Comments on: Our Oscar Vote

By: Thomas L. Nielsen

Thomas L. Nielsen — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:50:55 +0000

The main scientific issue to me is the fact that the Na’vi are very different from the majority of other animals in the Pandora biosphere.
The Na’vi are humanoid, bipedal and four limbed (not counting the tail). The larger animals we see in the movie are mostly hexapedal (six legs, plus a tail).
Here on Terra, the human body layout is pretty much identical to the ones of other mamals, reptiles, birds, etc. Even the arrangement of our internal organs is similar.
So what did the Na’vi evolve from? Are they supposed to be indigenous to Pandora, or were they “imported” at some point in the past?
Just my personal thoughts on the issue.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

By: Jeanette K.

Jeanette K. — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:47:02 +0000

What, no love for Up in the Air? I guess if you’re not an Oscars lover than you aren’t a lover of Jason Reitman and that whole Juno scene :). And Tropic Thunder IS an awesome movie…

By: Thomas L. Nielsen

Thomas L. Nielsen — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:10:07 +0000

Agree with that. I might be in a minority here, but when I saw (and enjoyed) Avatar, I always saw the bad guys as CorpSec or PMC, never as an allegory for the US military.

Sure, the Avatar storyline is naive, but it is still a cool movie (starships, big guns, explosions, mecha’s, sexy aliens.…come on guys, it was great :-) ).

As for the tech level: If you’re on some backwater colony world with limited support (a Capital Star class ISV taking what, some 5 years to reach Pandora?), I think it makes sense to go with the simplest (or even most primitive) technology that will do the job. The same happened in Africa and India during the colonial days here on Terra. So cartridge-firing small arms rather than railsguns, and ducted-fan aircraft rather than whatever.

And at least whoever designed the Capital Star class at least seems to have seen an actual spacecraft before.…

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

By: Will

Will — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:55:05 +0000

A lot of comments here about the weak weaponry of the human “military” in Avatar. Thought I should point out that this was not an army or even a mercenary army but corporate security. The Navi did not have firearms & were disorganized up until the events in the movie. An equivalent force in our own time would have assault rifles & a few machine guns — nothing like the firepower of the US Army or USMC. The big picture is that the real problems with Avatar were in the script. Better tech & better tactics would not have saved the poor script.

By: Philo

Philo — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:02:15 +0000

Agreed about Avatar. Funny thing: on one of the “fail Blog” sites they have a one page summary of Disney’s “Pocahontas” cartoon. Someone went through and substituted the relevant Avatar stuff with the Pocahontas stuff and it is an exact, 100% match-up! Priceless.

By: Theo

Theo — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:58:56 +0000

I’ve got to say I’m suprised, while I admitt that the technology in Avatar is a joke (where are the personal infantry mini-missiles, the UAV’s the remote turrets on the construction units (which remove the need for the “grunts” to be exposed half the time, all of which are either already available or in development in real-life (and featured on DT at some point) what amazes me is that no one mentions the tactics. I understand he’s (main character) a marine (no command experience refrenced and also renowned for taking the action head on) but when provided with an army of trackers and hunters in their natural environment he chooses to rush the enemy head on into their automatic weapons (how bout archers in the tree-tops behind, guys on the ground behind with something to obscure the mechs[windscreen wiper-less] screens and a charge from the other direction) and as for the aerial combat, they have a hiding place, a gunship and a larger force, so they drop down (albeit at the last second but still) right infront of the enemies nose, not on all sides, not in their midst (limitin fire for fear of blue on blue) and most of all not dropping the gunship down first and behind, where half of the human fleet could have been fired upon before they have the chance to return fire (no noticable rear guns). But the only complaints I hear on realism are poor tech (what about the evolutionary explanation for why they have natural tenticles that force them to be submissive? etc.)

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:33:35 +0000

These are all just movies, period. Neither Hollywood or the Left or the Right or even a military point of view have any particularly accurate view of life than the others. I heard that District 9 was allegory for South Africa, and Avatar is anti-military, and The Hurt Locker does stray a bit. I saw Avatar and was riveted, I saw The Hurt Locker and was also riveted to my seat. I will have to see District 9.

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:38:35 +0000

I actually didnt like District 9 at all. I suppose I am in the minority, but it just seemed a bit “forced” for some reason.

Avatar was a joke. If it werent for the 3D, I would at least hope people wouldn’t be talking about it at all.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:50:34 +0000

Although I love DT when I go see a movie I really don’t care that much about how groups are played but in Avatar I was mildly aggravated but i’m going Army so I wasn’t to mad at that. Never saw Hurt Locker from the reviews I read to confusing. District 9 was a dam good movie although I still prefer Avatar.

By: Christian

Christian — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:49:01 +0000

Thanks Ryan…I didn’t have enough time to get into ALL aspects of the movie, but I agree 100 percent…it brought to light a gripping portrayal of what guys like you do and, stacked up against other attempts at Iraq or Afghanistan movies, it answered the mail for folks like me.

Wasn’t saying the bomb suit wasn’t worn in the AO, but I’ve just never seen one.

Thanks for the comment…