|
(The nested quote was ridiculously big)
If I search for 'Avatar last air battle' all I find are the last airbender episodes...
anyway here are my 5s calculations after a google search using the 50ft shot into the air.
+ Show Spoiler +
from standing
release velocity of an arrow from a composite bow: 320 ft/s or 97.5 m/s
--> assume earth's gravity of 9.8 m/s/s
50ft = 15m flight = ~1/6 of a second, or an deaccel of ~1.66 m/s.
Or about 96 m/s from 97.5 m/s for 50ft.
- I assumed that they shot at all the ships while protecting the tree, not just the middle one. And since no ships went down, ships were equally protected/reinforced.
- I guess I trust in bulletproof glass over arrows - even future bulletproof glass vs alien-strength arrows. To be super detail oriented I would have liked to see the glass crack before shattering. For sure distance would impact force of the arrow, but when seeing the movie the two scenes seemed comparable.
first google result:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/86019555301
-I didn't mention the diving yet. I'm no physicist/engineer, but I would assume the arrow would at least shatter from the increased speed and force of impact as well.
Yeah, those jellyfish are pretty sweet - though even just regular hydras are immortal, aren't they?
And using biological immortality, so is cancer.
And you can check out this dude's neat analysis! http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440
|
Wow lots of positive feedback for this movie... Ima go see it this Sunday. 
|
In the movie it only shows arrows being shot at the Dragon Gunship (as far as I can remember having seen it twice) which was the ship closest to the ground headed by the Military Commander.
Also, in the Scorpion Gunship's who's glass was pierced by the arrows, there were many cracks and it definitely shattered.
In your calculations you have to factor in the fact that the average Na'vi is roughly three times as strong as the average human, in addition to the proportionally larger size of the bows/arrows, not to mention the possibility that the wood on Pandora could be much stronger than the wood of Earth.
|
Yeah, I considered it. Na'vi are strong and the arrows would lose less force in the first gunship scene. Bigger arrows and different 'air' resistance too - I don't even know if an arrow could fly straight in a 200 km/h dive. Pandora's trees could of course be made of stuff stronger than steel due to unobtainium/the carbon nanotubes they mentioned early on, but the problem with doing this is that the (ex?)military helicopters might be similarly reinforced and stronger with whatever deus ex machina you want to use.
I only saw it once... I thought the arrow-shattering was at the start of the last big battle?
I feel like if you were really into the movie you would think it just made sense but after being vaguely bored with the last 2 hours I was not in the mood for the epic hollywood ending.
I just remembered the LoTR 'horse-tribe of the plains' scene, I think I groaned out loud at that one.
|
I think they are at least 10 - 20 times stronger than a man.
Anyway, you have to keep in mind the angle of incidence. Breaking glass at 0 degrees incidence is much easier than at 80 degrees. Also, this is a for-profit company, not the military. Perhaps they sent their best ships out for the initial attack.
|
Braavos36392 Posts
also their arrows were sped faster because they had the strength of eywa behind them
because EYWA HAS HEARD YOU
|
On December 26 2009 15:58 Hot_Bid wrote:
also their arrows were sped faster because they had the strength of eywa behind them
because EYWA HAS HEARD YOU
You, sir, are correct.
|
On December 26 2009 15:58 Hot_Bid wrote:
also their arrows were sped faster because they had the strength of eywa behind them
because EYWA HAS HEARD YOU
hahaha
|
The angle they were being thrown at were different, on the first fight all arrows were bouncing off or scratching the glass, on the second one they were going directly to the glass and at much closer range + the diving which pretty much duplicated the speed.. The glasses weren't bulletproof as you could see by the "na'vi" helicopter that was shot at with a regular rifle.
|
I'm glad I'm not as smart as the guys who spotted the errors in the embryology of the dragonhawks and the flawed physics of the night elves' arrows against the Hornets. It must be really hard to enjoy anything when you're so much smarter than everyone else.
Anyway, I really liked the movie and have been recommending it to everyone. I hope it doesn't change my friends' opinions of my opinion
|
On December 26 2009 15:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
In the movie it only shows arrows being shot at the Dragon Gunship (as far as I can remember having seen it twice) which was the ship closest to the ground headed by the Military Commander.
Also, in the Scorpion Gunship's who's glass was pierced by the arrows, there were many cracks and it definitely shattered.
In your calculations you have to factor in the fact that the average Na'vi is roughly three times as strong as the average human, in addition to the proportionally larger size of the bows/arrows, not to mention the possibility that the wood on Pandora could be much stronger than the wood of Earth.
or the arrows they used were different?
Quite simple as that. Hunting arrows vs Armor-piercing arrows.
The middle age had different arrows for different purposes. Today, we have different projectiles for different purposes (high-explosives vs armor-piercing)
Eitherway, the arrows not piercing when they were on the ground can just be explained with the difference in height. I don't think anyone managed to take down a B-17 during World War II with arrows or guns.
|
On December 26 2009 15:58 Hot_Bid wrote:
also their arrows were sped faster because they had the strength of eywa behind them
because EYWA HAS HEARD YOU
Everyone laughs, but notice the arrows starting cracking the glass once they were shot from the backs of those flying creature things. So you have to add the velocity of those to the velocity of the arrow to get an even higher final velocity that can finally save the tree of life.
|
On December 26 2009 14:46 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 14:41 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 26 2009 14:09 Fzero wrote:
Did you know there are fucking underwater shrimps that can shoot sonic booms? One crab can pop bubbles underwater that burst with the HEAT OF THE SUN. There's a crab that has doubleswing in his movelist and it strikes so fast that you can't see both of the swings. There's a goddamn squid that has teeth on his blowholes so when he traps prey and twists the arms around the prey it lacerates flesh. Oh, they also change colors rapidly underwater to communicate the location of prey, including humans. Did I mention the goddamn animals that live forever? There's a jellyfish that just reverses aging when it gets tired of being old, goes back to being a polyp, and pop - I'm a jellyfish again.
Pandora could never happen. Ya were going to need to see some sources. Im a huge planet earth and zoobook fan but I aint never heard of heat of the sun bubble crabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp"The snap can also produce sonoluminescence from the collapsing cavitation bubble. As it collapses, the cavitation bubble reaches temperatures of over 5,000 K (4,726.85 degrees Celsius).[10] In comparison, the surface temperature of the sun is estimated to be around 5,778 K."
thats badass
|
On December 26 2009 16:37 Failsafe wrote:
I'm glad I'm not as smart as the guys who spotted the errors in the embryology of the dragonhawks and the flawed physics of the night elves' arrows against the Hornets. It must be really hard to enjoy anything when you're so much smarter than everyone else.
Anyway, I really liked the movie and have been recommending it to everyone. I hope it doesn't change my friends' opinions of my opinion
ROFL +1. Epic post imo because I completely agree with you ^^.
|
On December 26 2009 14:44 Nal_rAwr wrote:
Review
Saw the movie today, and thought it was pretty good and nobody should say it failed to live up to its hype.
But the storyline was VERY cliche and I feel like I've seen the movie before. It wasn't really something new, and it felt like Matrix, The Last Samurai, and some ten-year-old's storyline being mixed together...
There are many things about the movie you will like, but plot-wise, it was kinda disgusting
Yeah this. I was thinking Last Samurai the whole time. I could pretty much predict the plot the entire way through...
It had like every cliche, and of course an "improvement-over-time" montage.
Really nice looking movie though. I saw it in Imax which made it 100x more epic.
|
On December 26 2009 16:37 Failsafe wrote:
I'm glad I'm not as smart as the guys who spotted the errors in the embryology of the dragonhawks and the flawed physics of the night elves' arrows against the Hornets. It must be really hard to enjoy anything when you're so much smarter than everyone else.
Anyway, I really liked the movie and have been recommending it to everyone. I hope it doesn't change my friends' opinions of my opinion
Most of it was research from after the movie (knowledge doesn't have anything to do with being smart). I loved the movie while I was watching it and I think most people don't have a hard time memorizing fantastic moments (especially the details).
I was the one defending the movie's integrity but w/e.
|
On December 26 2009 16:37 Failsafe wrote:
I'm glad I'm not as smart as the guys who spotted the errors in the embryology of the dragonhawks and the flawed physics of the night elves' arrows against the Hornets. It must be really hard to enjoy anything when you're so much smarter than everyone else.
Anyway, I really liked the movie and have been recommending it to everyone. I hope it doesn't change my friends' opinions of my opinion
ahahaha that was smooth. totally agree here, even though some of the flaws are fun to point out and laugh about (water from mountains is classic lol)
|
I saw this movie a few hours ago. I thought it was super neat~
Yup. Super neat...super neat indeed...
|
Everytime some people dont like a movie and others do, suddenly the first group are grinches, dont have a sense of humor, are overly critical and skeptical etc etc. Look I went in with the best intentions, high expectations, and not the mindset to burn the movie down at all. The first half blew me the fuck away, I loved it, and I was more then willing to look past the somewhat shallow characters, predictable storyline and the dialogue. But come second half, really, anyone that's seen a few movies could have predicted every single thing that was going to happen, the story wasnt "well told" at all in my opinion, it was overly simplistic in its good vs bad/nature vs technology story and the dialogue, god forbid, got even worse. It's extremely anoying to always be set aside as a humorless grinch everytime you find very plausible fault in a movie, and I must say it very much surprises me that so many people werent at all bothered by the predicatability and the dialogue, yet I dont go around calling them gullible twats at a kindergarten level.
|
On December 26 2009 18:21 Promises wrote:
Everytime some people dont like a movie and others do, suddenly the first group are grinches, dont have a sense of humor, are overly critical and skeptical etc etc. Look I went in with the best intentions, high expectations, and not the mindset to burn the movie down at all. The first half blew me the fuck away, I loved it, and I was more then willing to look past the somewhat shallow characters, predictable storyline and the dialogue. But come second half, really, anyone that's seen a few movies could have predicted every single thing that was going to happen, the story wasnt "well told" at all in my opinion, it was overly simplistic in its good vs bad/nature vs technology story and the dialogue, god forbid, got even worse. It's extremely anoying to always be set aside as a humorless grinch everytime you find very plausible fault in a movie, and I must say it very much surprises me that so many people werent at all bothered by the predicatability and the dialogue, yet I dont go around calling them gullible twats at a kindergarten level.
I actually enjoyed the relative simplicity of the dialog and storyline.
To be honest, I usually have a bad reaction to most movies after I watch them. I view movies as a type of voluntary mind control, and when complex dialog that has hidden ideological meanings or insinuates something, it doesn't have a good effect on me.
This movie does have a certain ideological aspect to it, but its not wrapped in so many layers that you can't distinguish your own evil desires from those of the characters from those of the humanity from the question of life. You aren't left with logical inconsistencies that are regarded as "artistic symbolism" from which endless term papers can be written. Its a simple story. A bunch of corporate goons are trying to get rich by plundering some unobtainium. We see the point of view from a young guy, who could be any one of us, as he makes a type of spiritual transformation. I don't think it was about good vs evil or technology vs nature necessarily. I think it was more about a reorientation of values. The bad guys weren't portrayed as evil, just ignorant.
I think the simple story combined with visuals will actually help this movie be successful with a wide audience around the globe. I also think the story was more of an emotionally based one (story told by images) rather than an intellectually based on (story told by dialog), which aligns with the nature of the values being pushed. So a distinction should be made between "graphics" and "images".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
