Well, I looked up details about that upcoming James Cameron movie "Avatar".
I'm rather less than impressed. It's a typical cliche sci-fi standard story about evil greedy humans invading a planet for minerals. Hmm, are they also after Vespene Gas? :P
Guy gets involved in project to infiltrate aliens, finds hot alien babe, decides to help alien babe and her people, da-de-doo.
The only twist is that the human guy is using a hybrid body. Other than that, it's a very proto-typical Disney-version "Pocahantas" love story that doesn't offer much in the way of anything new, or even credible from a basic science standpoint. It makes no sense at all to waste the resources it takes for interstellar travel to go mine minerals. Even if you decided you wanted those minerals in that start system vs any other system (pretty much any system with habitable terrestrial planets will have the same elemental proportions) you could get them very cheaply by just mining asteroids in the system, with no fear of infectious alien diseases or having to wipe out all indiginous life on the planet. You do that second part because it's fun, not for profit. >:3
Plus, it goes the route of touting itself almost exclusively on its special effects. Which means it's a distraction from the weak plot.
Yeah, I'm not sure how good this movie will be. But given that James Cameron is involved, I have to give it a shot. He's made some of my favourite movies of all time and I've loved every movie of his I've seen. Watching Terminator 3 after Terminator 2 just shows how far ahead of most of Hollywood he is; or was, I will admit the 12 year gap since his last movie is making me a tad wary.
Still, his taste in movies seems to link up with mine a lot of the time. It'll be fun to see if there's an "elevator" scene in the next movie.
On the opposite side, a big hat's off to the makers of "Paranormal Activity", who have proven beyond any wisp of doubt that it doesn't take $100 million to make a movie good.
They did it with $15,000! Take that Hollow-wood!
It also demonstrated that I was right in my thinking that a "Ghost Hunters"-esque type of docu-fiction with just the right use of creepy and shocking happenings would become a blockbuster in the right hands.
I'm getting the feeling, in terms of reaction, that Avatar will be Titanic all over again. It'll get lots of praise in threatres, both from critics and audiences, awards up the wazoo, then after a few months it finally sees DVD release and people hate due to an overrelaince on spectacle and posssibly a cliched at best, painful at worst romance plot. basically, it'll be THE It Film for a few months before nobody will admit to liking it.
Cameron actually tried getting this film off the ground right after Titanic, but due a combation of factors such as the fact the technology for the animation needed to be invented during production, Cameron's own temper, ego, and general asshattery during the Infamous production of Titanic, which lead to an already expensive film being made late to release, and severely overbudget, and Cameron's admitting Avatar would need an even bigger budget then Titanic, well, nobody wanted to shell out the money.
Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed anotehr movie again.
Quote from: Alondro on October 30, 2009, 03:09:07 PM
On the opposite side, a big hat's off to the makers of "Paranormal Activity", who have proven beyond any wisp of doubt that it doesn't take $100 million to make a movie good.
They did it with $15,000! Take that Hollow-wood!
They proved that a $15,000 movie would make money, not that it would be good :B
Quote from: Kafzeil on October 30, 2009, 09:17:06 PM
Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed anotehr movie again.
Yeah, luck! Because we all know if a movie grosses $1.8 billion worldwide it's just a sheer fluke!
Look, I know some people don't like the movie, but that was a given due to the sheer amount of people who watched it.
Quote from: Sofox on October 31, 2009, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Kafzeil on October 30, 2009, 09:17:06 PM
Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed anotehr movie again.
Yeah, luck! Because we all know if a movie grosses $1.8 billion worldwide it's just a sheer fluke!
Look, I know some people don't like the movie, but that was a given due to the sheer amount of people who watched it.
The movie also cost $200 Million to make, and it was considered grossly overbudget. And again, the movie was late to theatres.
That was less a stattement on Titantic's quality, but more on producers refusing finace a movie from someone like Cameron. He falt out refused to revise scenes or cut many of them out for budgetary purposes. He pracically assaulted an executive who suggested so.
The Fact that Avatar is finally seeing daylight after 12 years of Delelopment Hell hopefully means Cameron had to eat some humble pie so the producers would talk to him again.
Quote from: Kafzeil on October 31, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: Sofox on October 31, 2009, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Kafzeil on October 30, 2009, 09:17:06 PM
Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed anotehr movie again.
Yeah, luck! Because we all know if a movie grosses $1.8 billion worldwide it's just a sheer fluke!
Look, I know some people don't like the movie, but that was a given due to the sheer amount of people who watched it.
The movie also cost $200 Million to make, and it was considered grossly overbudget. And again, the movie was late to theatres.
That was less a stattement on Titantic's quality, but more on producers refusing finace a movie from someone like Cameron. He falt out refused to revise scenes or cut many of them out for budgetary purposes. He pracically assaulted an executive who suggested so.
The Fact that Avatar is finally seeing daylight after 12 years of Delelopment Hell hopefully means Cameron had to eat some humble pie so the producers would talk to him again.
I'd take artistic vision over executive meddling anyday, at least in some movies where it's shown to be an epic detriment to the actual WORK.
y'know what amuses me overall?
people slamming a movie before even giving it a chance, inversely this also works for praise, as well.
such strong opinions are best reserved when one has seen the movie in its entirety.
whether gushing it, or condemning it, makes no difference to me, i want to see this movie simply because it seems so thoroughly thought out, and i shall form my own opinions about it.
Truth be told, Avatar is Cameron's creative baby, and not the detritus squeezings of some hollywood exec. Like it or not, this'll prolly be his magnum opus.
12 years? Cameron's become big enough and scary enough to nudge producers to see things his way.
for once, it's an -original- movie.. not based off some historical event, book, game, sparkle-vampires, future event, or any other media for that matter. Folks say the plot is cliche? name one thing that isn't these days.
I swear folks can't see the forest for the trees these days.
I agree with Turnsky on this one- you are trying to condamn a movie that hasn't even been released yet, over the fact that it's director is one of The Best of all time and has produced The Best movie of all time worldwide(TITANIC still holds a truckfull of records). So Cameron stands up to his ideas even if they go overbudget- he has certainly prooven himself right to do so. So what seem to be the problem. Some people actually sound as if they are scared viewers will like this movie and like it a lot.
Come to think of it, yeah? Why the animosity for a movie that no one has seen yet?
Is it just a fear of the overemphasis of big budgets over good story? Is it because people are reacting to the hype? Is it because people didn't like Titanic and don't want a repeat of the hype that was around at the time?
And come one Kafzeil, you should know that it's weak to go ad hominem against Cameron. It's almost a stereotype that truly creative artists are temperamental and strong in their vision, many great movies have gone over budget, and to be honest, rushing a movie for a specific release date has caused a lot of movies to become a lot worse (Spiderman 3 for example).
So yeah, interpersonal skills are important and diplomacy with people who you are working with is vital and Cameron may have learned a lot in the past few years, but why do you feel so strongly that that should be the case?
Yes, it to would be nice to see the movie before rating it as either good or bad.
My major qualm is that the plot sounded far too much like "Dances With Wolves" to me. Which, admittedly, wasn't a terrible movie.
Let's consider fellow directors peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, and Steven Spielberg. All of them try to get there projects done on budget and on time, and none would have assaulted an exec for telling them to reconsider shooting a few expensive scenes. And getting a movie done on time gives it a chance of release. The Longer a movie gets past it's intended the release date, the higher the chance of somebody just axing it mid-production. And besides, the Superman films were doomed the moment Richard Donner was forced off the project. All that goofy, groan-worthy humour in Superman II? Lester's fault.
Personally, my beef with Cameron right now has a lot to due with A) The Movie's Hype Machine, and B) the fact that release info has been somewhat underwhelming. the movie's plot seems fairly cliche but it's being hyped as the next Jurassic Park, but with nothing to show for it. The special effects look good, but not THIS WILL CHANGE FILM FOREVER level of good. It looks like an Okay Movie trying to act like a Revolutionary Movie.
Truth be told I probably will see this movie since there's dick all to see December of this year, but I don't expect much of Avatar.
Personally I think you're taking the wrong approach to this.
I mean sure, it's unavoidable to have an opinion of a movie before you see it, maybe even mentioning it in the right context is understandable. But letting that opinion influence your emotions? Venting your frustration at a director you don't even know (incidentally Alfred Hitchcock was strong minded about how his movies should go, and often his movies went over schedule)?
Peter Sellers was also very demanding and could get very nasty at times. He'd also demand re-takes of scenes dozens of times (sometimes more!) until he was satisfied he had the timing right.
I don't have any opinion of Cameron personally. I just think that this movie is being way over-rated already and from what I've seen it consists of a very cliche plot that many old sci-fi series used frequently (Dr. Who, for instance, had a number of episodes with bad ol humans raping a planet of primitive aliens for minerals or energy).
And let's face it, "Independence Day" showed how it'd really be done. You want the resources of a planet? Kill everything on it that can even shake a fist at you. The whole avatar project in the movie doesn't make any sense as it's been presented, unless the plot has a whole bunch of details we've not been informed of. I can think of one way it could work: the avatar project was to be used by a moderate government to coax the aliens into letting human mine the planet, but then there was a coux and a violent military dictator seized power and wants to strip-mine and steamroll every planet in range to fuel his mad quest for a galactic empire. That'd work, and it fits human nature and historical fact perfectly. It's what crazy military dictators do. :3
you really shouldn't go into a Cameron movie expecting anything but an entirely cliched plot bolstered by spectacular action sequences. I mean, Terminator 2 is completely cringe-worthy if you're watching it for the story, or the dialogue, but it's so goddamn well put together that it doesn't even matter. Cameron's all about aesthetics, and this one looks like it could be really, really good.
Yes, It blindly praising the film before it's out is just as bad. If I told someone after the princess bride came out that Rob reiner would be behind one of the worst movies of the 90s? Never assume a good Director can't make at least one stinker. And Hitchcock at least expressed some regret over the crap he put people through, especially the flat out dangerous ones. I've yet to hear Cameron apologize to Winslet for nearly drowning on set. Or the naked thing.
Actually, ALondro, the Independence Day thing didn't work because humanity had some great tech-oh wait. These Cat People don't even have that. I guess you could just glass the Hell out of them from orbit and call it a day. None of this infiltration/sabotoeur/avatar crap. If Civ IV taught me anything, if you have Tanks and they have spearmen, you can pretty stomp that Civilization out of existence before they catch up. Still, I'd handle Avatar's plot with the V method. You go down and tell these primative people you're here to help them and you're there friends, and you give them stuff so you can get the resources they happen to be sitting on. Then, once you have want you need, do what thou wilt to them. They'd hardly expect their benefactors to suddenly turn on them.
For the record, i felt Terminator 1 was better then T2 for one reason: Arnold talks less.
Quote from: Kafzeil on November 06, 2009, 02:41:31 AM
Still, I'd handle Avatar's plot with the V method. You go down and tell these primative people you're here to help them and you're there friends, and you give them stuff so you can get the resources they happen to be sitting on. Then, once you have want you need, do what thou wilt to them. They'd hardly expect their benefactors to suddenly turn on them.
So we can eat them? >:3
Quote from: Alondro on November 06, 2009, 03:46:48 PM
So we can eat them? >:3
If they're not somehow poisonious or harmful to us, then yes. Waste not, want not.
At the risk of being jumped on for posting in a thread just short of the "make a new thread for your petty question/comment" warning...
Can anyone better-acquainted with this movie identify the Na'vi in one of the Wikia links? The one who looks like a surprised cat? Anyone who's seen them will know who I mean.
(I didn't think Terminator 2's plot was that bad...)
Quote from: Caswin on November 18, 2009, 07:54:22 PM
(I didn't think Terminator 2's plot was that bad...)
But Terminator 3's
was stupid.
They were all stupid if you ever tried to work out the time-travel mechanics in your head (don't do this)
Quote from: bill on November 20, 2009, 01:07:40 PM
They were all stupid if you ever tried to work out the time-travel mechanics in your head (don't do this)
Well, naturally. The guy from the future being the father of John Conner is impossible. It's a paradox that logically can have no beginning. And then, if you stop Judgement Day, why would he have needed to come back in the first place? The whole future would be automatically changed... and the universe destroyed.
Unless you buy into the whole explanation (in other sci-fi) that it creates splinter worlds with the alternate time-lines all existing in parallel. Of course, that would seriously screw up the time-travel aspects, as you'd also have to zero in on the specific time-line's dimension.
Meh, backwards time travel is a messy idea no matter how you look at it. Going to the future and getting stuck there is the only way to avoid any potential paradoxes in your story. There are a few past-future causality loop scenarios which can kinda work superficially, but in the end there are always problems in how they'd actually come to be.
That's why Dr. Who is great. It's too fun to care about how the Earth's time-line would be ripped to shreds by this point. But it's also fun to note that the Doctor is always very careful not to return to his previous incarnations' visits (except in cases where the future, ie 1999, was very different, which is then explained by the time-altering effects of the Doctor's actions, and the Time War).
It's so convoluted you just kinda nod your head and go with it. :3
Well, the real point of Terminator was always robots and people with absurd firepower. Time travel was just an excuse.
Back on the subject of Avatar, I recently saw a preview that actually showed plot content! Pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had for the movie.
Overthinkers.
I'm just content knowing that this movie isn't a live action adaptation of the Avatar anime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender). Although after googling ''Avatar'' I discover that there is a movie adaptation of the afore mentioned anime, slated for release in July of 2010, see here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/) if you're at all interested, but I digress. My mother thinks it may be good, so that'd be reason enough to go see it. I myself seem to be (somewhat) interested in this movie, so i will probably go see it we've the means to, and my mom decides to. The ''cat-like'' look of these "Na'vi" also interest me, seeing as how I've wondered what an anthro animal would look like IRL, but I shush now.
I watched the trailer. Looks like Fern Gully meets Gears of War, which should be fúcking awesome but instead looks like arsefluff.
I really love your open honest directness Rabid.
To attempt to hijack the thread like Dagardo tried to:
Speaking of alien invasions in the endless quest for new resources, has anyone seen the new series on ABC, known as V. It's supposed to be a re-make a series that occurred in the 80s. It has something to do with a Nazi allegory coming to steal Earth's resources by acting seemingly friendly and then stabbing Earth in the back at the last minute.
But no matter what, reptile aliens are cool because they're anthro lizards. xD
Quote from: rabid_fox on November 22, 2009, 08:21:28 AM
I watched the trailer. Looks like Fern Gully meets Gears of War, which should be fúcking awesome but instead looks like arsefluff.
If it has a big lizard that sings a song about eating things alive, then it will be good.
c:
*OMGVORE!!!* D:
... I saw the original, does that help?
I've seen previews for movies with the same narrative as Avatar released in 2009
http://starseeker.com/2009-movies/battle-for-tera-2009/
although one has to admit the whole idea that Americans or whitie mac whiteface is out to steal the natural resources of the poor defenseless savage or primitive race of sentient beings has been done to death. I blame Disney's Pocahontas for having the bar dropped so low on this narrative. However, I'm sure Avatar is going to be more visually stimulating than Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal if not as well written... for the record I though The Dark Crystal was super boring at parts but then again I first saw it when I was seven or eight and again as an adult a few years ago so you can draw your own conclusions.
It really was the whole 'humans are assholes' element that turned me off. Really, can't we have an original plot? Maybe the humans did not initially recognize they were sentient and then there was a diplomatic kerfluffle leading to every one shooting everyone else? Something a bit more, well, plausable.
I think this review pretty much parallels what I've been saying.
Pretty to look at, but only skin deep (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html)
So, yeah. Great visuals, but for the amount of money spent and 15 years in the making, you'd think they could get better writing and acting.
But I'm sure it'll make a mint anyway, cuz most people today are only interested in flashy things that are environmentally friendly and make America look bad.
By the way, as I thought, the bad old military-industrial complex IS after a non-existant super-rare mineral found ONLY on this planet (and not in any asteroids in the system which would be much more easily extractable with interstellar-level technology). The name of this mineral: unobtainium. :erk Good lord, whose brilliant idea was that?
But I shall have to watch it because my aunt wants me to. She didn't like "Paranormal Activity" (I did) and so I suppose I owe her to go watch this. :/ So in a few weeks I'll deliver a full review.
I'm sure I'll find a few of the creatures interesting... but only for evil things I can do with vore. :mwaha
Quote from: Alondro on December 14, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
The name of this mineral: unobtainium. :erk Good lord, whose brilliant idea was that?
Heh, that reminds me of when I came up with a power source crystal for one of my own attempts at world building. I called it "Extremium". Needless to say that name didn't go over so well with others in the role-playing forum I was in. :P
I think I'm going to go see this movie. I'm gonna admit that I was one of the people who
completely bought nearly bought the ultimately-disproved "THIS MOVIE HAS A 500 MILLION PRICE TAG" rumors, so I started paying attention to the trailers and hype and advertisements.
Actually, now that I keep looking over the stills of all these incredible scenes, I think I'm becoming genuinely enthusiastic about the film, and not just because I'm feeling irrationally charitable. Even if it ends up being a shallow sparklefest, I might enjoy it anyway. It'll probably be less of a Tear Jerker than Where the Wild Things Are or Up, two movies I have yet to see, so it'll give me a reason to visit the theaters.
Plus, goddamn, the effects look amazing. This is... oh god, beautiful.
Quote from: ChaosMageX on December 14, 2009, 02:00:14 PM
Heh, that reminds me of when I came up with a power source crystal for one of my own attempts at world building. I called it "Extremium". Needless to say that name didn't go over so well with others in the role-playing forum I was in. :P
Uhhhh no offense, but I can probably see why it got such a poor reception. :B
Although if I tried to name a mineral I think I'd fail pretty hard. The sad thing is I'll probably need to do that eventually when stealing real-world metals and minerals stops working in the face of fantasy world improbabilities. My Chemistry teacher would be very disappointed with me.
Quote from: Alondro on December 14, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
I think this review pretty much parallels what I've been saying.
Pretty to look at, but only skin deep (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html)
Yeah, that's definitely a James Cameron movie.
Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, and wrote the most accurate thing about Cameron that I've read; that nobody knows how to spend $300 million better than he does.
This just convinces me to go see it more, because I know that it'll at the bare minimum it'll be enjoyable. Not every movie has to be deep and intelligent and philosophical to be a good film. Unless you're a critic, cinema viewing shouldn't be an "oh my god I must tell the world how this movie can/will/did suck" experience, it should be for -entertainment- damnit.
I think I'm just a little prickled around the edges that Alondro is basically ranting that it sucks. The more I look over what he says, the more I think it's because he's a scientist and thus everything has to conform to real world logic and sense or something. (And given everyone I know despised Paranormal Activity and he liked it, it may just be a case of horrible taste! :b)
And the 'unobtainium' name for the mineral? Sounds like a nod to the fact they do this fictional mineral stuff all the time. :u
Quote from: Alondro on December 14, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
The name of this mineral: unobtainium. :erk Good lord, whose brilliant idea was that?
Most likely it's the author's idea of a joke since the term unobtainium has enered the lexicon of scifi fans'
It's basicly a catch all term for any mysterious and poorly defined super materials. skriff from lary nivens ring world, or vibranuim from the marvel universe
Plus it' not like this is the first major movie to even use the term
looka the Core. the wholeship was made litteraly of unobtainium
A movie doesn't have to have a deep and meaningful plot to be good, but at minimum it must not have a mind jarringly bad plot. I'm not giving Avater good odds on that point.
The biggest beef I have with the plot is that THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE AVATAR PROJECT AT ALL!!
They go through all this expensive BS to create the Avatars, then just seem to say, "Nah, let's just attack anyway."
That is just plain poor writing. The Avatar project becomes nothing more than a feeble plot device to get the main character into the needed position.
I could even accept the unobtainium thing if it was well thought-out. But it's not. It's yet another poorly crafted plot device.
Special effects don't impress me anymore. ANYONE with enough money these days can do it. I need at least a plot that holds together within the context of its world setting; one that is internally logical.
For comparison, "Paranormal Activity" did what a horror movie shoudl do at minimum. It had some chills and thrills, and it's plot (simple as it was) was totally consistent. They managed that with only $15,000. My point is that for $300 million, "Avatar" should at least have had solid writing.
EDIT: I found a review which rather exemplifies my point that the ciritcs are mysteriously making many excuses for the movie's weak plot and plot holes.
"It doesn't help that the film's premise, which sees stoneage cavemen turn into ace fighter pilots with only a week's training, is as naive as that of the 1939 serial Buck Rogers. "
Now, was this a review of "Avatar"? It would seem to fit what happens quite perfectly. But no! This was a review of "Battlefield Earth", regrded as the worst movie of all time! The critics pulled no punches and tore it to pieces! And yet Avatar makes use of the same sort of absurdity, and it's excused.
I really think the critics were paid off big time.
I've actually read a review wherein the reviewer said that they liked the visuals but the story was so horribly unoriginal that even southpark (in episode episode 1313) did a better job of crossing over Fern Gully and Pocahontas...
which brings up my WTF question "how can they say AVATAR advances anything in film making if they still haven't overcome the greatest hurdle in storytelling???
sure you hear people talking about the Triplets of Bellville, Memento, and spirited away as being among the few examples of originality in film making. I'd feel a whole lot better if there was something American made that could be added to the list.
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on December 16, 2009, 07:56:10 PMwhich brings up my WTF question "how can they say AVATAR advances anything in film making if they still haven't overcome the greatest hurdle in storytelling???
I'm going to admit that even though Avatar might (probably? Still haven't seen it) not have a good grasp of storytelling, it could have set the bar higher for visual effects. It's not necessary to make a good movie, but imagine what a talented film-maker with a decent script could do with that kind of technology. BRAIN EXPLOSIOOOON. Besides, stereoscopic cameras are pretty sweet.
I probably sounded stupid and my brain is feeling very mushy but yeah. Those are my two cents.
Quotesure you hear people talking about the Triplets of Bellville, Memento, and spirited away as being among the few examples of originality in film making. I'd feel a whole lot better if there was something American made that could be added to the list.
Memento
is an American film. Christopher Nolan is a British-American with dual citizenship and the movie was filmed exclusively in some parts of California.
Does that make you feel better? :3
PS: Schindler's List, that movie was pretty awesome. And it was American. I really don't get why this subject was brought up in the first place, though.
American animation companies have done some quality storywork in recent years, just not much and virtually all of it comes from Pixar.
Their film "Ratatouille" was the first CGI film I ever watched that made me forget I was watching CGI, because the story and characters were so engaging. Not to mention the CG animation was incredible and far more detailed than I'd even imagined possible. In fact, I'd have to say their next film "Wall-E" was actually a bit of a step backward in animation. Maybe "Ratatouille" was just a wee bit too much of a budget-buster. :3
But again, it was the STORY that made "Ratatouille" special. It could have been in any type of animation and the writing and originality would have carried it easily.
I've heard so much of the 'special effects bonanza' crap these past few years. I was over it before it began, really. Sure special effects and CGI look better and better all the time, but they should never be the entire foundation of the film. And I'm sure may of the critics are simply going along with the trend siple because it's James Cameron. Had Uwe Boll been the writer and director instead, I'm sure it would've been ripped as hard as fart from a fat guy who ate too many burritos! :giggle
EDIT: Dude, look what this guy did for a couple hundred bucks (course it was in Ecuador or something like that, I'm sure that's like a billion or something there.. >:3 ) Giant robot aliens blowing stuff up! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk) See, special effects don't impress me anymore. Anybody with the right computer programs and art and technical know-how can do it. PLOT and STORY are much harder to get right. You can't make up for a lack of talent in that area with CGI.
Well, I went to watch Avatar the other night, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it.
You have to suspend your belief in a few places, but it's worth it to have a good time.
By the way, Alondro, thanks. If it wasn't for you I probably wouldn't have watched it. But because you started this topic, you kept the movie on my mind, made me think of how much I like Cameron movies, caused me to keep track of when the movie was being released, and when people started talking about details I realised I had to see it before the spoilers started comming in. I guess this sort of buzz and chatter around a movie that gets people curious about it is just what marketing executives want.
Quote from: rabid_fox on November 22, 2009, 08:21:28 AM
I watched the trailer. Looks like Fern Gully meets Gears of War, which should be fúcking awesome but instead looks like arsefluff.
Funny, there were parts that did remind me of Fern Gully, at one moment I was trying to remember whether the main character had been seen spraypainting any red Xs.
As for Gears of War, never played that game, but I did get the same sort of feeling and technologies I get from a lot of sci fi video games and The Matrix Revolultions (which is an example of how NOT to do a special effects laden movie). Then again, those things were taking heavy inspiration from Cameron movies in the first place so it's all cyclical.
I just got back from Avatar, and I was loving it. Right up to the point where the projector brain-wrapped; vaporized the film and they couldn't fix it. Then they gave us refunds and a free pass. So I don't know how it ends yet, I'm sure I could take some educated guesses, but I don't want to. I want to finish seeing the thing.
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on December 17, 2009, 02:51:45 PM
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on December 16, 2009, 07:56:10 PMwhich brings up my WTF question "how can they say AVATAR advances anything in film making if they still haven't overcome the greatest hurdle in storytelling???
I'm going to admit that even though Avatar might (probably? Still haven't seen it) not have a good grasp of storytelling, it could have set the bar higher for visual effects. It's not necessary to make a good movie, but imagine what a talented film-maker with a decent script could do with that kind of technology. BRAIN EXPLOSIOOOON. Besides, stereoscopic cameras are pretty sweet.
Yes it did. So very much so. And very few movies in the last several years have decent story telling. Not sure it's quite so fair to single just one out of so many. This one just has a lot more shiney in it. Or is it just because it has James Cameron on the label?
My cheif complaint with the movie might b ethe handling off the Na'vi. I have yet to see the movie, but currently all the pre-release stuff leaves me with the impression they'll be SO much better then those EVIL and RACIST humans. I'm gettinga vibe they'll be like Paoloani ELves: SMug, condensing, and making me wish to seem to get crushed by the very EMpire they oppose. Nearly everything I've ehard pre-release about the Na'vi is how much better they are then humans. I have always hated when Humanity is presented as "Inferior to another fictional species. Tolkien's ELves get a pass, mostly because while they say they're superior, they really eff'd up Middle Earth.
Quote from: Kafzeil on December 19, 2009, 04:22:22 AM
My cheif complaint with the movie might b ethe handling off the Na'vi. I have yet to see the movie, but currently all the pre-release stuff leaves me with the impression they'll be SO much better then those EVIL and RACIST humans. I'm gettinga vibe they'll be like Paoloani ELves: SMug, condensing, and making me wish to seem to get crushed by the very EMpire they oppose. Nearly everything I've ehard pre-release about the Na'vi is how much better they are then humans. I have always hated when Humanity is presented as "Inferior to another fictional species. Tolkien's ELves get a pass, mostly because while they say they're superior, they really eff'd up Middle Earth.
To be fair, Tolkien's elves didn't wander round saying they were superior. They just
were. And they felt it their duty to help the people less well off than they were, as a whole, which meant they weren't being smug and superior - don't get me wrong, there were exceptions, and overall they did have a "we're better than you" mindset, but they weren't using it as a club, they were more subtle about it.
Also, it wasn't so much the elves as the wizards, particularly the ones that went bad. At least, in the bit I read. I can't say I remember much of the Silmarillion, it was that boring...
The elves in the Simirillion were definitely not "good" in any sense of the word (or, at least the Noldor who went over to fight Morgoth, who are the focus of much of the work.)
Powerful, yes, but good? Not really. Tolkien's own letters regarding the main trilogy knock on the elves for being too inwardly focused, having the will to fight the shadow in their own backyards, but not the gumption to do much for Arda as a whole, even though they're more connected to the earth than humans are. (As they don't die, per se, only physically reincarnate somewhere else)
A lot of why Men inherit middle earth at the end, and the elves pass over, I think has to do with it being men who stood up and fought against the Shadow at the last test.
Ok, I'm done threadjacking :P
Quote from: Alondro on December 17, 2009, 03:15:21 PM
American animation companies have done some quality storywork in recent years, just not much and virtually all of it comes from Pixar.
Oh god, Alondro, I second this so freaking hard.
Pixar brofist! >:3
QuoteTheir film "Ratatouille" was the first CGI film I ever watched that made me forget I was watching CGI, because the story and characters were so engaging. Not to mention the CG animation was incredible and far more detailed than I'd even imagined possible. In fact, I'd have to say their next film "Wall-E" was actually a bit of a step backward in animation. Maybe "Ratatouille" was just a wee bit too much of a budget-buster. :3
I liked Ratatouille a
lot, but it wasn't my favorite Pixar movie. However, I totally see where you're coming from. I just admit that I would rank Wall-E over Ratatouille. :B
My favorite Pixar movie is definitely The Incredibles but I haven't seen it in forever. I need to excavate it from the irradiated mass of garbage and filth that is my room. No Radroach will stop me!
QuoteBut again, it was the STORY that made "Ratatouille" special. It could have been in any type of animation and the writing and originality would have carried it easily.
This, this, this. Although there have been instances of certain movies completely botching it despite having extraordinary premises, so originality alone can't save a film.
Also I approved of almost everything in the rest of your post, Alondro. STOP MAKING ME AGREE WITH YOU :U
I don't like the promotion of the message that old ideas are inherently corrupt, nor do I like the message that it's okay to just discard your body if it's not 100%. I also didn't like the environmentalist B.S. "THERE AREN'T ENOUGH RESOURCES TO SHARE, WE KILLED OUR PLANET AND NOW WE'RE GONNA KILL YOURS TOO WHEEEEEEEEE!"
All I have to say about environmentalism is if you don't have a solution that benefits humanity, and to a lesser extent all other life forms on the planet, and would sooner waste YOUR resources to promote an ideology that humanity is inferior to all other lifeforms in the universe, while still withholding any discoveries of solutions to the problems you so delinquently focus on , then quit complaining about the problem and step out of the way so that the people with actual solutions can fix the problem instead of having to fight against Morons from both camps.
You know, I don't get why Gab and Kaf are against aspects of this movie when they haven't even seen how the aspects are portrayed. In all fairness, why are you forming opinions of things you haven't seen?
The movie never pushes the environmentalism in our face, I mean I suppose the message is there, but it's an integral part of the premise so it would be kinda hard to avoid no matter how you spin the story.
The Navi never pretend to be superior to humans or anything, they just have their own ways of doing this as any civilisation would. They barely know enough of humans to have any opinion on their lifestyles in the first place.
Also, the humans aren't projected as evil. The Avatar program in the first place shows how willing the humans were to being on good terms with the natives and not be seen as being violent. Nobody wants to kill anyone, there's just no reason to kill for the sake of it. Unfortunately as circumstances unfold... well, watch the movie and you can see for yourself.
Finally, Gab, the resource the humans are trying to get isn't vital to their survival or anything, it's just worth a heck of a lot of money. That's where the money to fund the entire operation comes from (and it definitely wouldn't be cheap).
Saw it for a second time, this time got to see the whole movie. Still unbelievably amazing! I loved it.
Sure there's a bit of environmentalism in there. BUT I saw a lot more of history repeating itself there. Think Europe driving out the Native Americans and the Industrial Revolution. It's not something we as humans haven't done already.
because I actually have seen it, it is teh stupid. All bang and no advancement of characters save that of half-a-man.
SPOILERS: In the end of the movie the main character becomes more than a dream walker, he becomes a full Na'vi by sacrificing/killing his body because it is inferior and not as useful as his Na'vi body. Almost all the humans are kicked off the planet because the Na'vi won the battle, despite the only reason for the humans blowing up the ONE Na'vi village was to get to the "unobtainium" that was underneath the ONE tree. And, when I say battle I mean a single battle at the end of the movie. Before that there was also a one sided assault on the Na'vi Village lead by General Scarface and there was a final two on one battle between scar and half-a-man and his possible wife (since I'm not clear on Na'vi customs)
The movie is essentially fern-gully with a bigger budget.
EDIT: additionally, When I say half a man, I am referring to the wheelchair bound fellow as he is portrayed in the move, not how I actually feel about the character himself. the movie portrays all human weakness and or suffering as somehow making them twice as inferior as they already are.
Maybe spoilers, maybe not, but I'm going to try to keep it relatively spoiler-free.
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on December 20, 2009, 12:34:44 PMThe movie is essentially fern-gully with a bigger budget.
This. Big time. I'm trying to decide if Parker Selfridge had more or less characterization than Hoggish Greedly from Captain Planet. Less, I suspect, since Hoggish was the bad guy from the company. while Selfridge was just the guy from the company.
Also, can we stop with the ``zOMG primitive populations don't deserve to have their pristine lands despoiled!'' crap? It's insulting to people who actually are having their pristine lands despoiled by calling them savages.
I have no idea why I keep reading this thread. I think I hate most of the opinions here. Maybe I'm just looking for positive comments like the few friends who have seen it and decide to, you know, NOT go on huge rantpages because it's got enviromentalist issues, or makes out humanity to be the bad guy (cliche? Sure. Crap? Not by half). It's called having fun and being entertained.
Some of you should try it sometime.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on December 21, 2009, 12:03:36 AMI have no idea why I keep reading this thread. I think I hate most of the opinions here. Maybe I'm just looking for positive comments like the few friends who have seen it and decide to, you know, NOT go on huge rantpages because it's got enviromentalist issues, or makes out humanity to be the bad guy (cliche? Sure. Crap? Not by half). It's called having fun and being entertained.
Some of you should try it sometime.
I never said it wasn't fun, but you had to turn your brain off in order to enjoy it. Pretty much all of the characters were offensive stereotypes. Not offensive to the types of people they were stereotyping, but rather offensive that the writer thought that the audience was stupid enough to need characterization this heavy handed.
Let me put this in perspective. The colonel in this film committed genocide by destroying a tree that housed an entire clan of Na'vi because he thought it was the fastest way to get a mine built. That's fairly hard to top in terms of...well, anything. Give him some reason to do it, maybe.
And I don't mind movies with environmental themes. Just don't make them laughably oversimplified. For example, here are some suggestions for environmental films:
King Corn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCRwMMh9k8), Big River (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O5Edm_7MJg), Food Inc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0)
I'm thinking about it, and I can't come up with any good non-documentary movies that deal with environmental issues. A Civil Action was okay, but that was based on a true story. Genocide seems to come up pretty frequently in these films, now that I think about it. I suspect the writers have read a little too much Upton Sinclair. Now, if you want to know how Parker Selfridge should have been characterized, look at The Grapes of Wrath:
Quote from: John Steinbeck``We know that—all that. It's not us, it's the bank. A bank isn't like a man. Or an owner with fifty thousand acres, he isn't like a man either. That's the monster.''
``Sure,'' cried the tenant men, ``but it's our land. We measured it and broke it up. We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what makes it ours—being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it.''
``We're sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man.''
``Yes, but the bank is only made of men.''
``No, you're wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it.''
That would have made the character at least somewhat interesting. Heck, Bishop from Aliens was more dynamic, which I think means that Cameron is getting worse as a director.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on December 21, 2009, 12:03:36 AM
I have no idea why I keep reading this thread. I think I hate most of the opinions here. Maybe I'm just looking for positive comments like the few friends who have seen it and decide to, you know, NOT go on huge rantpages because it's got enviromentalist issues, or makes out humanity to be the bad guy (cliche? Sure. Crap? Not by half). It's called having fun and being entertained.
Some of you should try it sometime.
Finally! someone else who can just enjoy a movie without having to analysis it to death and then decide if it was supposed to be enjoyable.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on December 21, 2009, 12:03:36 AM
I have no idea why I keep reading this thread. I think I hate most of the opinions here. Maybe I'm just looking for positive comments like the few friends who have seen it and decide to, you know, NOT go on huge rantpages because it's got enviromentalist issues, or makes out humanity to be the bad guy (cliche? Sure. Crap? Not by half). It's called having fun and being entertained.
Some of you should try it sometime.
Agreed, I didn't think of any of this stuff as I was watching it. I was simply going along for the ride. I even shed a few tears now and then in the movie. Same thing happened with District 9, everybody else looked too far into it and I just went along for the ride and enjoyed it.
On an unrelated note: Was I the only person IN THE WORLD who enjoyed District 9?
Nah, I've heard a lot of critics praised the movie, the general consensus was that it was good though I haven't seen it so far.
I like James Cameron's other works, Aliens, Titanic, Dark Angel, and the first two Terminator movies all piqued my interest and evoked an emotional responses from me that were not disgust and disappointment. AVATAR provides nothing that piques my interest since it is essentially a remake of Fern-gully down to the glowing connection with nature. It also borrows elements from Dinotopia, those that have seen Dinotopia know to what I am referring. In addition to a bastardized form of the Pocahontas narrative. Had I never seen Fern Gully and Dinotopia, the movie would have been more enjoyable, more visually impressive, and less predictable.
Avatar is an excellent movie for environmentalists, children, and early teenagers. It does an excellent job farming a future generation of military personnel...In fact, I don't think I've seen a movie before where I could actually argue that it was an attempt at Hedgmonic brainwashing other than Transformers II. Politically, I am anti socialist and feel environmentalisim truly has nothing to do with saving the environment so much as using the problems of the environment to disguise political views that are adversarial.
As far as the so called energy crisis. Plants, water, and animals are all renewable resources. The alternatives to fossil fuels that are currently available are Hydroelectric power, Photovoltaic (solar) power, Wind energy, Kinetic energy capture, Geothermal energy, Methane capture from landfills and farm manure... and these are just the ones I know about that have been around for more than a century. Granted none of these provide the same oomph as fossil fuels,or *gasp* Nuclear power, but they are existing alternatives. And, while time consuming one can purchase a solar powered MP3 player and solar battery chargers for your laptop, should the need arise. Water can be desalinized and pulled from the moisture in the air, and while I realize it takes energy to desalinize or pull water from the air, it is still possible. Additionally, a majority of the earths oxygen comes from algae, while trees and plants do clean the air but do not provide the amount of oxygen necessary to sustain the environment . Secondly, (in the United States at least) for every tree that is cut down three are usually planted in their place, and they are harvested every five to ten years. Arguments that owls and other animals that have been put on the endangered species list can't have babies in trees that are less than a century old have been disproved...Repeatedly. Therefore while I acknowledge there are problems with the environment. There are a lot of very smart people that have actually found solutions to those problems.
:kruger
Quote from: ooklah on December 20, 2009, 01:23:48 AM
Think Europe driving out the Native Americans and the Industrial Revolution. It's not something we as humans haven't done already.
Native Americans are also human... OR DON'T YOU THINK SO YOU EVIL RACIST YOU!!!
STONE THE INFIDEL!!! *is without sin and thus gets to cast lots of stones!* >:]
And now a serious note: The Native Americans lost. The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it. Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.
Quote from: Alondro on December 21, 2009, 11:03:47 AM
And now a serious note: The Native Americans lost. The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it. Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.
However arrows and spears+wrath of all nature vs guns and bombs is a bit more fair.
Quote from: Alondro on December 21, 2009, 11:03:47 AM
The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it. Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.
Man, it's a good thing most people know the genre is called science... y'know...
fiction.*group hugs ooklah and Rakala for not being ranters too. :hug*
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on December 21, 2009, 10:33:43 AMAvatar is an excellent movie for environmentalists, children, and early teenagers. It does an excellent job farming a future generation of military personnel...In fact, I don't think I've seen a movie before where I could actually argue that it was an attempt at Hedgmonic brainwashing other than Transformers II. Politically, I am anti socialist and feel environmentalisim truly has nothing to do with saving the environment so much as using the problems of the environment to disguise political views that are adversarial.
I, too, am anti-socialist. I also have a bit of a survivalist bent, so I'm pretty much aligned with the environmentalists. Making sure that you use sustainable (and not just renewable) energy means that you are able to produce energy more efficiently and independently. In the case of survivalists, you're producing it independently of the gubbermint or the power companies, but in the case of power companies, you're usually producing it independently of theocratic dictatorships or other companies that want to squeeze you as much as they can. The less carbon we waste, the less we have to buy (whether or not we wanted that carbon in the first place). The more we recycle, or better yet, reuse, the less money we have to give to companies that run dictatorshops(*), the less we have to give to our own government, and the more we get to keep for living a higher-class lifestyle, or investing in whatever we want.
Honestly, this film will not help environmentalists because its message is so simplistic that there's no way that it can be applied to any current debate about environmental issues. The instant someone tries to make an analogy back to this film, the response will be ``Oh, well I didn't try to commit genocide so it's not the same thing.'' And he'll have a point. The real-world implications of recitfying environmental issues are not easy and there are many reasons why people don't want to do what needs to be done to save the environment, some straight out of Hoggish Greedly (e.g. I take long showers because I like it), some more Wendell Potter (I can't afford an electric vehicle, and even if I could, the infrastructure doesn't exist to refuel it), and some positively Johann Faust (solar power is unlikely to be efficient enough to provide adequate energy unless you use some extremely rare elements...which brings us right back to Fern Gully--or at least Congo).
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on December 21, 2009, 10:33:43 AMAs far as the so called energy crisis. Plants, water, and animals are all renewable resources.
Renewable, but not necessarily sustainable. If you make $25,000 a year but spend $30,000 per year, your income is renewable, but you're not in a sustainable situation.
Quote from: Alondro on December 21, 2009, 11:03:47 AMAnd now a serious note: The Native Americans lost. The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it. Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.
The Native Americans did not lose because they used arrows and spears (or else they had funny looking spears (http://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/pictures/select-list-101.html)). This is part of what I meant about the portrayal of the Na'vi as savages being insulting to actual people who have had their land despoiled.
If it had a shred of realism to it, the Na'vi would have been smuggling and stockpiling weapons. The Na'vi had vastly superior numbers, and even one or two intercepted arms shipments would have made short work of the space marines.
(*) companies who employ people living in repressive regimes that are propped up by the same companies.
Familiarity with the weapons and tactical knowledge on their application also must be taken into account. Unless the Na'vi had months of intensive training, the weapons would be practically useless.
As the battle is portrayed, there is no possible way they would have won in a realistic fight.
The 'wrath of nature' aspect is just silly. Unless we're talking about massive geological or climatolgical occurrences, 'nature' just gets pushed out of the way by mankind. Animals turn out to be very easy to kill with weapons.
Heck, even arrows and spears can do that. High-powered machine guns > flesh and blood.
It's even more silly than the Ewoks winning against the Imerial troops (even though they were all apparently retarded multi-generational clones, which explains why they were really lousy shots).
Meh, the entire set-up is so flawed, it's just impossible to focus on one aspect without involving all the rest. It plays out with the plausibility of a soap opera. There is no internal logic to the whole thing within the 'world' it exists within.
I expect a story to at least be reasonable within its framework. This doesn't do it at all.
Suspending one's beliefs should happen naturally in a good story. You don't even think about doing it because you are unconsciously drawn into the world. If you have to make yourself believe it and make excuses for the flaws you can't help but notice, then it's not a good story.
Quote from: Alondro on December 21, 2009, 07:12:55 PMFamiliarity with the weapons and tactical knowledge on their application also must be taken into account. Unless the Na'vi had months of intensive training, the weapons would be practically useless.
The Na'vi were skilled hunters and warriors who knew how to fight with projectile weapons. They had something like a 10-1 advantage, and they were firing M60s, which was a little underpowered, though not unheard of, for an antiaircraft gun.
They knew the terrain. If they had fought smart, and been running raids and gathering weapons, they could have had a force of 2,000 Na'vi armed with M60s supported by 18,000 sporting bows and arrows vs a couple thousand space marines and maybe 100 AMP suits. Try telling your soldiers to run into the hail of neurotoxin-tipped arrows while men to their right and left are dropping from snipers, and you'll soon realize what sort of situation you have: an entrenched native population good at hiding who can snipe their enemies off one by one while the invading force has the big guns but no clear targets and the need to make themselves large targets. (No, an M60 isn't a sniper rifle, but the premise of remaining hidden while attacking your opponent remains the same)
The battle as it was portrayed was bunk, but the battle with some intercepted weapons on the Na'vi side was far from unwinnable.
Quote from: Alondro on December 21, 2009, 07:12:55 PMThe 'wrath of nature' aspect is just silly. Unless we're talking about massive geological or climatolgical occurrences, 'nature' just gets pushed out of the way by mankind. Animals turn out to be very easy to kill with weapons.
Unfortunately, the Na'vi are very hard to kill with the type of weapons they use for Earth-based animals. That's why they brought along 50 caliber and 7.62mm weapons. Remember when that Na'vi landed on the back of the helicopter? Here's the gun the soldiers were firing (http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0005.asp).
Quote from: Rakala on December 21, 2009, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on December 21, 2009, 12:03:36 AM
I have no idea why I keep reading this thread. I think I hate most of the opinions here. Maybe I'm just looking for positive comments like the few friends who have seen it and decide to, you know, NOT go on huge rantpages because it's got enviromentalist issues, or makes out humanity to be the bad guy (cliche? Sure. Crap? Not by half). It's called having fun and being entertained.
Some of you should try it sometime.
Agreed, I didn't think of any of this stuff as I was watching it. I was simply going along for the ride. I even shed a few tears now and then in the movie. Same thing happened with District 9, everybody else looked too far into it and I just went along for the ride and enjoyed it.
On an unrelated note: Was I the only person IN THE WORLD who enjoyed District 9?
So you argument is that we should like a movie because "ooooooo shiny?"
Quote from: Sofox on December 21, 2009, 09:35:58 AM
Nah, I've heard a lot of critics praised the movie, the general consensus was that it was good though I haven't seen it so far.
critics..... you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?.... I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PMcritics..... you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?.... I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.
No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.
Quote from: superluser on December 21, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PMcritics..... you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?.... I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.
No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.
who do you think pays/owns those companies?
(also: where do you think the writing budget went?)
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 10:08:59 PM
Quote from: superluser on December 21, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PMcritics..... you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?.... I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.
No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.
who do you think pays/owns those companies?
newspaper companies?
i am not sure what you are asking here, but there aren't really very many newspapers owned by Big Media, companies like Tribune and Gannett don't really do much outside of printing papers and owning the occasional local broadcaster
Quote from: bill on December 21, 2009, 10:41:24 PM
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 10:08:59 PM
Quote from: superluser on December 21, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PMcritics..... you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?.... I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.
No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.
who do you think pays/owns those companies?
newspaper companies?
i am not sure what you are asking here, but there aren't really very many newspapers owned by Big Media, companies like Tribune and Gannett don't really do much outside of printing papers and owning the occasional local broadcaster
CNN, MSNBC, and Disney frown upon your shenanigans and assertions.
I don't think any of them own newspapers
see those are profitable companies, why would they own newspapers
News Co. owns the Wall Street Journal, that's the only one I can think of
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 10:08:59 PMwho do you think pays/owns those companies?
Well, Ebert and Roeper are paid by the Sun-Times Media Group, who owns several other newspapers including the Daily Telegraph and the National Post, but no TV or movie holdings. Manohla Dargis gets paid by the New York Times Company, who own no TV or movie holdings. Stephen Rea gets paid by Philadelphia Media Holdings who...look, I'll just pair them up from now on and you can assume that they don't hold any TV or movie companies unless I say otherwise. Ty Burr: New York Times Company, David Denby: Condé Nast Publications, Joe Neumaier: Mortimer Zuckerman, Peter Travers: Wenner Media LLC (who do jointly own a separate publication with The Walt Disney Company), Sarah Vilkomerson: Jared Kushner, Jake Coyle: Associated Press, Todd McCarthy: Reed Business Information.
On the other hand, Kurt Loder (Viacom) hated it.
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PM
So you argument is that we should like a movie because "ooooooo shiny?"
I just got back from finally seeing the movie, even with half the whinging I've seen on this board in mind. I loved the alien flora and fauna, and I loved the blatant scenery porn. Can I see some of the enviromentalist themes people are complaining about? Sure. I got Fern Gully vibes when the bulldozers showed up at Hometree. Is it a case of native entities against the big bad human military because humans are bastards, a very cliche thing? Yes. Could you call half the plot due to the predictability? Sure.
Can you still lose yourself in the movie because you are
entertained? I certainly could, as could the other adults in the cinema. Now, to answer your absolutely sarcastic question about liking the 'ooh, shiny' aspect?
It may be a trite one, but that is a better mindset than analysing a movie for every problem and flaw to find something you can bitch about to everyone because you feel like your opinion is the one true thing and everyone else should listen to you because you're the loudest. I have my opinion too, and I think yours (and Alondro's, and Gabriel's) is full of whining from a bunch of people who just like to complain.
Good day, sirs.
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PM
Quote from: Sofox on December 21, 2009, 09:35:58 AM
Nah, I've heard a lot of critics praised the movie, the general consensus was that it was good though I haven't seen it so far.
critics..... you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?.... I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.
I meant one Irish radio reviewer, one guy on That Guy With the Glasses (though I don't go to the site anymore), and I may have heard something on Kotaku/Gawker but I forget.
You know, the hate for this movie doesn't make sense. You can tell from pretty early on that it isn't going to be an in depth examination of the effect of resource hunting on indigenous populations, so I just sat back and enjoyed it for what it is.
And there is a lot to enjoy. Cameron is a skilled director, he knows how to frame shots, progress the story, give enough humour to a situation to make the characters sound human if they're getting too serious. He's got an extremely strong visual talent, and it's not just a case of throwing SFX together like with many other directors, he knows how to construct scenes and experiences that really have an emotive impact on the viewer. When the Titanic split it half, you could feel the sense of panic and the enormity of the event, when the T-1000 kept coming with all the shots just leaving holes in it that quickly closed, you had that feeling of something unstoppable where everything you never seemed to be enough.
Avatar may be a bit weaker in comparison to some of his other offerings, but the power of his directing is there. In the lush alien landscapes, in the amazing flora and fauna (making it seem a bit more like a fantasy movie then sci-fi), in the narrative that, while clichéd, is strongly put to us as we get to feel this alien culture and their ways. The action sequences, from the big battles to smaller aspects like when the protagonist is finding his flying steed or learning other ways of the people, are all very well choreographed and bring a great sense of tension and excitement.
No one was expecting this film to be a microanalysis of a societal phenomenon. Cameron knew the sort of movie he wanted to shoot and he shot it. Could it have been better in places? Maybe, but he achieved more or less what he set out to do and the fact that many people have enjoyed this movie is a testament to that fact.
Quote from: Valynth on December 21, 2009, 08:42:26 PM
So you argument is that we should like a movie because "ooooooo shiny?"
I would like to say that is a vast oversimplification which I find slightly insulting. The point wasn't the appearance, it was the movie in general. I found myself connecting with this world and it's people because when I went in I didn't think "Oh this is a remake of Dances With Wolves" or "This will have a preachy environmentalist message" because I've come to realize that there is no longer any REAL originality. Everything now is derivative of something else. If you go to a movie looking for what it is similar to and base how you enjoyed it on that you are probably going to be disappointed in movies alot. Because of this sad truth I have come to realize I have developed the skill to look and judge everything as individuals (with exceptions for sequels and series).
Zavynth, only the first part was directed to you, the rest is a general message which
may apply to you.
Edit: For the MOST PART I look at things as individuals. Sometimes it's just too blatantly obvious and I will state it, but that is never a reason for disliking something to me.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on December 22, 2009, 02:37:04 AM
It may be a trite one, but that is a better mindset than analysing a movie for every problem and flaw to find something you can bitch about to everyone because you feel like your opinion is the one true thing and everyone else should listen to you because you're the loudest. I have my opinion too, and I think yours (and Alondro's, and Gabriel's) is full of whining from a bunch of people who just like to complain.
Good day, sirs.
Gabriel bolded because goddamn ain't that the truth.
Actually, I saw more bitching in his post about environmentalism than bitching about Avatar.
Hrmph.
I was hoping to be able to stay out of this, but...
Folks. We are watching you. Do not devolve into personal abuse, because I will not take kindly to having what little Christmas spirit I have left, scuttling around in the cold, dark corners of my soul, upset by wrangling on the forum I spend my free time helping out on.
As yet, you all have not crossed that line. Yet. But you are getting close.
Take heed, and watch where you tread.
In the end, who really cares but those who have nothing else better to do?
It's a Movie, it's meant to entertain, if folks get some kind of message out of it, then whoop-de-freaking-doo.
seriously folks, those who are going on about the 'enviromental' message in the movie belong in the same box as those who didn't know the ship was going to sink in Titanic as far as i'm concerned.
I swear, all i'm getting from all of this whinging, is "tall poppy syndrome"... That is to say, folks are merely bitching about the movie because it was successful, and this is just a "reason" for them to do so.
on that note; Cheese, anyone?
Yes please! Cheddar?
I have now seen the movie.
And it was as expected. Very pretty, but too hard on agenda. VERY blatant references to America's recent wars, with VERY oversimplified stereotypes and an analogy that simply is too disparate from reality to possibly apply.
The visuals are indeed impressive. But for that amount of money, one could hardly expect less with the technological capabilities in existance today. If you've seen "Pan's Labyrinth", you'd be amazed to find that those visuals are quite equally impressive. The difference being that the whole film couldn't be done with them given the much smaller budget. The movements, though. There's still something very artificial about the way CGI characters move. I don't know what it is, but they still haven't nailed that down properly yet. Some of the better traditional animation looks more natural than even the best CGI. Perhaps it's because the brain expects these more 'real-looking' animals and people to move just like a real person or animal, while it fills in the gaps of a traditionally animated image it expects to move unnaturally? I don't know, I'd need to analyze the two types side by side for a proper analysis.
The acting was rather wooden in much of the cast; oddly enough, primarily in those who were not computer animated. They were entirely one-dimensional characters, paper cut-outs with virtually no personality.
The movie simply was over-agendized. It had the potential to be classic, but Cameron's personal feelings toward current events permeated every aspect of it too deeply and ruined what could have been a great piece of storytelling. There was no subtlety at all, especially not the 'shock and awe' quote.
The plot holes could have easily been filled as well. The floating mountains bugged the heck out of me. Assuming that this is not itself Unobtainium (the purpose of which is indeed never explained), the corporation looking desperately for a rare element completely ignores a substance of such power it is capable of defying gravity which is just hovering right in front of them. I simply can't overlook such a glaring oversight. The presence of the mountains ends up being a plot device existing only as a tactical advantage for the defenders.
And the whole 'natural world-wide-web' (as I call it) is completely impossible evolutionarily. Now, this is one thing that can be salvaged in a sequel. There is a way to explain both this bizarre biosphere linkage and that the floating mountains didn't float away. That would if the entire surface of the planet Well, moon, actually) was once hme to a highly advanced civilization that designed the entire thing and left the biological 'god' as a supercomputer to regulate everything.
Anyway, it's a very visually excellent movie. It will certainly win the Oscar for special effects. The one-sided enviro-socio-political agenda and needless plot holes cheapened it and kept it from becoming a masterpiece, in my opinion.
Quote from: Alondro on January 03, 2010, 09:00:27 PM
.... but too hard on agenda. VERY blatant references to America's recent wars, with VERY oversimplified stereotypes and an analogy that simply is too disparate from reality to possibly apply.
Wait..
Wait.. let me double check this....
Did you just complain about something being very hard on an agenda, having VERY over simplified stereotypes and analogies that are incredibly disparate from reality to the point of not being possible to apply?
Teapot? Yeah, kettle here wants to discuss your pigmentation...
Mao >(
I see what happened thar.
This retard approves of this message
Quote from: Alondro on January 03, 2010, 09:00:27 PM
The movements, though. There's still something very artificial about the way CGI characters move. I don't know what it is, but they still haven't nailed that down properly yet. Some of the better traditional animation looks more natural than even the best CGI. Perhaps it's because the brain expects these more 'real-looking' animals and people to move just like a real person or animal, while it fills in the gaps of a traditionally animated image it expects to move unnaturally? I don't know, I'd need to analyze the two types side by side for a proper analysis.
*cough* You do realize that the CGI was motion captured from the actual actors, right? And not an IK model, which is what usually gives the somewhat fake mechanical feeling to computer animation. I think you were seeing something there that didn't exist.
As for the plot, there were certainly some influences, but I think you're over playing it. Cameron wrote the script 14 years ago.
Quote from: Kage on January 03, 2010, 09:55:58 PM
*cough* You do realize that the CGI was motion captured from the actual actors, right? And not an IK model, which is what usually gives the somewhat fake mechanical feeling to computer animation. I think you were seeing something there that didn't exist.
As for the plot, there were certainly some influences, but I think you're over playing it. Cameron wrote the script 14 years ago.
Actually you're half correct there, when they motion capture and directly create the CG models without tweaking them, they tend to look fake. Traditional animators have the same problem when they work with film and capture/trace frame per frame.
When you capture live actors, you actually have to give them slightly extra emphasis on their movements and whatnot, as for some odd reason it still tends to look fake.
If you're not sure, check out "The Animator's Survival Guide" by Richard Williams, they go over it in depth there.
Im gonna see this movie anyway, cause im at war with world and im awake and im alive.
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i100/shadrok1/emo/FailStamp.png)
I apoligise for the fact that this has nothing to do with the thread but, reading Mao and Damaris last few resposnse has me giggling like a fool...
It's cool. I'm down with it.
Don't worry Darkmoon, I <3 you too.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 04, 2010, 08:11:47 AM
Don't worry Darkmoon, I <3 you too.
get a room you lot. >:3
Only if you join us.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 04, 2010, 08:15:31 AM
Only if you join us.
if you're buying, i can go with that. >:3
Do I want in, or do I want to run away screaming?
Hmm. Tough call.
Hmm.. I'm always an advocate of adding more boxes.
Now is not the time for out of the box thinking.
Oh, I'm all about thinking in the box.
Just thinking?
It's all I can manage.
Congratulations everyone, you've just created a conversations where "putting something in the box" now has a sexual connotation.
Uh, Sofox? Box has been a euphemism for a very long time. Do try to keep up.
If I wanted to keep up with every single word that can or has been used as a sexual euphemism, I'd just read the dictionary
You mean you don't do that for shits and giggles?
How did you know that?
I watch everyone. Didn't you know?
btw: close your curtains when you do that thing.
I saw the movie, and while it isn't the absolute best thing ever, it is still a very good movie, and a reminder that film is as much a visual experience and not necessarily a vehicle for narrative.
To be fair, I did have some issues with the film, namely how matter of fact all of the groundbreaking concepts and explanations seemed to be rushed aside in favor of getting to the central tale. The story is a bit predictable with some corny lines, but that doesn't mean the story is bad. Tropes are sometimes useful, and twists are not always good. The story is told well at least enough screen time is devoted to the characters so that we can get to understand them. While I wouldn't have gone in the direction that Cameron did, it doesn't invalidate the choices he made.
Hating a movie solely because of agenda is not necessarily valid criticism. I mean, I absolutely hate the agenda pushed by the Incredibles, but I have to admit that it's a really good movie.
... The Incredibles had an agenda? I must have missed that, buried in laughing at the fun.
What was it, then? Be nice to everyone in case they go mad, become a super villain, and take over the world? Don't wear a cape in case you happen to be standing on the wing of an aeroplane on your magic boots of flying, and you get sucked into a jet engine?
Llearch: Weirdly enough, I've also heard from someone I knew about The Incredibles having an agenda.
It's some thing that if someone has an ability, they should show it to the world and not be concerned about holding back for the sake of other people... or something. I don't get it myself. I live in a society where it's perfectly fine for someone to go out and do their best with whatever abilities (or more likely, with lots of hard work) they have; and deserve whatever they get as a result (as long as they don't do it dishonestly or genuinely immorally of course). If someone resents someone else for what they have, they're just a begrudger, and no one likes a begrudger (not that an open expression of envy every now and then isn't healthy).
Quote from: Sofox on January 04, 2010, 04:10:49 PM
Llearch: Weirdly enough, I've also heard from someone I knew about The Incredibles having an agenda.
It's some thing that if someone has an ability, they should show it to the world and not be concerned about holding back for the sake of other people... or something. I don't get it myself. I live in a society where it's perfectly fine for someone to go out and do their best with whatever abilities (or more likely, with lots of hard work) they have; and deserve whatever they get as a result (as long as they don't do it dishonestly or genuinely immorally of course). If someone resents someone else for what they have, they're just a begrudger, and no one likes a begrudger (not that an open expression of envy every now and then isn't healthy).
..... that's reaching just a tad.
My problem with the Incredibles is two fold. On one hand, it is supposed to encourage those with abilities to use those abilities, yet at the same time, encourages people to hide their abilities (note that the family still goes back to maintaining the facade, instead of becoming full-time superheroes). Also, it portrays the common man as a villain, a man who not only compensates for his lack of ability, but is willing to share (albeit for a price) the experience of being a "super" thereby leveling the playing field. Syndrome was about making people equal by empowering those who'd choose to be empowered, while getting revenge on those who thought of themselves as superior because of their powers.
Only the "special" can be heroes, and they will do anything in their power to prevent normal people from achieving their status. How sad.
Well, here's the thing. For one, they don't just go back to pretending to be unspecial. The reason they go back to their secret identities is to ensure no other villains can easily find out who they are. It's a trope of the superhero genre.
As for Syndrome being the everyman, I don't think he is. It's supersmart, smarter than almost anyone. He uses that "power" to kill, to destroy, to ransom. He's not a good person, and evil will never triumph.
A good example of Darkmoon's point in there going back to the mask is the danger that came to there home because one man knew who they were behind there mask. the whole movie showed how dangerous that could be culminating in Syndrom's atempted kidnapping of Jak Jak. The scene at the end with the underminer shows that they are still openenly playing the super hero rolesince they were out in uniform fighting bad guys.
In most cases the un powered super hero's, villains usualy have something else going for them. Batman has money, so he can afford the best training in the world the best equipment. since he also owns a high tech company he can poach bleeding edge tech from best minds in there feild. and thats with out facting in his way above average intelleganceand analytical mind.
Tony stark Ironman is a genuis and again a millionaire. for him he's a tactician but in a super sense the suit does most of the work.
Punisher is the closest to an everyman but even he has an edge, in military training, police training and a willingness to kill.
Okay...I feel REALLY stupid saying this. And you say whatever you like to me about it but...
I liked this movie. I saw it and really, I only realized how long it was when I I noticed how dark it was outside.
The movie was okay in term of plot, but Cameron at least proves he's a goo enough director to make it all work somehow. The movie was at least well acted, the the design of the creature,s Pandora, and even the tech was done well, and even looked better on screen.I honestly couldn't believe that the human actors where the only real thing.Admittedly, Cameron tries too hard at time s to impress, and sometimes it can lea d to massive fridge logic moments. I was fine with the floating mountains right until I asked myself "Where the Hell is that water coming from?"
Cameron, however, while no Hitchcock or Scorsese, puts that fratboy Bay back in his place and let's us all know whom the King of Sci-fi blockbusters really is. The movie is three hours long, but Holy Hell you would never believe that. It's paced well enough that I didn't really notice how long it truly was. Cameron also shows us he's really good at sucking you into the film.
As for the morals/message...I was surprised at how subdued it was. It was still painfully obvious, but oddly enough Cameron was at least somewhat fair. The scientists are the most sympathetic and likable characters, even more so then the Na'vi and the main character. Though I did see Jake as more of a take on becoming the mask, and potentially a little unstable.
All and an all, I still felt District 9(No Gab, you're not the only one who loved D9, I can attest to that) was a better movie that handled it's subject matter better then Avatar, but Avatar is good enough that, in my mind, makes up for Titanic, and might just be Cameron's comeback as a director.
I'm sorry James, that I doubted you so much. Now, I await my humiliation from my fellow boardmembers. From the pro-Avatar side from being a tool, and the anti-Avatar side for being a turncoat.
Syndrome isn't an everyman, but he is what I consider, a common person with exceptional intellect. He isn't blessed with inherent superpowers, and when he was young, he was a fan of the power structure, until he felt snubbed. While on the surface his actions were petty revenge over something that wasn't even actually wrong, Buddy Pine actually pulled himself up by own bootstraps, and came up with a clever plan that would not only elevate himself, but would also destroy the idea of this rigid power structure. His intentions were wrong, but unlike a lot of other villains who come up with similar plots, he did the work to obtain his power. Thus, I can't help but admire his character in a way.
I'm not saying Syndrome was a good person (they brought out the sledgehammers with the whole plane scene), but I sympathized with him a lot more than I did with Mr. Incredible, and I felt his story was by far the more resonating of the two. Mr. Incredible chose to live a life of quiet desperation, then succumbed to Syndrome's temptation. But because he's a super and has a good heart, he's allowed to lie to his family, carry on emotional affair with the idea of reliving his glory days. He's not permitted to pay for his deception with death, but Syndrome gets to lose everything he worked years and be reduced to a baby-snatching boogeyman because he's not a super and never will be. The movie's message: If you're average, then accept your fate because at best you'll be like Mirage and see the error of working for a madman, or at worst, like Two Face, you live to see yourself become the villain...and dead. (I will say the Incredibles illustrated this point a lot better than The Dark Knight...but that's another story).
But what bothers me about the family going back to secret identities is that the mask is what gave them trouble in the first place. Syndrome's plan was only able to work because superheroes were forced to to hide. If superheroes were allowed to be open about who they are, Syndrome wouldn't have been able to tempt the heroes into clandestine missions and kill them.
Kafzeil, I feel similarly to the way you do about Avatar. The reviews make the Na'vi out to be Noble Savages and while there is that element, the Na'vi aren't treated as universally without prejudice or gullible fools (in fact, their inability to trust the humans causes as much conflict as the human imperialism). On a side note, I found District 9 to be overrated trash, as the allegory in that movie was not only as subtle as an anvil (where the aliens ARE gullible fools except for the "special" ones), but I simply could not believe the main character. No man that stupid can go from being selfish to becoming a willing sacrifice in 72 hours, in spite of what happened.
Screw the plot, Avatar had SPARKLES. And that's good enough for me. :B
Though I do kinda wish it had been kept like he originally planned (http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html).
RJ HAS RETURNED! :mowhappy :mowhappy
(hopefully for a longer stay this time... :3 )
Quote from: RJ on January 05, 2010, 09:53:52 PM
Screw the plot, Avatar had SPARKLES. And that's good enough for me. :B
Though I do kinda wish it had been kept like he originally planned (http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html).
Good lord, the original story was MUCH better! Why on earth did he alter it so much? I still hate the whole naturally-existing Gaia thing. The biologist in me cannot accept it without the vital information that would hint that such a system must be deliberately designed. Evolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms. But all it would have taken was one suggestion by a scientist, "You know, the capabilities of this planet far exceed anything imaginable. The analytical ability we're seeing here surpasses even our best AI. This whole world may be a living supercomputer. If so, I'd love to meet the race that designed it." And I would have been satisfied. It wouldn't have to be 'proven' that way in the movie, just thrown out as a logical explanation to cover the bases. :3
Other than that, the old story would have virtually eliminated all the plot holes and sterotypes (except the mean ol military), BUT since the analogy would have been primarily a comparison to the ransacking on Native Americans (and maybe little nod towards Africa, South America, and Australia, since Europe kinda screwed those continentss' native populations over just as severely), it would have been very accurate to what went on back then.
This is what I'd thought when I saw it, that there was a structure of a much better story that had been hacked up over time.
Quote from: Alondro on January 06, 2010, 01:39:23 AMEvolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.
You know, I've heard anti-Evolution theorists use the same argument for various existing organic complex systems such as the eye (which contains the lens, retina, link to the brain, and the brains area for processing the information). They say that given it has several parts, and each individual part is useless without every other part, that the incremental change of evolution would never have brought such a complex system into being.
i reaaaallly think you two are reading too much into this, haven't you folks heard of "Narrative Causality"? :rolleyes
Quote from: Sofox on January 06, 2010, 07:20:46 AM
Quote from: Alondro on January 06, 2010, 01:39:23 AMEvolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.
You know, I've heard anti-Evolution theorists use the same argument for various existing organic complex systems such as the eye (which contains the lens, retina, link to the brain, and the brains area for processing the information). They say that given it has several parts, and each individual part is useless without every other part, that the incremental change of evolution would never have brought such a complex system into being.
Problem with that, is that evolution doesn't really say that something isn't possible. Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have), *any* thing could conceivably find the right conditions and circumstances to evolve. It's a bunk argument that people like to use to make themselves feel better about their beliefs and it's not really based on any fact. "It couldn't possibly have" is never followed by "because..."
I mean, that's what random kinda means. Not predictable. You can't really say it wouldn't do something.
Quote from: Destina Faroda on January 04, 2010, 10:16:44 PM
My problem with the Incredibles is two fold. On one hand, it is supposed to encourage those with abilities to use those abilities, yet at the same time, encourages people to hide their abilities (note that the family still goes back to maintaining the facade, instead of becoming full-time superheroes). Also, it portrays the common man as a villain, a man who not only compensates for his lack of ability, but is willing to share (albeit for a price) the experience of being a "super" thereby leveling the playing field. Syndrome was about making people equal by empowering those who'd choose to be empowered, while getting revenge on those who thought of themselves as superior because of their powers.
Only the "special" can be heroes, and they will do anything in their power to prevent normal people from achieving their status. How sad.
The message I got from the movie was, wasted potential.
Syndrome had the opportunity to yeah, actually be a good superhero, could of one upped Mr. Incredible by actually you know, putting his talents to good use.
Sure, if SuperHeroes are outlawed, he still could of done the world a huge amount of good if he actually wanted to.
But he didn't, and that's why he's a sort of tragic villain. Because it was his own damn fault :b
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 06, 2010, 08:04:57 AMIt's a bunk argument that people like to use to make themselves feel better about their beliefs and it's not really based on any fact. "It couldn't possibly have" is never followed by "because..."
"because..." evolution implies that minor mutattions or birth defects built up over time due to it giving an advantage to those who posess it. A slightly peaked shell may enable a tortise more able to eat food from higher up branches. Hence, those with the peaked shells are more likely to survive, give birth, and and pass those peaked shell genes to their children who make have a mutation that makes their shells even more peaked and so even more likely to survive. Over time, the species of tortoise with extremely peaked shells build up. The critical point here is that for an attribute to evolve (eg. peaked shells), it must be useful in the all stages of it's growth so that it can continue to be passed down, otherwise it will be drowned out by other genetic mutations and diversity. To have a complex system like the ocular system come to be evolved, either various parts of the system would have had to gradually build up over countless generations while providing no survival benfit until suddenly fiting together like a jigsaw; or a single mutation would have to create the entire system in one go. Both scenarious are incredibly unlikely.
Look, I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but at least deal with the argument on it's own merits rather then involving the people who make it.
Anyway, my point was that whatever argument used to explain how these complicated organisms systems like the eye came to be could also explain how Pandora is a world of interlinked organisms.
Quote from: Sofox on January 06, 2010, 08:41:51 AM
Anyway, my point was that whatever argument used to explain how these complicated organisms systems like the eye came to be could also explain how Pandora is a world of interlinked organisms.
AFAIK there is a chain of known organisms with the eye in different stages of development from light sensor to light direction sensor to motion sensor to full image sensor. In fact, I seem to recall a Royal Institution lecture about that.
Anyway, I don't exactly see why an entire ecology might not become symbiotic through gradual evolution...
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 06, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
Quote from: Sofox on January 06, 2010, 08:41:51 AM
Anyway, my point was that whatever argument used to explain how these complicated organisms systems like the eye came to be could also explain how Pandora is a world of interlinked organisms.
AFAIK there is a chain of known organisms with the eye in different stages of development from light sensor to light direction sensor to motion sensor to full image sensor. In fact, I seem to recall a Royal Institution lecture about that.
Anyway, I don't exactly see why an entire ecology might not become symbiotic through gradual evolution...
there's fine examples of Symbiotic relationships here on earth, anyways.
Lichen would be a spectacular example.
Quote from: Alondro on January 06, 2010, 01:39:23 AM
Evolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.
Why not?
Sofox:
So your argument on the "because..." is "It's incredibly unlikely"?
Quote from: Gornemant on January 06, 2010, 08:53:08 AM
Sofox:
So your argument on the "because..." is "It's incredibly unlikely"?
In summary.
Think he missed the part where I said: "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have), *any* thing could conceivably find the right conditions and circumstances to evolve." which takes that whole 'incredibly unlikely' part and blows it out of the water. It may be incredibly unlikely, but evolution kinda accepts the fact that weird stuff is going to happen. There's a couple random variables in there. Random stuff doesn't seem to sit well with folks, but it's something you kinda have to accept as a concept.
I'm all for looking at the argument, but when the argument can't even stand, I start wondering about the loony who's saying it.
The crux of the argument comes to how you evaluate the probabilities involved. The argument I put forth (which as I said, wasn't mine), was that the odds against the complex systems developing through evolution are so gigantically against it, (even "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have)"), that it would be ridiculous to assume that evolution is the natural explaination for them just so it can fit into established scientific knowledge.
Now whether those probability against it is really that big, I'm not sure, I've reached the limit of my scientific knowledge of the subject here and would greatly appreciated any further scientific input anyone could give.
And Mao, while I appreciate your point of view, you've failed to conclusively prove that the argument I was proposing was flawed, and until an argument is proven to be flawed or at least highly unlikely, it is reasonable for anyone to believe it.
There's a fundamental difference though, between a complicated organ and a complicated system of organisms interacting. Remember, evolution works by having an enormous number of protiens interacting over millions of years, and while that could mean that almost anything is possible, the more iterations of interaction you have, the less likely the really far out possibilities are to occur. Rolling a 20 on a 20 sided die has a 1 in 20 chance of occuring. Rolling twenty on 20 "dice" with either a zero or a one on them occurs once every 2^20 possibilities, which is 1 in 1,048,576.
But evolution is not completely random. Mutations that lead to adaptations for survival are weighed probabilities, they're more likely to come up, and ones that are harmful are less likely to. (duh) Here's the catch though. Even supposing that something absurdly unlikely, that the eye springing up in one complicated mutation, or wings spontaneously developing, is plausible, symbiotic relationships working need more variables to line up to function, with the number needed rising exponentially with each creature added to the circle. Remember, the liklihood is only weighted in your favor if it's in your species best interests to "play nice" with each and every other member of the symbiotic circle. As you keep adding creatures, the liklihood becomes absurdly common for it to be best for one organism to "cheat" and parasitize (sp?).
Yeah, it's *possible*. But it's also possible for a bullet fired at point blank range to be deflected by quantum uncertainty principle, since the electrons of a building a mile away all *happen* to be in the right place to electromagnetically push away the bullets electrons, stopping the slug. The odds are so ridiculously unlikely though, that if it were to happen in a movie, everyone would be shouting "bullshit!". Would you blame them?
Best wishes,
Corgatha Taldorthar.
To respond to both of you: The argument was that it couldn't possibly have happened that way. I call bullshit on that part. Neither of your arguments have been able to conclusively say that it's impossible. In fact, the points both of you have made, make your view of it just as likely wrong.
You yourself said, Sofox, that it was only unlikely. Corgatha took it a bit further and made an extreme and near (but not quite) absurd analogy to support his view and I'll give you credit, it is unlikely. However, so is then, the theory that it was created too. Because frankly, what are the odds that something able to create something like this evolved?
So far, you both have left out the fact that even evolution theory admits that some evolutions happen with absolutely no impact either way on survival. They simply went unchecked. They occured randomly and spread by chance. Surprise, it happens. Evolution does not ever say that the only way a mutation happens is with regards to survival. It's a driving force, but some mutations have no effect either way, and thus spread. Maybe by sheer chance they did later become something useful.
The problem came about when someone said: "It can't possibly have happened that way."
Anything is possible, even the creation theory. Good day.
I think that while "It's impossible" is what is literally being said, I think that's more being used as a shorthand for "It's so absurdly unlikely that it interferes with suspension of disbelief and inspires the audience to speculate about how gullible the writers think they, as a group, are."
Which one sounds catchier? :p
Quote from: Sofox on January 06, 2010, 10:06:32 AM
The crux of the argument comes to how you evaluate the probabilities involved. The argument I put forth (which as I said, wasn't mine), was that the odds against the complex systems developing through evolution are so gigantically against it, (even "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have)"), that it would be ridiculous to assume that evolution is the natural explaination for them just so it can fit into established scientific knowledge.
Now whether those probability against it is really that big, I'm not sure, I've reached the limit of my scientific knowledge of the subject here and would greatly appreciated any further scientific input anyone could give.
And Mao, while I appreciate your point of view, you've failed to conclusively prove that the argument I was proposing was flawed, and until an argument is proven to be flawed or at least highly unlikely, it is reasonable for anyone to believe it.
There is no point in debating the argument you presented, because it isn't an argument to begin with, it's 100% speculation trying to explain speculation. It would be the same as saying that it is incredibly unlikely that you will get red 20 times in a row at roulette, and so saying it is impossible. It is improbable, but far from impossible, it's a far fetched conclusion based on probability laws...
But have a favorite of mine, evolution and science somewhat explained by Carl Sagan in his series of Cosmos:
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/CosmosNotes/cosmos2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1JUTNI5OH4
Edit: I especially like the experiment around 50'
Quote from: Gornemant on January 06, 2010, 10:33:51 AM
There is no point in debating the argument you presented, because it isn't an argument to begin with, it's 100% speculation trying to explain speculation. It would be the same as saying that it is incredibly unlikely that you will get red 20 times in a row at roulette, and so saying it is impossible. It is improbable, but far from impossible, it's a far fetched conclusion based on probability laws...
But have a favorite of mine, evolution and science somewhat explained by Carl Sagan in his series of Cosmos:
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/CosmosNotes/cosmos2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1JUTNI5OH4
Edit: I especially like the experiment around 50'
Thank you for voicing what I lack the ability to.
I
wuv you. *hugs*
Amazing how a discussion about a movie has *ahem* evolved into a theological debate of varying quality.. will this one survive the unnatural selection of the forums? Tune in next week!
Look folks, it's simple as this, i haven't seen Avatar, and i doubt i will while it's in Theaters, but this sort of discussion is relatively pointless in the end, and will prolly ultimately be locked because of it.
It's a Science-Fiction Movie... see the "fiction" part of it? that means it's all "Make Believe" and folks shouldn't take it as gospel truth.
Also, Alondro, for a supposed scientist (i don't know whether you have a doctorate, phd or whatever, so i won't argue about that), you seem to have a very narrow mind for other possibilities beyond the scope of what we know on this ball of rock.
For Starters: Avatar takes place in the future, does it not? what's to say what scientific progression will be in those intervening years between now and the far-flung reaches of the future? I mean, according to some back in the day, we'd be getting about like Buck Rogers or George Jetson by now.
as for the rest of you: the whole Evolution/Creationism Debate is rather passe, given it involves everything from hard science to flying spaghetti monsters, to proverbial ant farms, sea monkeys and whatnot. What's to say what did or did not happen, to say "it happened like this" is just as silly as saying "oh, some higher being put us together using chewing gum, dental floss and a paperclip".
Evolution is defined as a slow progression of a species due to environmental or other needs, and truth be told, Science is still looking for those "missing links" in the evolutions of a great many species, including our own.
*shakes head* Outside of abstract math, it's very hard to conclude anything is "impossible".
It's "impossible" for water to flow the way it does in this (http://media.photobucket.com/image/escher%20drawing%20water/wilsonbiggs/EscherFallsresized.jpg) escher drawing. Well, not if you have an applied charge at the center of that little ramp, pushing the water up against gravity's force. (Such a charge could be constructed internally, too, again by abusing the uncertainty principle and *very* low probabilities.
It's "impossible" to pick up a boulder weighing 6 tons with your bare hands. Well, not if it's a human with enough muscle mass to shift the friction involved in a six ton boulder. What? No human is that strong? Can you demonstrate that it's impossible? Simply increase bicep cross sectional size until it's big enough.
In U.S. Politics, it's "Impossible" at this date for the Republicans in the senate to stop the health care bill. Well, if all of the democrats suddenly change parties tomorrow, then it'll probably happen.
If you were to evaluate a pro soccer team against a group of kids in your neighborhood, I think you'd say it's impossible for the children to win, barring a handicap or the pros throwing the game. But it's not, it just relies on the children playing better than the professionals.
Maybe it's not a strict, english dictionary definition, but colloquially, "impossible" is mostly used to refer to events of exceedingly low probability, which is usually possible to isolate if not actually define at what point something improbable becomes "exceedingly" improbable. In fact, I would posit that the number of times something referred to as impossible means literally "can never happen, under any circumstances" is the minority of the word usage.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 06, 2010, 10:45:52 AM
*stuff*
i think the word you're looking for is:
Improbableim⋅prob⋅a⋅ble
/ɪmˈprɒbəbəl/ Pronunciation [im-prob-uh-buhl]
–adjective-
not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen:
Rain is improbable tonight. just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it's not going to happen.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 06, 2010, 10:45:52 AM
*shakes head* Outside of abstract math, it's very hard to conclude anything is "impossible".
It's "impossible" for water to flow the way it does in this (http://media.photobucket.com/image/escher%20drawing%20water/wilsonbiggs/EscherFallsresized.jpg) escher drawing. Well, not if you have an applied charge at the center of that little ramp, pushing the water up against gravity's force. (Such a charge could be constructed internally, too, again by abusing the uncertainty principle and *very* low probabilities.
It's "impossible" to pick up a boulder weighing 6 tons with your bare hands. Well, not if it's a human with enough muscle mass to shift the friction involved in a six ton boulder. What? No human is that strong? Can you demonstrate that it's impossible? Simply increase bicep cross sectional size until it's big enough.
In U.S. Politics, it's "Impossible" at this date for the Republicans in the senate to stop the health care bill. Well, if all of the democrats suddenly change parties tomorrow, then it'll probably happen.
If you were to evaluate a pro soccer team against a group of kids in your neighborhood, I think you'd say it's impossible for the children to win, barring a handicap or the pros throwing the game. But it's not, it just relies on the children playing better than the professionals.
Maybe it's not a strict, english dictionary definition, but colloquially, "impossible" is mostly used to refer to events of exceedingly low probability, which is usually possible to isolate if not actually define at what point something improbable becomes "exceedingly" improbable. In fact, I would posit that the number of times something referred to as impossible means literally "can never happen, under any circumstances" is the minority of the word usage.
Quote from: Sofox on January 06, 2010, 10:06:32 AM
The crux of the argument comes to how you evaluate the probabilities involved. The argument I put forth (which as I said, wasn't mine), was that the odds against the complex systems developing through evolution are so gigantically against it, (even "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have)"), that it would be ridiculous to assume that evolution is the natural explaination for them just so it can fit into established scientific knowledge.
Now whether those probability against it is really that big, I'm not sure, I've reached the limit of my scientific knowledge of the subject here and would greatly appreciated any further scientific input anyone could give.
And Mao, while I appreciate your point of view, you've failed to conclusively prove that the argument I was proposing was flawed, and until an argument is proven to be flawed or at least highly unlikely, it is reasonable for anyone to believe it.
U Mad?
Quote from: Kafzeil on January 05, 2010, 01:09:21 AMI was fine with the floating mountains right until I asked myself "Where the Hell is that water coming from?"
As a fan of Discworld, that didn't bother me that much.
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 06, 2010, 08:49:18 AMAnyway, I don't exactly see why an entire ecology might not become symbiotic through gradual evolution...
One extreme example of this that I was just reading about (in The Omnivore's Dilemma) is corn, which has evolved in such a way that its female reproductive organs are inside a husk and its seeds are attached to a cob. Planting a whole cob will simply cause all the seeds to fail. This is not a very good arrangement for ensuring the survival of a species...unless this arrangement also allows you to produce more food and thus get the attention of another species with opposable thumbs to remove the husks and plant the seeds. Corn is truly the Ameglian Major Cow of the vegetable world: an organism that wants you to eat it. Indeed, its very survival depends on you wanting to eat it, and thus deciding to plant more of it.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 06, 2010, 09:41:31 AMThink he missed the part where I said: "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have), *any* thing could conceivably find the right conditions and circumstances to evolve."
Evolution isn't the infinite monkey hypothesis. If a trait evolves that is detrimental to the survival of a species, that trait will tend to die out. A trait that is beneficial to the survival of a species will tend to thrive. A trait that is neutral may or may not die out, but the likelihood that a neutral trait would survive long enough to be paired with another neutral trait which would make both of them much more beneficial is low enough that most explanations of how some organ evolved tend to explain why each step of the way would make the organism better adapted to living. But neutral mutations do exist, and some of these mutations are indeed part of beneficial traits. But do remember that things have only been living for 3.7 billion years, that a simple bacteria can have 160,000 base pairs, and that a single mutation can become one of three other base pairs. That's 480,000 possible single base mutations. Two bases would put us at 230 billion possibilities. Three bases is 110 quadrillion, four is 53 sextillion, five is 25 octillion, and six is 1.2 decillion. That last number is two thousand times the world population of bacteria. Mutations may be common, but if you can't explain how certain mutations are likely to persist, it's less persuasive and more like ``I think you should be more explicit here in step two.''
The other caveat is that there are some mutations that are catastrophic for one population, but they persist because they provide some benefit for another. Sickle-cell anemia is one example.
You're actually still supporting what I'm saying, oddly enough. They're saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's not. Some folks are clarifying that it's improbable. I haven't challenged that at all, but as has been pointed out improbable =/= impossible. You're also saying it's improbable. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm also saying that it's just as stupid to say well since this theory makes it improbable, it must have been this other theory that's just as shaky! There are millions upon millions of possible explanations for just about any of these things. To take a few 'counter examples' (which in this case aren't even actual counters, but rather things that make the improbability seem even more obvious but don't do anything to disprove) and call that the disproving factor and then propose another theory as therefore the only other possible solution with no evidence to back that one up either... well that just seems asinine.
As for the throwing of the big numbers you've got there? I can't argue that, as I've not seen those numbers before or what they're based on. They seem to support the idea that, until we can account for every possible mutation and environment that will support, destroy or ignore said mutations, to say that something is impossible.. is talking without all of the facts.
Now I know this is where I'll get the smug comment chucked at me about how then conceivably this does then support for a supreme being who does have the ability to account for all of that. It's certainly a possibility. I won't say it isn't, but what an arrogant and ultimately foolhardy thing to say that it's the only possible answer and that no other answer could possibly exist.
Anyway, maybe I'm nuts and just even more ignorant than the rest or maybe I'm just a troll getting his jollies at the nerd/religion reag.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 06, 2010, 03:29:41 PMSome folks are clarifying that it's improbable. I haven't challenged that at all
Well, then we have a disagreement.
The intelligent design folks say it's improbable.
I'm saying that it isn't, or at least that it's orders of magnitude less improbable than you seem to imply. If you think that evolution works because of dumb luck, you're misunderstanding evolution. Without the survival of the fittest directing the process, weeding out detrimental mutations and supporting beneficial ones, it would take, on average, longer than the history of life on Earth to have such mutations.
Take the bacterial flagellum. It's useless if any part is missing, so such a means of locomotion could not have evolved piecemeal. Ask any evolutionary biologist if the whole thing evolved at once, however, and I'll bet you the answer will not be ``million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.'' The flagellum seems to have evolved from an earlier organelle, used for infecting other cells. The beneficial mutation that led to the flagellum was not the synthesis of a bunch of earlier neutral mutations, but rather the synthesis of a bunch of earlier *beneficial* mutations (and yes, probably some neutral mutations as well).
Quote from: superluser on January 06, 2010, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 06, 2010, 03:29:41 PMSome folks are clarifying that it's improbable. I haven't challenged that at all
Well, then we have a disagreement.
The intelligent design folks say it's improbable.
I'm saying that it isn't, or at least that it's orders of magnitude less improbable than you seem to imply.
I haven't said anything about it's levels of improbability. I'm saying that it's stupid to say that something is impossible, especially when we don't know all of the factors. Your own statement covers the numbers we know of and we haven't even begun to understand all of those. To rule anything out at this point is foolish and unwise.
Quote from: superluser on January 06, 2010, 04:31:44 PM
If you think that evolution works because of dumb luck, you're misunderstanding evolution. Without the survival of the fittest directing the process, weeding out detrimental mutations and supporting beneficial ones, it would take, on average, longer than the history of life on Earth to have such mutations.
I've not said that once, don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that even evolution has some random factors. Those neutral mutations support this in that the whole survival of the fittest thing doesn't really apply to them. Beyond that, you're only talking about earth. Fair enough as it's the only environment we know, but I'm thinking a bit bigger here, especially seeings how this started out about a race of aliens who couldn't have possibly evolved something. A bit beyond earth, don't you think?
Quote from: superluser on January 06, 2010, 04:31:44 PM
Take the bacterial flagellum. It's useless if any part is missing, so such a means of locomotion could not have evolved piecemeal. Ask any evolutionary biologist if the whole thing evolved at once, however, and I'll bet you the answer will not be ``million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.'' The flagellum seems to have evolved from an earlier organelle, used for infecting other cells. The beneficial mutation that led to the flagellum was not the synthesis of a bunch of earlier neutral mutations, but rather the synthesis of a bunch of earlier *beneficial* mutations (and yes, probably some neutral mutations as well).
Again, you seem to think that I'm trying to refute something that you're saying or misunderstanding something. I do understand it, maybe more than your admittedly much better read self would like to give me credit for. I'm saying, that potentially (since we've been playing around in improbabilities and the like in this thread) there could exist situations where these things can happen. Not just restricted to earth and the things we have observed. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for you and the others in this thread. Saying something is impossible is utterly silly when one considers the vast amount of time and space that seems to exist. There's so much of it so far, we're not even sure how much of it there really is or if maybe these things aren't limitless. So what I'm saying is that it's pointless to think in terms of absolutes at this point. There's too much we don't know.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 06, 2010, 04:58:34 PM
Again, you seem to think that I'm trying to refute something that you're saying or misunderstanding something. I do understand it, maybe more than your admittedly much better read self would like to give me credit for. I'm saying, that potentially (since we've been playing around in improbabilities and the like in this thread) there could exist situations where these things can happen. Not just restricted to earth and the things we have observed. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for you and the others in this thread. Saying something is impossible is utterly silly when one considers the vast amount of time and space that seems to exist. There's so much of it so far, we're not even sure how much of it there really is or if maybe these things aren't limitless. So what I'm saying is that it's pointless to think in terms of absolutes at this point. There's too much we don't know.
Which brings back to the point that I made earlier.
If you want to use impossible in the strictest sense of the word, of "What can never, ever, ever happen", you restrict use of the term to maybe mathematics. It is impossible for the angles in a triangle to have a sum of 200 degrees. (Unless you want to redefine "triangle" the measurement of angles, or the word "sum")
However, outside of the mathematical realm, the word "impossible" is often used to refer to events of exceedingly low probability. Is it possible for earth to go catapulting out of the solar system? Well, maybe, if the sun's mass suddenly disappeared, or due to some factor of gravitics that isn't currently understood, the attraction between bodies weakens significantly and suddenly.
But chances are very good that physicists do *not* misunderstand gravity that badly, chances are not that the mass of the sun will suddenly disappear, and those chances are so sure that someone could say "It is impossible for the earth to suddenly go catapulting out of the solar system", and be very clearly understood.
Chances are, if someone says something is impossible, they are referring to the colloquial usage, not the mathematical one.
And as has been said in response to your point already:
Why say impossible when you don't actually mean impossible, and when you already have a perfectly acceptable word that more than aptly describes the concept of highly unlikely, particularly when flouting oneself as a scientist and as such a person who is well educated and a reliable source of fact. No facts were stated, just an attempt to make ones own opinion seem larger than it needs be and then a bunch of silly folks hopped on board and called it so and this is a story all about how my life got flipped turned upside down and I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there while I tell you all about how I became the prince of Bel Air.
So far all I'm getting out of this conversation is "I have this opinion! Nobody can ever correct me from using the english language improperly!"
And the second is "I disagree you agreeing with me! STOP IT!"
All I have to say is thus
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Drathorin/lol%20internet/534px-Kittysmilie.jpg)
Okay, so the argument is that there is an improbability for life, as we know it, in the form that we know it, to have evolved on this planet because the likely hood of that ever happening is so low...
But then I have to ask that, just because we have a planet here with life the way it evolved here, what's to say that some other planet in the cosmos didn't have a similar path for certain aspects, and the failed to generate life to the degree that we have it? Or that a planet hasn't done a better job of it than ours did?
There's a lot of stars and a lot of planets out there, and when you factor them into any math, they help the adjust "probability" quite a bit.
Also, this thread has become a discussion on evolution, so I gently remind everyone to watch their tones.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 06, 2010, 05:42:46 PM
And as has been said in response to your point already:
Why say impossible when you don't actually mean impossible, and when you already have a perfectly acceptable word that more than aptly describes the concept of highly unlikely, particularly when flouting oneself as a scientist and as such a person who is well educated and a reliable source of fact. No facts were stated, just an attempt to make ones own opinion seem larger than it needs be and then a bunch of silly folks hopped on board and called it so and this is a story all about how my life got flipped turned upside down and I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there while I tell you all about how I became the prince of Bel Air.
Because that isn't how the word "impossible" is actually *used*. Almost all events referred to as impossible are technically possible, just unlikely to extremely high orders of magnitude.
1 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/george_schroeder/01/05/bill-hancock/index.html?section=si_latest)
I'll quote "this guy is given the job of defending an indefensible system..... He might just be the right man for an impossible job." If he defends the system, silences the critics? Possible, I see no reason as to why it cannot succeed. (I have no real idea of what's at stake in the article itself, I don't follow sports much, so my take on the probability is nonexistant.)
here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20100106/bs_bw/jan2010db2010015516128) are (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20100106/bs_bw/jan2010db2010015516128) more (http://www.recordernewspapers.com/articles/2010/01/06/mt_olive_chronicle/news/doc4b3296648f7e1906522140.txt) examples (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/06/mps-attack-treasury-spending-plans).
In all of the above, something is being stated as impossible, running 5 marathons a week, keeping rents "average" in silicon valley, reclaiming a high from heroin as good as the last one, judging a budget. All of those are feasible, just hard. I don't have any trouble following these articles, and I don't think anyone else does either. Common usage is not a dictionary definition, but it is certainly communication. Since in most communication "impossible" translates into "events of extremely low probability", it seems likely that the post that sparked this all off that it is "impossible" for evolution to follow a certain path, almost certainly is being said to claim that it's probability is so low that it might as well be non-existent.
Quote from: Darkmoon Firelyte on January 06, 2010, 06:07:28 PM
Also, this thread has become a discussion on evolution, so I gently remind everyone to watch their tones.
you could say that it's "evolved", but others would argue that it was intelligent design... but all factors taken into consideration, there's hardly anything intelligent about it. >:3 :U :P
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 06, 2010, 06:12:15 PM
stuff...
Alright, I want you to tell me what would happen if you wrote a news cast, citing yourself as a credible and knowledgeable source on something lets say... the safety of a particular type of car, that's a good one, right? What would happen if you said it would be impossible for that car to have a breakline failure? Do you think you could fall back on your excuse of 'Colloquialism' when that car actually had one?
One does not go around stating that they are an educated and credible source.. and then use 'colloquialisms' as an excuse for delivering things that are not factual or are misleading. It's generally frowned upon. Beyond that, the argument essentially boils down to: "They don't use the word correctly, so I don't have to either!" This is the worst reason for taking two very well and clearly defined words and utterly misusing them that I can imagine.
Also, as much I am loathe to trust wikipedia on any matter: "A colloquialism is an expression not used in
formal speech, writing or paralinguistics. Colloquialisms are also sometimes referred to collectively as "colloquial language". [1] Colloquialisms or colloquial language is considered to be characteristic of or only appropriate for
casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation rather than formal speech or writing.[2]
Dictionaries often display colloquial words and phrases with the abbreviation colloq. as an identifier."
taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism
There's some important parts here. I'll cover them as best as my limited wit and linguistic ability can manage: The minute you declare yourself a credible source, you're stating facts. That's pretty formal if you ask me. Even more so if you've written it down where everyone can see it and it's going to be subject to the scrutiny of your peers. Spoken words can slip by, but if you wrote it, particularly in a public spot.. best believe it's going to be subject to scrutiny.
Now, one can argue the second highlighted section there, that this is informal because it's a forum. Fair enough, but I'm going to have to disagree when people start tossing around their credentials to put weight to their words.
The final one for me is kinda heavy. Particularly since I don't have an actual dictionary handy with me and only have electronic ones to rely on.. but in about 10minutes of searching.. not once have I ever seen mention of the colloquial use of impossible being improbable.
In my links, I used 5 times where news sources said something was impossible. Does that mean you can or should get on the Guardian's case if someone successfully manages to assess the claim that the government will cut deficits? To be honest, I think that if the probability of a breakline failure in your hypothetical case were sufficiently low, say 1 in ten trillion or lower, and a credible news source used the word "impossible", and tragically, that one in ten trillion event occurred, once the nature of the improbability was known, few people would get on their case for saying "impossible" rather than "so absurdly improbable it isn't worth worrying about."
What really defines a word, Webster (or whatever dictionary you happen to prefer), or actual usage in real communications? Because you do see the words "impossible" in many, many instances, formal and informal, where it does not refer to the same level of impossibility, as say, a square with five sides. I can look up more articles and maybe a few essays that use the word such if you like, but if you want to reach and twist the circumstances hard enough, demonstrating "impossibility" to a situation is very very tricky in itself. Maybe people should be more careful with the words that they throw around, but I fail to see how I can make it any clearer than the articles I already cited as to how "impossible" does not mean "infinite possibilities will never yield this" than I already have in actual, real word usage.
Well all right then, so then what word describes a situation that simply cannot occur then? We had a perfectly good word for it, but apparently because people used the word loosely to cover their own butts enough times, that means the definition for it has changed. So what's the new word pray-tell? I want to give those who love to deal in absolutes something they can really sink their teeth into. Or is that just it? Are we tossing that out and saying that we no longer have a word to describe this concept? Simply because some people like to over sensationalize some but still at the same time cover their butts we now have to come up with a new way to express an already simple and well defined concept? Mass media decides to abuse a word and give misleading information, but because enough of them do it it's ok now? Fair enough.
Hey, you think if I get enough people to say that 0 is actually 1, that, outside of mathematical circles, I could get it to stick?
And what makes the names that we give to numbers, "0" and "1" actually correspond to an abstraction of value? If way back whenever the language was being generated (which is in itself a bit of an abstraction, people don't sit down and decide to create a language) the words for "zero" and "one" had been reversed, would that change their values? We attach the names that numbers have more from convention than anything else, so for your hypothetical, I would say yes. If enough people decided to change the name via usage, than why not? In fact, if enough people give those names, than it would probably eventually seep its way into mathematical circles, although given that they're still using a lot of greek symbols, it might take a few thousand years after everyone else made the switch :P
Does a dictionary set the type that everyone follows, or does a dictionary reflect what usage people are finding for those words? I've personally, always felt the latter. I mean, words *form*, languages change. At what point do words that seep in from other languages become part of English? At what point do neologisms stop being the weird slang or grammatical error and become the new norm? 400 years ago, I would only refer to you as "you" if you were a social superior or in a formal setting, with "thou" being the norm for more relaxed modes of speech. I don't think, today, saying "thou" is appropriate, outside of a Shakesperean play or a renaissance fair.
As for your first paragraph, I feel your pain. Although I think we need a word that says both yes and no at the same time before we divide "the probability approaches zero" and "can never, under any circumstances happen" into two separate words, the inarticulation of forms of language is annoying. I personally don't know of any real difference between the two, probably because in practicality they're close enough that, yes, most people are too lazy to make the distinction, because it carries little in the way of need to distinguish the two. While we're at it, lets crack in the heads of people who use the word "Kleenex" to refer to any sort of tissue paper, as they annoy me. :gun1
Wait! If that's true. . I'm going to start a petition to change your name to "F*&^%*" and if we get enough people to call you by it. We can change it's meaning! It will then be your name.
Also, man this thread is. . ..
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Drathorin/lol%20internet/fail.jpg)
QuoteDoes a dictionary set the type that everyone follows, or does a dictionary reflect what usage people are finding for those words? I've personally, always felt the latter. I mean, words *form*, languages change. At what point do words that seep in from other languages become part of English? At what point do neologisms stop being the weird slang or grammatical error and become the new norm? 400 years ago, I would only refer to you as "you" if you were a social superior or in a formal setting, with "thou" being the norm for more relaxed modes of speech. I don't think, today, saying "thou" is appropriate, outside of a Shakesperean play or a renaissance fair.
Isn't the fundamental point of any debate such as this to convey your logical argument to the opposing party in the same language? I mean I'd be worried if I was typing this and you suddenly respond in bloody MOONSPEAK because 'languages change'. It should at least be consistent all throughout the same thread.
If you cannot win your argument using the same definitions of terms then you should at least have the decency to concede it within that definition.
Wait is this thread some kind of chameleon? It went from being about Avatar to being about environmentalism to being about evolution to being about The Incredibles having an agenda to being about Avatar again to being about the English language to being about Webster.
This is just plain silly.
I have nothing intelligent to add so, uh, carry on?
P.S: I saw Avatar a few days ago! It was fun and entertaining and I had a blast. The only issue is, the movie was good for entertainment value and nothing more. Visually it was spectacular and I hope people use this kind of CGI for many years to come. However, story-wise, it was really nothing. It was painfully cliche and predictable; I could foresee, to some extent, every twist and turn. Worst of all was that all of these characters had so much potential and seemed to be very charismatic... but then Cameron didn't do anything with them. He didn't develop them. All we saw of the budding relationship between Whatsherface Neytiri and Jake was a stylish ethnic training montage. The outcome was sweet but that was only because of seeing the bond. It would have been much more effective if I had watched them see how they grew to care for one another. I'll admit that if one of the characters died, I would have been bummed but not in a lasting way. I was not in any way attached to some of those characters. I think if Cameron devoted more time to fleshing out the characters, I'd be much happier. Let's not get into the Black and White Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteMorality) issues.
Uh, the movie had environmentalism up shitshoot but I chose to tune it out. The Native American-colonists/Humans-Na'vi parallels were burned into my retinas. I wish he made the parallels less obvious, because then it wouldn't have made aspects of the movie seem like a vehicle. Alternatively, I think it would've worked if Cameron mixed it up a bit. Using real-life situations as a reference to help one understand the process of subjugating and dehumanizing an alien planet's indigenous race is one thing, but I am not impressed. Fantasy Counterpart Culture (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCounterpartCulture) EVERYWHERRRRRE.
But really, we can't criticize him for the connection to nature thing because it is not, by any means, a plot device restricted to FernGully. See, it's its own TV Trope. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FriendToAllLivingThings) If anything, it's just old.
Don't get me wrong, I still thought the movie was fun. I thought it was entertaining. The ending scenes were spectacular. I might consider myself a fan and I might fiddle with some future ideas. But it was not one of my favorites. I think it might be an embodiment of wasted potential for me.
If Avatar is made into some kind of franchise of comics, games, like with the Star Wars stuff, I will approve.
I'll readily admit that I nearly cried at a few moments in the movie. Actually, my sister's boyfriend shed a few manly tears. But I did not. >:3 And I told my sister all about her boyfriend who cries at rainbows and reminded him all throughout the car ride home about what a pussy he was.
I'm really pulling this out of my ass :C The review was terrible because I've been so screwed up. FORGIVE MEEEEE. Off I go to sleep.
Quote from: Drathorin on January 06, 2010, 10:14:36 PM
Wait! If that's true. . I'm going to start a petition to change your name to "F*&^%*" and if we get enough people to call you by it. We can change it's meaning! It will then be your name.
Also, man this thread is. . ..
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Drathorin/lol%20internet/fail.jpg)
I'm sure that when you went to school, if you're still not there, there was at least one kid who had some sort of nickname that stuck to him or her. In the context of the school, if you referred to whatever that nickname was, you'd have been understood. So while that might not be what was on his birth certificate, in that social situation of "school student interaction" that nickname was..... more or less that persons name.
So while I'd be offended if you tried to get my name changed to an obscenity, I don't deny that if it became how I was referred to, thought as, than, well, yes, it would be my name, at least in that particular context.
And I don't see how this thread is failing. I finally got a platform where I can talk about linguistics. To me, this is awesome :D
As for Magic's post
Quote from: Magic on January 06, 2010, 10:31:01 PM
Isn't the fundamental point of any debate such as this to convey your logical argument to the opposing party in the same language? I mean I'd be worried if I was typing this and you suddenly respond in bloody MOONSPEAK because 'languages change'. It should at least be consistent all throughout the same thread.
If you cannot win your argument using the same definitions of terms then you should at least have the decency to concede it within that definition.
I would say the point of a debate, is yes, to clarify an issue by means of logical argument. But when the issue at stake is what any given word means and how that meaning is derived, then I think raising the point of how words acquire definitions is a valid one. Winning or losing, (which itself is a questionable point in an honest debate) has nothing to do with it.
Take a random word. "Acephalous". In my dictionary, it claims that the word means either headless, or lacking a clearly defined head. It also refers to a situation where there is no evident leadership. courtesy of wikihere. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acephalous)
Question: Why does it have any of those definitions?
Well, I don't know for certain, but I can hazard a good guess. The word has roots in Greek, where a prefix of "a" has a function similar to "an" or "anti", and the root "cephalo" refers to a head. Anti-head, headless.
The leap to having no leader, I'd think, is reasonably intuitive. Comparisons of organizations to organisms are common, and the leader, "thinking" for the group, is the natural candidate for the head/brain position.
Now, again, I can't be sure, but I'm fairly certain that the meaning of headless came first, and then later the term was adapted to meaning a lack of leadership, using the organization to organism comparison above. At what point does using "acephalous" to refer to a leaderless organization stop being "wrong" and becomes an accepted use of the word? Bear in mind, if you want me to cite a tipping point, I can't actually name one. (to my irritation.) However, the process does occur, and it isn't really that hard to come up with examples of words that have changed meanings over time. (Especially obscenities and euphemisms.)
And when the crux point of a debate comes from two different understandings of the same word, then I think branching into how words acquire definitions is entirely appropriate. I don't think there's any real disagreement at this point of the speakers, now that we've spent hours hashing the issue, that a complex situation of a symbiotic growth to the point displayed in the movie is.
A. On a ridiculously low order of magnitude of probability
B. Possible, just, ridiculously unlikely.
The issue now seems to be what is the "true meaning of "impossible", if any true meaning can be ascribed to it, and how that process is achieved, which I, (although possible no-one else) am interested in.
Best wishes,
Corgatha Taldorthar.
*eyes Corg* i'm sorry dude, but.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Turnsky/dispairsoap.jpg)
seriously.
Ok, apparently I need to clarify why Pandora's biosphere is impossible via natural evolution.
Most of the life forms have no reason for the neurological 'link' seen in the movie. The predators especially would be extremely disadvantaged. This was not even a form of symbiosis. It was a neurochemical link that seemed to serve no functional purpose in the ecology than to allow the Na'vi and the forest brain to 'tame' the other organisms when needed.
Note also what this link entails. The animal organisms can enter and sever the link very rapidly through the tendrils. This is not mere signal transduction or biochemical signaling, this is a direct link with the central nervous system, primarily the brain, which forms in an instant, and can be broken down without any harm to either organism an instant later. This would require very rapid synaptic formation through some exceedingly complex neural conduits. The metabolic load for such anatomy would be tremendous. And if the organism is not directly benefitting from it, then any organisms born without it would suddenly find their bodies with a surplus of available energy. On Pandora, save for the instance at the end where all the meta-fauna are united against the humans, there is no evidence whatsoever that this link serves any practical purpose for those organisms. The Na'vi are the only ones who seem to benefit, as it allows them to almost instantly tame any animal they can manage to link with. Again, this is a distinct disadvantage to a predatory species, and evolution would favor the loss of that link.
We must also consider how would such a link evolve? It would have to occur BEFORE any major phylogenetic split in the organisms. If it occurred very early in evolution, then one would expect a very high degree of symbiosis betwen all the early life forms, and make it very unlikely that predators and prey species would ever evolve. Indeed, with such a complex connection between life forms, broad speciation into drastically dioferent organisms kingdoms would probably not even occur if the link were to be maintained. You might expect a planet of lichens, and not much else.
I do not see any possibility that it could have come later without a deliberate act, because it would require every single species involved, having already diverged to tremendous degrees, to then undergo a parallel convergent evolution path such that all evolved the same neurochemistry and the functional anatomy required for the system all at the same time. This is basically the bullet being pushed out the way by electrons analogy. The odds against it are so enormous, as to render the event causally impossible.
It is, however, perfectly possible for the interlinked organisms to result from a direct genetic engineering by an advanced civilization. Direct action rather drastically narrows the odds of an event occuring, since the factors needed for that event are being deliberately put into place, eliminating random chance. The only limit to what an advanced civilization could do is what is actually physically possible by any means.
This is why I say that Pandora would likely be an artificially created biosphere. The odds favor this as the most reasonable explanation for its existence. This does not require a 'god', merely an older intelligent alien race with a particular talent for biology. Now, an alterante hypothesis could render the 'Gaia' organism in a more sinister light. If it is a plant-based global intelligence which evolved first as perhaps a means by which the plants could coordinate their defenses against herbivores and eventually achieved consciousness and a rapidly increasing intelligence that exponentially grew as the forest cover of interconnected genius plant replaced the less-fit dumb plants, it is also possible that it hijacked all the other life forms and programmed them via eons of selective breeding, appearin quite impartial when in fact it is quite willing and able to assume total control over the other organisms when it feels threatened enough. And indeed, it did do that very thing in the movie! What we saw with those animals was a sudden change from instinct-only behavior, to intelligent coordination of offensive tactics. Essentially, the giant brain took over their minds and sent them to fight to protect itself from the invaders which harmed part of its brain. One could look at the animals as being used by the plant brain as white blood cells battling a foreign infection.
I should also point out that this sort of alien planetary engineering is not exactly new to science fiction either. It was, after all, the entire central tennet of the '2001' and series novels.
So, I see the Gaia organism on Pandora as either a living supercomputer left by a very advanced and creative ancient alien race, or as a native entity which arose from a very advanced form of plant symbiosis and subverted all other creatures to its will, changing their neurochemistry to match its own through eons of selective breeding until it had all the life on the planet in one way or another tied to it in order to protect itself and its further development. Then the Na'vi might even be one of its experiments.
Oh yes, lots of interesting sci-fi possibilities, and all within the realm of biological probability.
The very best science fiction always uses the best science available at the time to explain itself, only venturing into those realms of fantasy that science can answer neither yes nor no to. Such as was the case with the brilliant tale "I, Robot", a story which has withstood all the tests of time and has even now reached the cusp of potential for real fulfillment one day. The science of the story was solid, so solid that reality has now begun to resemble the fiction.
I tend to prefer the very 'sciency' science fiction.. which is why I loved the "Andromeda Strain" movie from the 70's. It was so full of science! :3
QuoteI would say the point of a debate, is yes, to clarify an issue by means of logical argument. But when the issue at stake is what any given word means and how that meaning is derived, then I think raising the point of how words acquire definitions is a valid one. Winning or losing, (which itself is a questionable point in an honest debate) has nothing to do with it.
I commend you for raising that point, however;
I would mean no disrespect in saying that I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me, and I apologize for that fact. I may have and overly simple word such as 'win' to convey a proper presentation of an argument.
I'm not saying you should throw away your argument or definition as if it was at stake, I'm asking you that you should at least consider that the opposing party actually acquires a definition differently he will more than likely have a different definition of a single word. You can then decide if his or her arguments has any merit based on it's logic, and concede the argument on his level or pose a rebuttal. Then maybe whoever you're arguing with might be courteous enough to do the same for your definition and your argument.
What you seem to be doing, is with linguistic superfluousness, is outright saying that
he will always be wrong for using that definition because when you acquire your own definition your own way, you have your definition which must hold true. Your definition, as with theirs, will always be subject to scrutiny. Failing to realize this will have all but made this an exercise in how diplomacy and communication fails.
At least be open minded enough to
play the devil's advocate and present your case so that while x is true if y is a certain value (and potentially argue whether or note if that is even true), you see that x is false if y is a different value. This should not be too hard, as you already seem to have the same general ideas on hand but just couldn't agree on the one word to convey that idea.
In my personal opinion in an aside, I will vehemently note that there will more than likely never be a conclusive result as long as either party continues to argue on based on skewed terminology. In either case, since you haven't quite noticed, everyone around you now considers this thread to imminently be thrown into the Mine. In fact the only potential reason why the others are posting is to speed it into it's demise.
Allow me to be the one to escort you, God willing, out of the hole you may have dug yourself in, as a courtesy.
:drama
Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.
But you guys already dragged it through every failpile and back. We're going to need some Taski and desu in here to keep up with the A material.
Quote from: Darkmoon Firelyte on January 07, 2010, 12:41:23 AM
:drama
Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.
Hey, I tried. But some things just kept trying to drag me back into discussion on the matter. I even Bel-Aired the thread man, what more do you want from me? Am I going to have to rickroll it? Maybe start adding more image spam to get people to lighten up?
hnnnngh... trying to be creative here...
bah
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Turnsky/hurtybrain1.jpg)
Also: This was linked to me yesterday during the evolution debate and again today, leading me to several potentially awkward situations at work.
(http://www.legorobotcomics.com/comics/14.jpg)
HADAWKIN! (http://www.legorobotcomics.com/comics/14.jpg)
I literally lol'd.
Quote from: Darkmoon Firelyte on January 07, 2010, 12:41:23 AM
Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.
Well.
I have a new debate for you all. Riddle me this, forumites: in an earlier post, I had said that I had emasculated my sister's boyfriend through not shedding tears during certain moments in Avatar when he, himself, did. Does this make me manlier than him, an actual man?
But the actual conundrum exists not in the question itself, but in the words. 'Manlier' in that usage insinuates strength and unemotionality but by traditionally assigning such behavior to the male gender, it patronizes the strength of womanhood. It implies that this kind of strength is reserved only for men, while women are considered overemotional, oversensitive creatures. Thus it insinuates that a show of emotion would be considered
womanly, and therefore weak. The word
womanly as an adjective is normally used to deride someone. This flaw in the English vocabulary promotes the perceived weakness separating both sexes, promoting a stereotype of men as macho creatures meant to protect the frail, weak, defenseless woman. Why should strength only be considered an accomplishment of man? In order for me to be acknowledged as emotionally stronger than my sister's boyfriend, I must be referred to as "manly" - a descriptor of the opposite sex. This type of thinking lurks everywhere.
And that is why we should all stop wearing bras.
Forumites, your thoughts?
No, but seriously, please don't give me your thoughts. I didn't take a word of this seriously. Oh god. And please don't kill me, moderators, please please please
...Keaton I love you and if you want to stop wearing your bra.. you go ahead. While you're at it, just hold on a sec.. I want photo evidence of this...historic... moment as you remove it. Make sure to remove your shirt too, I want to capture the actual moment you free yourself from your bonds for all to see.
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 07, 2010, 09:25:56 AM
Quote from: Darkmoon Firelyte on January 07, 2010, 12:41:23 AM
Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.
Well.
I have a new debate for you all. Riddle me this, forumites: in an earlier post, I had said that I had emasculated my sister's boyfriend through not shedding tears during certain moments in Avatar when he, himself, did. Does this make me manlier than him, an actual man?
But the actual conundrum exists not in the question itself, but in the words. 'Manlier' in that usage insinuates strength and unemotionality but by traditionally assigning such behavior to the male gender, it patronizes the strength of womanhood. It implies that this kind of strength is reserved only for men, while women are considered overemotional, oversensitive creatures. Thus it insinuates that a show of emotion would be considered womanly, and therefore weak. The word womanly as an adjective is normally used to deride someone. This flaw in the English vocabulary promotes the perceived weakness separating both sexes, promoting a stereotype of men as macho creatures meant to protect the frail, weak, defenseless woman. Why should strength only be considered an accomplishment of man? In order for me to be acknowledged as emotionally stronger than my sister's boyfriend, I must be referred to as "manly" - a descriptor of the opposite sex. This type of thinking lurks everywhere.
And that is why we should all stop wearing bras.
Forumites, your thoughts?
No, but seriously, please don't give me your thoughts.
I didn't take a word of this seriously. Oh god. And please don't kill me, moderators, please please please
heh, actually if a man cries that just proves he's more emotionally stable than one that vehemently believes being a pillar of non-emotion (i shall cite Keanu Reeves' entire acting range outside of bill & ted for an example).
It's okay to express one's self, in other words. and i second Mao's statement. :U
Keaton... omg... all I have to say is... you win.. you TOTALLY win :D :boogie
>.> and.. here's a match for that travesty the women race enslaves itself with *tosses lighter fluid as well*
...Also, for you Dr. Tran lovers out there:
(http://i50.tinypic.com/2yl3hjp.jpg) (http://i50.tinypic.com/2yl3hjp.jpg)
MAEK POAST!
(http://www.longcat.be/tapestry/olde_tits_or_gtfo_anonib.jpg)
Why not? It's in the spirit of the English language.
I was trying to aviod posting here, but I may as well. I watched said movie. Yes, the one the thread was originally about. It wasn't that bad really. I had a severe case of fridge logic after the fact, like "the colonel wanted to start shit, had a monster flying gun ship and incendiary rockets, but no proper bombs?" and "Who is paying these scientists? They aren't in it for nothing and the corp seems to dislike them a lot, so why are they still there?"
It really wasn't that bad either really. "Oh it is just Dances with Thundrcats in Space Ferngully!". I'm still trying hard to figure out why this is supposed to be a bad thing. No new ideas under the sun and all that. At least the combination is unique. I also have no problem with the whole planet being alive. I don't think it is reasonable at all, the sheer time lag of signals going from one end of the planet to the other would preclude it from being a single entity. Maybe the Navi are poly thestic~ On a similar note, some times expaining how things work makes it less fun. I'm looking right at you midichlorians. I'm sure that if you isolated a midichlorian and looked at it under a microscope it would look like a middle finger. Right at the fans. It would be facing the nearest Star Wars con.
I have here, What is demanded of this thread.
I don't have tits no. . . but I do have a GIANT PAIR OF BOOBIES!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Drathorin/lol%20internet/boobies.jpg)
i too have drawn ze big boobies:
(http://www.ariannia.com/images/stuff/cerbboobies.jpg)
I know you said that you were relaxing you standards about what you would draw, but, the depths of your depravity knows no bounds D:
Quote from: ShadesFox on January 07, 2010, 10:21:22 AM
I know you said that you were relaxing you standards about what you would draw, but, the depths of your depravity knows no bounds D:
oh you want
depraved, do ye?
BEHOLD IT'S SPLENDOR!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Turnsky/Sketches/bigcock.jpg)
D:
THE HORROR!
THE HOOOOOOOOOOROR!
The .. . HUGE MANATEEEEEEEEE~!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Drathorin/lol%20internet/manatee26js_small.jpg)
I shall build an idol to it.
Thanks for improving the thread y'all
Oh you are so welcome~
In all fairness I think this thread is *far* more amusing than when it was nothing more than a bunch of bawwing back and forth about a movie that the folks discussing it at the time hadn't even seen. I say this because I can never tell if you're being sarcastic, but just assume that because you're a mod here of all places, you *are* being sarcastic. Even when you say you're being serious.
...
I blame llearch.
Well of course it's gotten better!
It's got boobs, cocks, trolls, retards, flaming napalm, barbeque luncheons!
It's full of love and hate, tales of sorrow and victory.
This is the new generation of the days of our lives.
The only thing it's missing is some SHOOP DA WOOP!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Drathorin/lol%20internet/bug_lazar.gif)
And here we fix that.
Hey! Can I be both on topic and off-topic at the same time?
Conan O'Brien does a skit, approximately 20 seconds of which deal with Avatar (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/what-did-lou-dobbs-think-while-watchin)
Quote from: Drathorin on January 07, 2010, 01:58:19 PM
And here we fix that.
That's 3MB. I can see you making enemies with anyone trying to read this on dialup or a mobile data link :B
EDIT:
Thinking about it, it'll probably just push your photobucket account over quota.
I think you just proposed a schrodinger's cat problem, superluser. I think the only way this will work is if I don't directly observe your comment. Sorry. (in truth I just can't see streaming video at work, they block it. :( )
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 07, 2010, 02:07:37 PM
I think you just proposed a schrodinger's cat problem, superluser. I think the only way this will work is if I don't directly observe your comment. Sorry. (in truth I just can't see streaming video at work, they block it. :( )
They don't block it here, they just throttle it to the point where it'd be faster to draw every frame individual with colored pencil and make a flipbook
That actually sounds kinda epic, in concept. Animated versions of every movie ever made. And I mean everything. Even youtube clips. Epic.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 07, 2010, 02:11:07 PMThat actually sounds kinda epic, in concept. Animated versions of every movie ever made. And I mean everything. Even youtube clips. Epic.
Have we done this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-reW1eLYE
Edit: Now from the artist's own YouTube account.
I dunno. I kinda like this one:
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/
While off topic, I'm posting this while driving :3
Quote from: ShadesFox on January 07, 2010, 05:16:55 PM
While off topic, I'm posting this while driving :3
"Brb, Semi"
:B
i'm almost positive posting while driving is a violation of some state or federal law
I think that just covers texting.
Depending on where you live it varies muchly.
For example, where I'm at they just passed a law where it's forbidden to text, voice (Unless you have a handsfree) or data use any cell phones or data devices while driving.
It's punishable by a 400 dollar fine and losing 3 of your points.
D: I'm glad I got a bluetooth headset for christmas 8D
Quote from: Drathorin on January 07, 2010, 11:18:47 PMIt's punishable by a 400 dollar fine and losing 3 of your points.
Whoa! How many points do you get? We only get 11 before they can suspend your license. I mean, it's not exactly easy to get 11 points, but 3 for texting? If you sped around a school bus while texting, that would get you 11 points!
Quote from: superluser on January 07, 2010, 11:51:20 PM
Quote from: Drathorin on January 07, 2010, 11:18:47 PMIt's punishable by a 400 dollar fine and losing 3 of your points.
Whoa! How many points do you get? We only get 11 before they can suspend your license. I mean, it's not exactly easy to get 11 points, but 3 for texting? If you sped around a school bus while texting, that would get you 11 points!
Yeah, that's probably a good thing
Quote from: Drathorin on January 07, 2010, 11:18:47 PM
For example, where I'm at they just passed a law where it's forbidden to text, voice (Unless you have a handsfree) or data use any cell phones or data devices while driving.
And here's the silly thing. The problem when being on the phone is the lack of attention to the road/cars/trucks/trains/buildings/trees etc around you. Tests show that using a handsfree leaves you your hands free, but takes just as much attention away from the driving as using a handful of phone.
So... using a handsfree kit or a phone is just as dangerous, really. And yet one is illegal, and the other is not. Yay for nanny states.
Knowing the place that Drath is referring to, it's less a case of them being silly and more a case of the government in question willing to give people a chance to prove they can do it. Just because a few tests say it's just as dangerous, doesn't mean the people believe it (though given some of them, you'd think they'd be easier to lead, right Drath?). When a government has to deal with a bunch of it's people thinking they're full of shit, things tend to go down hill. Doing it this way gives them a chance to either prove or disprove the work themselves and when they likely botch it up, the government in question will likely just go, "Well that's that then." and now it's illegal. Less a nanny state and more not wanting to deal with it's angry rifle toting citizens.
Quote from: superluser on January 07, 2010, 11:51:20 PM
Quote from: Drathorin on January 07, 2010, 11:18:47 PMIt's punishable by a 400 dollar fine and losing 3 of your points.
Whoa! How many points do you get? We only get 11 before they can suspend your license. I mean, it's not exactly easy to get 11 points, but 3 for texting? If you sped around a school bus while texting, that would get you 11 points!
It's either 11 total points, or 12. I'm not quite sure, and you get 2 points back after a year of no incidents. . . Or was it 2 years? I've never had it happen so remembering back 8 years ago is kinda fuzzy.
And passing a school bus while it's flashing lights are out when it's picking up a kid? Grounds for total license suspension. And a possible 5,000 dollar fine.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 08, 2010, 05:46:51 AM
Knowing the place that Drath is referring to, it's less a case of them being silly and more a case of the government in question willing to give people a chance to prove they can do it. Just because a few tests say it's just as dangerous, doesn't mean the people believe it (though given some of them, you'd think they'd be easier to lead, right Drath?). When a government has to deal with a bunch of it's people thinking they're full of shit, things tend to go down hill. Doing it this way gives them a chance to either prove or disprove the work themselves and when they likely botch it up, the government in question will likely just go, "Well that's that then." and now it's illegal. Less a nanny state and more not wanting to deal with it's angry rifle toting citizens.
Yes, what Mao says is correct.
It's more about the government not wanting to squash 'individual' freedoms. (You know, that thing americans always go on about? Freedom?) And give people alternatives to be able to do what they want to do while making it as safe as possible.
And with handsfree headsets going anywhere from $20 dollars and up, really there's no need not to have one.
And Man I just don't get it. Why can't those dumb cows just be led. Seriously, you have the most intelligent beings on this mud rock and they won't go back into their stalls.
Mice won't go back into their stalls?
Or were you talking about dolphins?
You know sometimes, Drath, I really wonder what you're going on about....
;-]
...No no.. what he says fits. He's saying that the cows are smarter than the peo....oh. Oh, I see what you did thar.
I predict that quite a few of Llearch's avatars will it into movies. I mean, how many movies don't already have boxes in them compared to those that do? Some come with stuffed animals, some with air, some that allow a person to transfer consciousness to a faux body... There's even few video game movie sequences that involve a guy who performs covert operations with a box. :januscat
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 08, 2010, 11:33:48 AM
Mice won't go back into their stalls?
Or were you talking about dolphins?
You know sometimes, Drath, I really wonder what you're going on about....
;-]
Sometimes it's all about the Laughs, the love, and the struggle to survive and sometimes it's just all about being the dude disguised as a dude playing another dude.
Quote from: Lysander on January 08, 2010, 05:23:27 PM
I predict that quite a few of Llearch's avatars will it into movies. I mean, how many movies don't already have boxes in them compared to those that do? Some come with stuffed animals, some with air, some that allow a person to transfer consciousness to a faux body... There's even few video game movie sequences that involve a guy who performs covert operations with a box. :januscat
So that was what the Half Life games were about.... Llearch murder simulators!
Simulators?
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 09, 2010, 11:33:12 AM
Simulators?
Now that Llearch is gone, his ghost has returned to tell you: Don't play Half Life, whatever you do, just don't Don't play Half Life.
/me adds superluser to his "simulated" list... *
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 08, 2010, 04:36:13 AM
Quote from: Drathorin on January 07, 2010, 11:18:47 PM
For example, where I'm at they just passed a law where it's forbidden to text, voice (Unless you have a handsfree) or data use any cell phones or data devices while driving.
And here's the silly thing. The problem when being on the phone is the lack of attention to the road/cars/trucks/trains/buildings/trees etc around you. Tests show that using a handsfree leaves you your hands free, but takes just as much attention away from the driving as using a handful of phone.
So... using a handsfree kit or a phone is just as dangerous, really. And yet one is illegal, and the other is not. Yay for nanny states.
So what about talking to other people in the car? Wouldn't that take just as much concentration? I mean with people in the car, there is a much larger chance you're gonna look at them while talking then on a hands-free and no one in the car with you. Maybe we should outlaw passengers while we're at it.
this thread just won't die...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Turnsky/random%20shite/worffrustration.gif)
Quote from: ooklah on January 11, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
So what about talking to other people in the car? Wouldn't that take just as much concentration? I mean with people in the car, there is a much larger chance you're gonna look at them while talking then on a hands-free and no one in the car with you. Maybe we should outlaw passengers while we're at it.
I don't know, I don't think they've tested that. Or, at least, I haven't been informed as to any results including it....
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 11, 2010, 01:23:53 PM
Quote from: ooklah on January 11, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
So what about talking to other people in the car? Wouldn't that take just as much concentration? I mean with people in the car, there is a much larger chance you're gonna look at them while talking then on a hands-free and no one in the car with you. Maybe we should outlaw passengers while we're at it.
I don't know, I don't think they've tested that. Or, at least, I haven't been informed as to any results including it....
Survey results say.
"It's a lonely drive, and singles cry themselves from location to location"
I was going to start a new thread on this, but what the heck. This works.
You folks have heard of otherkin, right? People who believe that they are human only in form but other beings in spirit? Like dragonkin -- people who believe they are dragons... elfkin -- people who believe they are really elves...
And now, na'vi-kin. I kid you not (http://community.livejournal.com/tothehometree/).
Quote from: Escher on January 13, 2010, 09:30:51 PM
I was going to start a new thread on this, but what the heck. This works.
You folks have heard of otherkin, right? People who believe that they are human only in form but other beings in spirit? Like dragonkin -- people who believe they are dragons... elfkin -- people who believe they are really elves...
And now, na'vi-kin. I kid you not (http://community.livejournal.com/tothehometree/).
the sad part is? i'm not surprised.
It's amazing as to how quickly people follow a fad because they want to be special.
And end up being like the other 10,000 shmoes they hang out with that are equally as 'unique'
I would weep... but I am all out of tears.
As a bonus, however, when they get the surgery done to make them more like their inner spirit, at least we'll be able to easily recognize them on the streets. And mock them. And maybe throw rocks.
Quote from: Darkmoon Firelyte on January 13, 2010, 10:58:01 PMAnd maybe throw rocks.
Now, now, that's just cruel.
Throwing hard fruit at them and yelling ``Bond with
this,'' on the other hand, is cruel and ironic.
Aren't the Na'vi like ten feet tall? Unless they come up with a way to enhance muscular strength, human legs can't support a ten foot frame. I'd just wait for their upper bodies to crush their ankles...... :P
Quote from: Darkmoon Firelyte on January 13, 2010, 10:58:01 PM
I would weep... but I am all out of tears.
As a bonus, however, when they get the surgery done to make them more like their inner spirit, at least we'll be able to easily recognize them on the streets. And mock them. And maybe throw rocks.
rocks? you lack a sense of the classics... Gather some friends and chase after them with torches and pitchforks! much more fun that way, and afterwards, barbecue! >:3
You know...
...people in the furry community are hardly in the best position to deride a subculture.
Quote from: Sofox on January 14, 2010, 04:34:39 AM
You know...
...people in the furry community are hardly in the best position to deride a subculture.
at least most follow
real creatures.
Quote from: Turnsky on January 14, 2010, 05:10:27 AM
Quote from: Sofox on January 14, 2010, 04:34:39 AM
You know...
...people in the furry community are hardly in the best position to deride a subculture.
at least most follow real creatures.
Who walk and talk and have jobs and...
Quote from: superluser on January 13, 2010, 11:04:19 PM
Throwing hard fruit at them and yelling ``Bond with this,'' on the other hand, is cruel and ironic.
Durians?
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 14, 2010, 07:30:21 AMDurians?
Nah. You want something with a smooth surface that won't become brittle after freezing.
Quote from: Turnsky on January 14, 2010, 05:10:27 AM
Quote from: Sofox on January 14, 2010, 04:34:39 AM
You know...
...people in the furry community are hardly in the best position to deride a subculture.
at least most follow real creatures.
It's true though, people who say "I'm a fae/dog/fox/etc" to the extent that some furries carry it to. .
Really, a lot of them are in the same neighborhood. Next door if you will. You should be getting along and borrowing cups of sugar.
Quote from: Sofox on January 14, 2010, 05:15:49 AM
Quote from: Turnsky on January 14, 2010, 05:10:27 AM
Quote from: Sofox on January 14, 2010, 04:34:39 AM
You know...
...people in the furry community are hardly in the best position to deride a subculture.
at least most follow real creatures.
Who walk and talk and have jobs and...
Animals can talk! (African Grey Parrots!)
They have jobs! (Horses, sheep dogs, Indian Elephants which haul wood)
They are politicians! (Chimps slinging crap)
:giggle
I'm actually surprised that I have yet to run into a... movement to the effect of, "Na'Vi are the best, unlike stinky evil greedy humans, and we must aspire to be like Na'Vi if indeed we are not actually Na'Vi already just in the wrong body".
On the other hand, I have yet to run into those elves I've heard so much about, so maybe I just don't go to the right places.
Quote from: Caswin on January 15, 2010, 12:17:09 PM
I'm actually surprised that I have yet to run into a... movement to the effect of, "Na'Vi are the best, unlike stinky evil greedy humans, and we must aspire to be like Na'Vi if indeed we are not actually Na'Vi already just in the wrong body".
On the other hand, I have yet to run into those elves I've heard so much about, so maybe I just don't go to the right places.
I'm sad to say, they are gradually emerging.
PADS (Post-Avatar Depression Syndrome) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100112/en_huffpost/420605)
I wonder if I can import Kagemushi's FAIL blog finding, in which there is a rather humorous comparison of the plots of "Avatar" vs Disney's "Pocahontas", which ironically was lambasted by many critics for many of the over-simplified cliches and Gaia silliness they ignored in "Avatar".
EDIT: Yes I can >:} Bwah ha ha! (http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/)
Quote from: Alondro on January 15, 2010, 03:27:48 PMI wonder if I can import Kagemushi's FAIL blog finding, in which there is a rather humorous comparison of the plots of "Avatar" vs Disney's "Pocahontas", which ironically was lambasted by many critics for many of the over-simplified cliches and Gaia silliness they ignored in "Avatar".
I will point out that many of the glowing reviews of Avatar scrupulously noted that the plot was extremely hokey, but that the reviewers didn't care, since the special effects were the point, and they were stunning.
Sure the plot was extremely cliche (one of my friends says it is also almost exactly like Dances with Wolves), but I enjoyed it. Even if a is entirely original and amazing, it could still be worthless if it's executed poorly. I like the way the story was done in Avatar. :januscat
I'm a rebel, and I won't see Avatar until it's out on DVD. . and in the discount bin section :3
I know some friends that blew over 100 bucks to go see this film repeatedly.
Psh, Fanbois.
Whuh. The thread's still on?
THE THREAD'S STILL ON. *charges with lances and shields*
I see where Sofox is coming from about the subculture thing, but I'm going to slowly back away from the otherkin movement even though it might be the kind of thing my mom would study quite happily. I'm probably just disillusioned. I'm kind of guessing this isn't what James Cameron had expected when he made Avatar. I was not expecting this either, which is clearly a sign I haven't spent enough time on the Internet.
I thought there was only going to be porn.
Quote from: Alondro on January 15, 2010, 03:27:48 PM
PADS (Post-Avatar Depression Syndrome) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100112/en_huffpost/420605)
Speaking personally, I do not see the appeal in the idea of living on Pandora as a Na'vi. It's very pretty, like nature is pretty, but they kind of have wildlife that is utterly determined to kill you if you aren't blue and sparkly. And if you are, they still will try to kill you. Like everywhere you turn. So I guess I think Pandora is gorgeous as a creative achievement, but I give a resounding HELL NO at the theoretical proposition of being able to live in a Na'vi's shoes for one day. I guess I can see why people would like it, but I cannot empathize.
Fandoms are weird, man. D:
Fun story demonstrating my pathetic inability to be one with nature: When my family went on vacation in North Carolina there were comfortable teepees that were more like conical, low-key cabins that you could rent, and we were exploring them to decide if we should return next year for vacation. I thought they were pretty sweet and I wouldn't have minded sleeping there IF I DIDN'T SEE THREE GIANT DADDY LONG-LEGS SITTING ON THE WALL OVER THE BED, GOING ALL "Y HALO THAR SEXY" AT ME. Then I had to run out of the tent like I was on fire, and my parents were like "Keaton, what the shit?" so that was pretty pathetic of me.
GOD I HATE SPIDERS and I HATE CAMPING.
Quote from: Escher on January 13, 2010, 09:30:51 PM
And now, na'vi-kin. I kid you not (http://community.livejournal.com/tothehometree/).
Hup. I must have missed this post. Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. (Skimming the posts, I see a surprising amount of members there either referring to Otherkin or claiming to be one themselves even as they try to get in touch with their inner Na'vi. I'm probably missing something significant here.)
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 16, 2010, 12:39:45 PM
Speaking personally, I do not see the appeal in the idea of living on Pandora as a Na'vi. It's very pretty, like nature is pretty, but they kind of have wildlife that is utterly determined to kill you if you aren't blue and sparkly. And if you are, they still will try to kill you. Like everywhere you turn. So I guess I think Pandora is gorgeous as a creative achievement, but I give a resounding HELL NO at the theoretical proposition of being able to live in a Na'vi's shoes for one day. I guess I can see why people would like it, but I cannot empathize.
But it's so beautiful! Beauty means everything! And the love! And the Na'vi! And the love! The planet loves you! And the beauty! And the wildlife! So what if they try to kill you, that's just part of nature! Do you hate nature?! Oh wait, you're a
human. Oh well, you are clearly blind to the sheer raw unblemished beauty of Pandora and the Smurfycats (http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/15043-ep036) who live in it! :batman
(Incidentally, I did see
Avatar a few weeks ago. Eh. I thought
Sherlock Homes was better.)
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 16, 2010, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: Alondro on January 15, 2010, 03:27:48 PM
PADS (Post-Avatar Depression Syndrome) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100112/en_huffpost/420605)
Speaking personally, I do not see the appeal in the idea of living on Pandora as a Na'vi. It's very pretty, like nature is pretty, but they kind of have wildlife that is utterly determined to kill you if you aren't blue and sparkly. And if you are, they still will try to kill you. Like everywhere you turn. So I guess I think Pandora is gorgeous as a creative achievement, but I give a resounding HELL NO at the theoretical proposition of being able to live in a Na'vi's shoes for one day. I guess I can see why people would like it, but I cannot empathize.
Sounds like Australia to me. Aside from the blue and sparkly bit, of course. :v
Quote from: Eibbor_N on January 17, 2010, 02:18:11 AM
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 16, 2010, 12:39:45 PM
Speaking personally, I do not see the appeal in the idea of living on Pandora as a Na'vi. It's very pretty, like nature is pretty, but they kind of have wildlife that is utterly determined to kill you if you aren't blue and sparkly. And if you are, they still will try to kill you. Like everywhere you turn. So I guess I think Pandora is gorgeous as a creative achievement, but I give a resounding HELL NO at the theoretical proposition of being able to live in a Na'vi's shoes for one day. I guess I can see why people would like it, but I cannot empathize.
Sounds like Australia to me. Aside from the blue and sparkly bit, of course. :v
It tries to kill anyone, regardless. White, black, yellow, purple, green, blue, sparkly.... Australia has no qualms about throwing venomous or just plain deadly fauna and flora at you. I should know, I live here.
Redback, Funnel-Web, Blue-ringed octopus
Taipan, Tigersnake and a Box jellyfish
Stonefish and the poison thing that lives in a shell
That spikes you when you pick it up
Come to Australia
You might accidentally get killed
Your life's constantly under threat
Have you been bitten yet?
You've only got three minutes left
Before a massive coronary breakdown
Redback, Funnel-Web, Blue-ringed octopus
Tiapan, Tigersnake and a Box jellyfish
Big shark just waiting for you to go swimming
At Bondi Beach
Come to Australia
You might accidentally get killed
Your blood is bound to be spilled
With fear your pants will be filled
Because you might accidentally get killed
I believe it is accurate to say that Australia has the 9 most poisonous spiders in the world.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 13, 2010, 11:25:20 PM
Aren't the Na'vi like ten feet tall? Unless they come up with a way to enhance muscular strength, human legs can't support a ten foot frame. I'd just wait for their upper bodies to crush their ankles...... :P
Actually the tallest a person can be before their body collapes is 39 feet on Earth however there is less gravity on pandora so you could posibly get to 45 or 50 feet tall there.
So has anyone seen the deleted Navi sex scene from Avatar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D8IRIYBSnk
NSFW
Quote from: thegayhare on January 17, 2010, 05:31:55 PM
So has anyone seen the deleted Navi sex scene from Avatar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D8IRIYBSnk
NSFW
Can't view, don't have a youtube account...
But by any chance, is it the same as that flash parody that's currently on the frontpage of Newgrounds? I haven't watched that yet, either.
If it's by Happy Harry, then yes (Also known for the Watchmen Saturday Morning cartoon intro).
From my mother's experience, the smaller the spider usually means the more venomous in Australia; most of the big fuzzy ones are just for fun. Also, that poem was awesome. :januscat
Quote from: Lysander on January 17, 2010, 06:40:18 PM
From my mother's experience, the smaller the spider usually means the more venomous in Australia; most of the big fuzzy ones are just for fun. Also, that poem was awesome. :januscat
a) Poem? It's a song! Come To Australia! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNEeq5qGh8I)
b) The Sydney Funnel Web begs to differ.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Atrax_robustus.jpg)
That thing will CUT YOU WIDE OPEN!
Where did this talk about spiders and australia come from on a forum about Avatar. Was it in the deleted scene or something.
speaking of deadly things..
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/man-died-after-watching-avatar/story-e6frfmvr-1225821333043
i'm a horrible person for snickering about this.
Wow, just wow :erk. I've heard of people dying while watching "The Passion of The Christ," but this is a different type of movie altogether. Maybe people with high blood pressure should talk to their doctor before going to see certain movies from now on.
Yay natural flow of conversation. I like spiders. :>
Some of them I'm just in no rush to ever be in range of. Like that one.
Yeah, I'm fine with spiders too :erk, as long as they are nowhere near me :<. Die spider die :gun1 :explosion :gun2.
Isn't it bad luck to kill a spider?
Only if it bites you before it dies :c
Quote from: Sofox on January 19, 2010, 08:41:23 AM
Isn't it bad luck to kill a spider?
That reminds me of when I was attacked by a spider in the bath. I tried smashing it several times with a box :deadhorse, which only pissed it off :tantrum and ran from under the box on the ceiling down toward my hand causing me to freak out :eek and drop the box and spider in the water. The spider tried swimming around before sinking to the bottom of the tub, then it started running around on the bottom of the tub, so I pulled the plug and watched it go down the drain to its new home in the sewer.
Quote from: Sofox on January 19, 2010, 08:41:23 AM
Isn't it bad luck to kill a spider?
only if it recites Shakespeare
Quote from: Turnsky on January 19, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
Quote from: Sofox on January 19, 2010, 08:41:23 AM
Isn't it bad luck to kill a spider?
only if it recites Shakespeare
Are you refering to this (http://missmab.com/Comics/Vol_751.php) and this (http://missmab.com/Comics/Vol_755.php)?
Quote from: iceick on January 19, 2010, 12:07:25 PM
Quote from: Turnsky on January 19, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
only if it recites Shakespeare
Are you refering to this (http://missmab.com/Comics/Vol_751.php) and this (http://missmab.com/Comics/Vol_755.php)?
Er... what the heck else would he be referring to?
Well, I have seen shows on TV where spiders as big or bigger than people were quoting Shakespeare although at the time I don't remember which one(s). But I figure, since this is a forum based of (if not, then gets most attention from) DMFA, so it'd most likely be those two spiders.
Update time, folks!
It's official. Avatar has surpassed Titanic and is now the highest grossing movie evar. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/01/avatar-becomes-king-of-the-box-office-world-.html)
Goes to show you, if you take a very familiar story and spend bajillions in making pretty special effects, you'll win a lot of profit.
Oh, and if you're so inclined, now you can visit Southern Heaven Mountain Hallelujah Mountain in the lush, mysterious jungles of Pandora China. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/7078150/Avatar-China-changes-name-of-peak-to-Hallelujah-Mountain.html) Hurrah.
Quote from: Escher on January 27, 2010, 12:07:05 AM
Goes to show you, if you take a very familiar story and spend bajillions in making pretty special effects, you'll win a lot of profit.
You forgot the part about the hugely talented director.
Quote from: Sofox on January 27, 2010, 04:42:43 AM
You forgot the part about the hugely talented director.
Wait, That movie had a director?
I thought it had some guy just mashing the "Bloom" key for everything.
Edit: Also I love how in those articles they directly say they didn't adjust for inflation! And how they'd still have a long long way to go in ticket sales before it matches titanic.
I love how inflation is used as a "OMFG IT SURPSASSED EVERYTHING!"
Not hard to do since ticket prices. . . doubled from over 13 years ago? LAWLZ
Quote from: Drathorin on January 27, 2010, 10:17:13 AMEdit: Also I love how in those articles they directly say they didn't adjust for inflation! And how they'd still have a long long way to go in ticket sales before it matches titanic.
I love how inflation is used as a "OMFG IT SURPSASSED EVERYTHING!"
Yeah! By that logic, An American Carol surpassed...um...
...wow, An American Carol did really, really, really bad. It...uh, surpassed that movie about a dingo eating that woman's baby. It also beat out Ishtar and Fear of a Black Hat.
Not adjusting for inflation is a great metric! If you don't adjust for inflation then Star Trek Nemesis was... oh wait... even if you don't adjust for inflation Nemesis still made less money then the Trek movie that tanked in 1989.
Quote from: ShadesFox on January 27, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
Not adjusting for inflation is a great metric! If you don't adjust for inflation then Star Trek Nemesis was... oh wait... even if you don't adjust for inflation Nemesis still made less money then the Trek movie that tanked in 1989.
You promised you'd never mention those ever again.
I am disappoint
Quote from: Escher on January 27, 2010, 12:07:05 AM
Goes to show you, if you take a very familiar story and spend bajillions in making pretty special effects, you'll win a lot of profit.
Of course, there are other movies that made a larger profit vs. cost (i.e. Paranormal Actvity, Blare Which Project, Fireproof, Flywheel, etc.)
This bad thread is like yesterday's lunch.
It just won't stay down.
Quote from: ShadesFox on January 27, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
Not adjusting for inflation is a great metric! If you don't adjust for inflation then Star Trek Nemesis was... oh wait... even if you don't adjust for inflation Nemesis still made less money then the Trek movie that tanked in 1989.
yes, but nemesis was a good movie, the original one was just................ guh....
Actually this thread is past it's sell-by date. After about three weeks it's not considered proper to post to them unless you're the author and/or there is an exceptionally good reason to resurrect it. If you could avoid doing that in future it would be great.
:locked
Goodbye, Sweet Thread
That sweet smell? It's the smell of rotting biological waste.