EPTin that movie you see nearly nothing unconventional. f.e. disc shape anti gravity engine driven transporters that manage to get to speed without acceleration and fly in angles instead of curves. that would be future like. not that crap in that movie.
James Cameron's AVATAR series - Page 65
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
in that movie you see nearly nothing unconventional. f.e. disc shape anti gravity engine driven transporters that manage to get to speed without acceleration and fly in angles instead of curves. that would be future like. not that crap in that movie. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:40 StorkHwaiting wrote: Because using explosive based weaponry weighs more and therefore costs more than magnetic based weaponry. It's cheaper to use more advanced tech when it's an exponential increase in performance/capability/energy source. With the technology proposed by the above document, railguns would be to them as slingshots are to us. not when the magnetic-based weaponry requires unobtanium to operate | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:39 Archerofaiur wrote: The hilarious part is that everything your pointing out was explained in the movie. Maybe if you werent so focused on trying to destroy the film you could have picked up on that. Hint: + Show Spoiler + Floating mountains Yes, a powerful magnetic field from the planet would overwhelm superconducting magnets in a railgun. How are they fabricating antimatter fuel on Pandora then? Seeing as that kinda requires magnet based technology too? And why are they able to send electronic signals to their avatar bodies? Seeing as a magnetic field strong enough to FLOAT mountains, would also scramble every single kind of electronics as if the planet was a massive, constant EMP. Which also begs the question of why the humans would use giant robot mechs on a planet that's covered in massive magnetic fields. Wait, I'm sure they have some kind of fluff about "hardened circuits" that are shielded from the magnetic fields. Nevermind, that means they could do the same to any other equipment they have... Damn. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:48 StorkHwaiting wrote: Yes, a powerful magnetic field from the planet would overwhelm superconducting magnets in a railgun. How are they fabricating antimatter fuel on Pandora then? Seeing as that kinda requires magnet based technology too? And why are they able to send electronic signals to their avatar bodies? Seeing as a magnetic field strong enough to FLOAT mountains, would also scramble every single kind of electronics as if the planet was a massive, constant EMP. Which also begs the question of why the humans would use giant robot mechs on a planet that's covered in massive magnetic fields. Wait, I'm sure they have some kind of fluff about "hardened circuits" that are shielded from the magnetic fields. Nevermind, that means they could do the same to any other equipment they have... Damn. Before we deal more with your uninformed scepticism Id like to hear your answer to this (just incase you missed it) On January 11 2010 06:44 Archerofaiur wrote: ROFL This is too rich. Guess what? James Cameron is a member of the NASA Advisory Council and is working on the project to put cameras on an upcoming, manned Mars mission. He is the guy telling NASA what to do. I think youve pretty much discredited everything you have to say  | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:44 Archerofaiur wrote: ROFL This is too rich. Guess what? James Cameron is a member of the NASA Advisory Council and is working on the project to put cameras on an upcoming, manned Mars mission. He is the guy telling NASA what to do. I think youve pretty much discredited everything you have to say By the way, as they explain in the film, Pandora's incredible magnetic fields prevent sophisticated energy technology. Wow archer. Do you have an altar in your room, too? Lol. Do you have any idea what being in the NAC is like? You know it's not a hard-science think tank right? You should call up some NASA department heads and tell them you think James Cameron is the guy telling NASA what to do. See what they say. All you've really done is show how fanatical you are by pulling at straws like "James Cameron tells NASA what to do." Here's a choice quote about your AWESOME point that you needed to quote twice: 1- James Cameron once sat on NASA's Advisory Council The first thing you didn't know about James Cameron is that he and NASA: not a good match. A member of the Mars Society, James Cameron sat briefly on the NASA Advisory Council, which in turn counsels NASA administrators on the direction of the agency. His time was short; he advocated for missions to Mars, but really while "NASA" and "James Cameron" may look great together on paper, in reality it's a bust. The space agency is a massive, inert bureaucracy clogged by capable but slow-moving academics -- you know; those extras in the background, the collateral damage, at the tail-end of a high-speed scene from one of Cameron's movies. Either give him dictatorial power as NASA's top administrator -- there might be a McDonald's on Mars by 2012 -- or forget about it. His reputation as an ultra-control freak comes from the way he can scream a disorganized mountain into an impossibly perfect film, but not every organization cowers to Cameron. Edit: Say it with me TL. Loooool. Loooooool. OK, that was fun. | ||
|
TealLurker
United States791 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:25 BanZu wrote: I like the story. That's also personal opinion. And I thought it was flawed. That's also personal opinion. So I'm more inclined to agree with Kaiser. | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
On January 10 2010 21:56 opsayo wrote: i'm hard pressed to find a movie that was created not just for the money unless you're talking some shittacular high school home video You haven't heard of Cannes Film Fest or any other International Film Festivals amirite? You've been looking at the wrong place sir. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:44 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: i thing its pretty much the problem if you want to explain a science fiction movie and look up at nasa you are in the wrong direction. like wernher von braun was inspired by science fiction, not by present day science. in that movie you see nearly nothing unconventional. f.e. disc shape anti gravity engine driven transporters that manage to get to speed without acceleration and fly in angles instead of curves. that would be future like. not that crap in that movie. This 100% | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
http://www.space.com/entertainment/ft_cameron_mars_050209.html You can change it to James Cameron was a member of the NASA Advisory Council and has worked on a project to put cameras on an upcoming, manned Mars mission. He has also been involved with numerous deep sea operations. Your accusation that James Cameron doesnt know what hes talking about is obviously as false as an accusation can be. You would be incredibly hard pressed to find a science fiction director who knew more about his subject matter. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 07:02 Archerofaiur wrote: Argh damn wikipedia and its outdated sources. Here was the reference http://www.space.com/entertainment/ft_cameron_mars_050209.html Nevertheless your accusation that James Cameron doesnt know what hes talking about is obviously as false as and accusation can be. Archer, you made a really really dumb point and made an ass of yourself. Now everything you say is invalidated . (This is tongue in cheek btw)James Cameron was brought in to advise on PR issues. The man is not a foremost thinker in the field of physics/space travel. Perhaps next time you should rein your passions in and not go apeshit crazy as soon as you think you've found something to contradict me. I think my points through, I'm really not on a crusade to bash the film. I wouldn't have said jack if you didn't continually try to post evidence that the world was deeply thought out. If you keep trying to argue your point, then I'll resume the debate. It doesn't make sense when you keep posting evidence to try to prove your point, then get mad and accuse people of trying to bash when they rise to your challenge and respond to the points you've posted. I was A-OK with letting the debate rest where it did. You somehow thought it was a good idea to run on here and post the first wall of text you could find that sounded like semi-credible science babble. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 07:02 Archerofaiur wrote: Argh damn wikipedia and its outdated sources. Here was the reference http://www.space.com/entertainment/ft_cameron_mars_050209.html You can change it to James Cameron was a member of the NASA Advisory Council and has worked on a project to put cameras on an upcoming, manned Mars mission. He has also been involved with numerous deep sea operations. Your accusation that James Cameron doesnt know what hes talking about is obviously as false as an accusation can be. You would be incredibly hard pressed to find a science fiction director who knew more about his subject matter. I wouldn't be hard pressed at all to find a SF writer who knows more about his subject matter. There's a reason I'm not a big fan of SF movies. They often try to turn science into plot devices because there isn't enough time in a 2 hr film to adequately explain a foreign setting to the audience and have a meaningfully story/characterization. Therefore, one or the other aspect usually suffers. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 11 2010 07:09 StorkHwaiting wrote: Archer, you made a really really dumb point and made an ass of yourself. Now everything you say is invalidated . (This is tongue in cheek btw)James Cameron was brought in to advise on PR issues. The man is not a foremost thinker in the field of physics/space travel. Perhaps next time you should rein your passions in and not go apeshit crazy as soon as you think you've found something to contradict me. I think my points through, I'm really not on a crusade to bash the film. I wouldn't have said jack if you didn't continually try to post evidence that the world was deeply thought out. If you keep trying to argue your point, then I'll resume the debate. Everything you just said applies much more to you much more then it does to me. All I did was post a fact that was unfortunatly outdated. How many of your accusations have I proven invalid? And least we forget the main point of that quote was that James Cameron absolutly knows what hes talking about, still stands. The man is known as the perfectionist director. Trust me hes done his homework. I would put forth that no sci fi film in the history of mankind has had as much attention paid to the details. Btw im not mad at you. I just find your comments amusing since they couldnt be farther from the truth. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 07:13 Archerofaiur wrote: Everything you just said applies much more to you much more then it does to me. All I did was post a fact that was unfortunatly outdated. How many of your accusations have I proven invalid? And least we forget the main point of that quote was that James Cameron absolutly knows what hes talking about, still stands. The man is known as the perfectionist director. Trust me hes done his homework. Btw im not mad at you. I just find your comments amusing since they couldnt be farther from the truth. You've refuted zero points. You think you've proven something, when all you've done is show you don't know any science. Your "fact" was more than just outdated. It was downright wrong. James Cameron never gave scientific advice to NASA. He was there trying to push for a mars colonization initiative. Pretty much doing nothing more than a lobbyist at Capitol Hill. But I guess according to your logic, a perfectionist movie director makes him a genius physicist. Hey Susan Boyle's really good at singing. I guess she must run NASA too. Trust ME, he might have done his homework, but he got the answers wrong. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 11 2010 07:21 Archerofaiur wrote: Name for me a sci fi movie you think paid more attention to the fact than Avatar. Lets see if your trying to find flaws with the very movie that does it the best. Do you read? | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
I read. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
K. Read what I said above about SF films. And if you like this kind of thing, I'd recommend Peter F. Hamilton. He does space opera better and bigger than anything James Cameron has done. The brain > the eyes. P.S. I should also apologize for any harshness in my previous comments. Looking back over them, some are a bit rude and I apologize for that. I just vehemently disagree with you on the obvious things we've discussed.  So nothing personal, archer. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 11 2010 07:30 StorkHwaiting wrote: K. Read what I said above about SF films. And if you like this kind of thing, I'd recommend Peter F. Hamilton. He does space opera better and bigger than anything James Cameron has done. The brain > the eyes. K now do you read? Read what I said challenging you to find a sci fi film that did it better than Avatar. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On January 11 2010 06:40 StorkHwaiting wrote: Because using explosive based weaponry weighs more and therefore costs more than magnetic based weaponry. It's cheaper to use more advanced tech when it's an exponential increase in performance/capability/energy source. There are more variables that go into cost than that. There's no way you can say one way is cheaper than the other when you have no knowledge of the economy. The relevant notion is still whether or not the weapons they had ought to have been good enough and I guess you tacitly agree that they should have been. I don't quite understand what you want from fiction anyway. If it doesn't agree with our current scientific knowledge to the greatest extent possible, then it's bad fiction? But it seems you even go beyond that and expect it to agree with scientific ideas that aren't on the level of knowledge yet, but rather just scientific guesses. Why does this matter? Fiction can choose to depart from reality at any point it wishes. Classic literature is full of unrealistic things, like dialogue or monologues so well thought out that regular human minds could not possibly utter it off the top of their heads, but we believe that these characters can do it. Authors will write characters to act in ways that they've never observed from real people. And readers of classic literature take the fiction's departures from reality in stride so that they may see what the author is trying to communicate. I think what Cameron is trying to do with Avatar is obvious and your complaints are missing the point of the piece. | ||
|
Lyrok
Germany85 Posts
Revolution? Maybe, but one I definetely don't care about when looking for a great movie. | ||
| ||
