie they just showed you floating mountains and we are supposed to be too busy oooing and ahhhing that we never bother to ask why there are floating mountains.

It's been explained in accompanying materials. Although I don't see how you could miss the obvious comparison between the unobtainum sample the corporate boss had in his office and the flying mountains. I for one am sick of the tendency of many American movies to explain every little thing for the audience, even though the dialogues look silly and unnatural (like when one supposedly top scientist explains a trivial thing to a group of other top scientists - yeah, they'd really be talking about that ).

Even if there was a plot mechanism given for the floating mountains (and again their isn't), they would act as gigantic sails being pushed all over the place by the wind. In fact, in all reality they would probably be constantly crashing into each other and thus pulverized in hours. LAME LAME LAME.

Not necessarily, it can definitely be justified once you accept the idea that mountains can fly if they're full of superconductive material. On the other hand, about every other thing you see in Star Wars is physically impossible, which kinda puts your "LAME LAME LAME" exclamations into perspective

I don't need a scientific plot mechanism, just a plot mechanism. Psychic powers and telekinesis are common themes and much easier to explain away, and saying it is "the Force" works just was well as invoking magic. But again, there was no mechanism provided at all in Avatar.

I see that Cameron grossly overestimated the average viewer.

And its not like those floating mountains had ANYTHING to do with the plot whatsoever either. They served absolutely no purpose.

Does the word "setting" mean anything to you? Or should I extend this logic on everything else and say that the whole film should have been set in the Amazon and in the present day, because anything more than that would be unnecessary to advance the plot? Avatar is about looking at the fictional world with a jaw dropped, that's kinda what art is supposed to be all about - being beautiful, creating emotions and interest. If you start looking at everything from a purely functional perspective, you'll lose this.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

I wonder how many trees they had to cut down to make all those Avatar tickets they sold.

 

[Patroklos]

I don't really need to add anything here

Yes, we have established that mindless handwaving is your style.

EDIT: Actually I do:

You're into handwaving, we get it.

It's been explained in accompanying materials.

1.) It hasn't been explained in accompanying materials.

2.) Even if it had been it is irrelevant. 99% of the viewing public will never hear/read/see any of these "other materials" and thus in order to make a move work all of what we see has to make sense on its face.

The whole "other materials" garbage was stupid when Star Wars did it, it was stupid when The Matrix did it, it was stupid when Star Trek did it last year and it is stupid when Avatar did.

Now, if you want to EXPAND on a story that already makes sense with more material fine, but your flagship medium has to stand on its own.

Although I don't see how you could miss the obvious comparison between the unobtainum sample the corporate boss had in his office and the flying mountains.

Obvious connection? What obvious connection? I have a pen that stands on its hand via magnets I got from Brookstone years ago, does that mean everything with magnets should be expected to balance at odd angles? :crazyeyes:

For one, nothing suggests the unobtanium was flying of its own accord, in fact it is hovering over a metal disk with the "obvious connection" that the disc is making it float as a odd office decoration just like my pen.

Second, at no point is it ever even suggested the mountains contain unobtanium.

Third, if there was that much unobtanium in them to actually make mountains fly why are they not being mined? Why is the LARGEST DEPOSIT OF UNOBTANIUM KNOWN not flying?

I for one am sick of the tendency of many American movies to explain every little thing for the audience, even though the dialogues look silly and unnatural (like when one supposedly top scientist explains a trivial thing to a group of other top scientists - yeah, they'd really be talking about that ).

Yes, we have established that you are not appreciative of good story telling. I am sure you didn't get past the first pages of War and Peace and Crime and Punishment either.

The simple fact is that there was a time when movies placed character development, plot development, and most of all plot consistancy at a premium. But that is hard to do because it requires thinking and work, so you enjoy your CGI pornography.

Not necessarily, it can definitely be justified once you accept the idea that mountains can fly if they're full of superconductive material.

The thought that you even contemplated the idea that you could accept that is disturbing. I am pretty sure that if they had told you they were flying because they were full of cotton candy, and equally plausable and intellectually stimulating plot device, you would have still hand waved it in favor of smurf porn.

On the other hand, about every other thing you see in Star Wars is physically impossible, which kinda puts your "LAME LAME LAME" exclamations into perspective

Very few of it is physically impossible, just not currently achievable. In any case that is irrelevant given the plot mechanisms chosen. It was not a mistake that Star Wars was set "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" or that the societies we are seeing are in excess of 25,000 years old. This provides with the instant ability to remove ourselves from having to apply any understanding of politics or current technology to Star Wars, there is literally no connection to our current frame of reference. Dune did the exact same thing.

Avatar, on the other hand, made it very clear it wanted us to apply our current frame of reference, and thus the plot mechanisms it has to use to bring in things like floating mountians need to make sense to us in a more real way.

That is of course the whole reason why unobtanium's properties were explained to us in the first place, in order to provide a motivation for the antagonists. Note that floating was not a characteristic given.

I see that Cameron grossly overestimated the average viewer.

No, his average viewer is someone like you, a fanboi.

Does the word "setting" mean anything to you? Or should I extend this logic on everything else and say that the whole film should have been set in the Amazon and in the present day, because anything more than that would be unnecessary to advance the plot?

Of course not, because being on Pandora did advance the plot. Floating mountains didn't. In fact they didn't just not advance the plot, they detracted from the plot because the add a lot of WTH quotient needlessly and movies like Avatar are already pushing the WTH envolpe pretty far by their very nature.

Its sort of like if dinosaures started randonely walking around in the background of Love Actually, or if Aliens saucers landed in the middle of sceen in Lord of the Rings, or a volcanoe erupted in the distance while Tom Hanks was storming Omaha beach. All make just as much sense as floating mountains in Avatar.

Avatar is about looking at the fictional world with a jaw dropped, that's kinda what art is supposed to be all about - being beautiful, creating emotions and interest. If you start looking at everything from a purely functional perspective, you'll lose this.

[/quote]

Or you could take the time, effort, and care to have all of that AND IT BE FUNCTIONAL. Or in other words, produce actual art. I realize that your quality control is all little more on the OMG SHINY end of the scale, so I am not surprised this is lost on you.

 

[lovett]

Or you could take the time, effort, and care to have all of that AND IT BE FUNCTIONAL. Or in other words, produce actual art.

Who defines functionality as a feature of art?

 

[Patroklos]

Apparently winner, and the definition is that if it is in art then it must be functional. So if Pride and Predudice is ever remade, but with three moons CGIed into the night sceens this time, apparently we shouldn't ask any questions and just go with it.

 

[Camikaze]

It makes sense for mountains containing large amount of superconductive materials to float when placed in a region of strong magnetic fields, or for mountains containing high levels of magnetically polarized minerals to float over superconductive materials. This is explained by the Meissner effect.

Wouldn't it have had to be a tad colder for that to be a sufficient explanation?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

No. The cooling element is important only because all known superconductors are only superconductors as a low temperature. It is explicitly stated that Unobtainium is valueable because it remains a superconductor at high temperatures, much higher than the ambient temperatures in that mountain range.


edit: hmm...it looks like the effect might only happen right around the transition to the superconductive state, not while superconductive. That might actually mean it would need to be a lot hotter. Perhaps it is due to molten unobtainium below the surface of the gound below?



Note: I have not seen the film.

 

[warpus]

Who cares why the mountains were floating in the air? It's a magical planet - STUFF FLOATS IN MID AIR. It was put there cause it looks cool and flashy and makes people go "ooooh" and "aaaaah"

 

[Bill3000]

Apparently winner, and the definition is that if it is in art then it must be functional. So if Pride and Predudice is ever remade, but with three moons CGIed into the night sceens this time, apparently we shouldn't ask any questions and just go with it.

Pride and Predudice isn't a fantasy (or in the case of Avatar, Science Fantasy) movie.

 

[fishjie]

Didn't really enjoy the movie, if it weren't in 3d it wouldn't have been so good.

T1, T2, Aliens, and even Titanic were more fun for me.

Also the final battle was incompetently orchestrated by Jake. As a marine he should have known better. First off, why the hell would you ever charge a row of machine guns and power armor with horse archers? That's just ********. They should have been employing flanking maneuvers and attacking from all sides, including from the trees. Only then could they have taken advantage of their superior numbers. Complete envelopment would have been quite chaotic and easily broken the human morale, especially once the Navi managed to close in for meelee combat, where their superior hit points and attack power would have prevailed. To counter the power armor, they could have built pit traps. They're hunters after all.

As for the air battle, bows and arrows against gun ships? Really? Look they live in a swamp right? There's bound to be tons of mud. Gather the mud, put them into jars. They know how to make jars right? Throw the jars at the gunship windows. Their nav equipment doesn't function on the floating islands, so they have to navigate by sight. Once the windows are muddied up, they'd have to retreat and most likely crash in the process. I didn't see any windshield wipers anywhere.

I mean, I understand that the plot called for the massacre and pwnage of the navi, which would make the inevitable mother nature pwnage of the humans that much more spectacular. But still, it bothered me that this final battle was so incompetently orchestrated. Full direct frontal assaults vs an enemy with superior firepower is always a bad idea, as every battle in military history has shown.

 

[Camikaze]

It is explicitly stated that Unobtainium is valueable because it remains a superconductor at high temperatures, much higher than the ambient temperatures in that mountain range.

It is? I don't remember that.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Well, I haven't seen the movie, but I remember reading a lot saying that the value of unobtanium comes from it being superconductive at high temperatures, or at least roomtemperature whcih is a lot higher than any superconductors we have. I'm assuming those mountains aren't especially hot.

Hmm...I just looked it up on the avatar wiki and found that it is supposed to both be a superconductor and generate a powerful magnetic field instead of repelling such fields. I guess it makes a bit less sense than I thought.
http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium

 

[Esckey]

Yes, we have established that mindless handwaving is your style.

Says the guy that doesn't believe that there are female Na'vi hunters. Appearntly for you seeing isn't believeing

 

[GenMarshall]

First off, why the hell would you ever charge a row of machine guns and power armor with horse archers? That's just ********.

That's what the Galactic Empire thought in the Battle of Endor . Dang teddy bears and there bows n arrows charging into Stormtroopers with blasters and AT-STs

As for the air battle, bows and arrows against gun ships? Really?

Think Crit Arrows

 

[Winner]

Yes, we have established that mindless handwaving is your style. You're into handwaving, we get it.

Look Pat, I am sorry you're hurt after I've totally crushed your sorry attempt at a critique of the film, but unless you actually refute my points, we have nothing to talk about here.

1.) It hasn't been explained in accompanying materials.

2.) Even if it had been it is irrelevant. 99% of the viewing public will never hear/read/see any of these "other materials" and thus in order to make a move work all of what we see has to make sense on its face.

I guess it was SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED ON SCREEN how the light sabres work. Right? Right...? Sorry, the more you try to compare these two films in terms of realism, the more you fail.

All the science is explained for those who're interested in this book, released together with Avatar.

The whole "other materials" garbage was stupid when Star Wars did it, it was stupid when The Matrix did it, it was stupid when Star Trek did it last year and it is stupid when Avatar did.

No, it's actually the best way to do sci-fi - leave the advanced concepts for the interested, focus on other aspects on screen. If you have a problem with it, it's your problem.

Now, if you want to EXPAND on a story that already makes sense with more material fine, but your flagship medium has to stand on its own.

And it does, obviously.

Obvious connection? What obvious connection? I have a pen that stands on its hand via magnets I got from Brookstone years ago, does that mean everything with magnets should be expected to balance at odd angles? :crazyeyes:

We're on a planet full of strange material with amazing magnetic properties, we're reminded that there are regions of intense magnetic fields on the surface and we see floating mountains in one of these regions shorty after we've seen a small chunk of unobtanium float in an artificial magnetic field in a guy's office.

C'mon, this isn't rocket science!

For one, nothing suggests the unobtanium was flying of its own accord, in fact it is hovering over a metal disk with the "obvious connection" that the disc is making it float as a odd office decoration just like my pen.

Yes - it was demonstrated that unobtanium has the quality of being able to float in a magnetic field. Like the mountains, which do the same thing on a far larger scale...

Second, at no point is it ever even suggested the mountains contain unobtanium.

That's one of the parts where the director counts on viewers' intelligence. Unobtanium is superconductive and is commonly found in rocks. We see rocks fly in a strong magnetic field.

Oh my gods, how could the mountains fly?! Why don't they tell us!!!

Third, if there was that much unobtanium in them to actually make mountains fly why are they not being mined? Why is the LARGEST DEPOSIT OF UNOBTANIUM KNOWN not flying?

Maybe because

a) the magnetic flux renders most human instruments unusable
b) the mountains... fly in the air... which makes it kinda hard to get all the heavy mining machinery up there...

Yes, we have established that you are not appreciative of good story telling. I am sure you didn't get past the first pages of War and Peace and Crime and Punishment either.

I am pretty uninterested in what you've established, seeing how often you fail to make even the most basic logical conclusions.

The simple fact is that there was a time when movies placed character development, plot development, and most of all plot consistancy at a premium. But that is hard to do because it requires thinking and work, so you enjoy your CGI pornography.

If there's one thing I am really sick of, it's plot inconsistency. I've seen very little of it in Avatar.

The thought that you even contemplated the idea that you could accept that is disturbing. I am pretty sure that if they had told you they were flying because they were full of cotton candy, and equally plausable and intellectually stimulating plot device, you would have still hand waved it in favor of smurf porn.

Nope

Very few of it is physically impossible, just not currently achievable. In any case that is irrelevant given the plot mechanisms chosen. It was not a mistake that Star Wars was set "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" or that the societies we are seeing are in excess of 25,000 years old. This provides with the instant ability to remove ourselves from having to apply any understanding of politics or current technology to Star Wars, there is literally no connection to our current frame of reference. Dune did the exact same thing.

Avatar, on the other hand, made it very clear it wanted us to apply our current frame of reference, and thus the plot mechanisms it has to use to bring in things like floating mountians need to make sense to us in a more real way.

For the last time - it is possible for a superconductive material to fly in a magnetic field. There is nothing fundamentally difficult to explain there. Compared to things we're seeing in other sci-fi films and series, this is actually pretty realistic.

That is of course the whole reason why unobtanium's properties were explained to us in the first place, in order to provide a motivation for the antagonists. Note that floating was not a characteristic given.

I am sorry you didn't get it, but I did. Note that I went to the cinema as a sceptic (as usual) wanting to see what all the fuss was about. Since I am well-versed in hard science-fiction, I was also prepared to rip the movie apart if its science was obviously faulty. But it wasn't and that's a fact, not your grumpy rants.

No, his average viewer is someone like you, a fanboi.

Nope

Of course not, because being on Pandora did advance the plot. Floating mountains didn't. In fact they didn't just not advance the plot, they detracted from the plot because the add a lot of WTH quotient needlessly and movies like Avatar are already pushing the WTH envolpe pretty far by their very nature.

Its sort of like if dinosaures started randonely walking around in the background of Love Actually, or if Aliens saucers landed in the middle of sceen in Lord of the Rings, or a volcanoe erupted in the distance while Tom Hanks was storming Omaha beach. All make just as much sense as floating mountains in Avatar.

Or you could take the time, effort, and care to have all of that AND IT BE FUNCTIONAL. Or in other words, produce actual art. I realize that your quality control is all little more on the OMG SHINY end of the scale, so I am not surprised this is lost on you.

Really? I'd say you must be surprised by many things, if you didn't get even the simple ones in the film.

You know, don't bother answering, I now see that your problem with the film doesn't really have much to do with the film itself, so there is no point in arguing. Your objections are clearly based on your misunderstandings and faulty logic, which I now corrected, and your subjective aversion stemming from gods know what. I am not a psychologist, so I give up.

 

[Dachs]

I still haven't seen this movie. (That doesn't mean much, because the last movie I saw in theaters was The Dark Knight.) Judging by the number of butthurt people in this thread, I probably won't be changing that any time soon.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

edit: Oh, wait. I didn't reply.

 

[Yared]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8944955