That is correct, if Avatar is a Fantasy movie. In that case they may say that the rock is magical and be done with it. But from the trailer it seems that Avatar intends to be a regarded as a Science Fiction movie, so I expect to at least try to make some sense.
Avatar : A Movie Revolution?
- Thread starter LuxLuthor
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Mjolnir
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
If Star Trek can get away with "Heisenberg Compensators" and the absurdly impossible transporter and still be called science fiction, then I'm pretty sure no one else will care about a lack of specificity in how the mass of an object that is not affected by gravity is measured.
Heisenberg Compensators were introduced in Star Trek just because they cared about science and tried to came up with a plausible-sounding explanation.
In Avatar it looks that they could not afford some science advisers. All the money went to CGI guys.
In Avatar it looks that they could not afford some science advisers. All the money went to CGI guys.
Aha, misunderstood your question. But the answer's essentially the same -- since mass is an inertial property, use an inertial balance. Apply a force and measure the acceleration, or apply an acceleration (e.g. with a centrifuge) and measure the force. Arrange your apparatus perpendicular to the local gravitation field, and weight/antiweight has no effect.
Mjolnir
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Really? Are you saying that, because Star Trek had science advisers, Heisenberg compensators are any more possible than antigravity material? Something that negates a fundamental physics principle is far less possible than antigravity (which could very well be possible). I am positive that Star Trek has far more instances of impossible science than this movie will, just by virtue of how many hours of various star trek series there are.
You can't get a science adviser to explain how antigravity works, since we have not discovered it yet! Do you honestly expect them to adequately explain something that we currently have no working knowledge of?
Science ficion is often simply fantasy with "sciency sounding" terms. Sometimes it is based on fact, but it is often extended beyond that into the realm of fantasy, and often contradicts what we know to be possible.
@Benson
That may work, but i still find easier to just measure the volume of the rock.
With my initial comment, I intended to show that when they made the Avatar movie they didn't care about science.
@Mjolnir
Of course that a Science Fiction movie (or book) uses concepts that contradicts what we know today to be possible. It would not be Science Fiction if it didn't. It would be a science documentary. The viewer/reader has to accept some conventions (like interstelar starships, time travel), otherwise the story would not be possible. I didn't ask for an explanation of how the anti-gravity works. I accept that it just works (in the movie). I asked how do they measure the mass of that anti-gravity rock.
That may work, but i still find easier to just measure the volume of the rock.
With my initial comment, I intended to show that when they made the Avatar movie they didn't care about science.
@Mjolnir
Of course that a Science Fiction movie (or book) uses concepts that contradicts what we know today to be possible. It would not be Science Fiction if it didn't. It would be a science documentary. The viewer/reader has to accept some conventions (like interstelar starships, time travel), otherwise the story would not be possible. I didn't ask for an explanation of how the anti-gravity works. I accept that it just works (in the movie). I asked how do they measure the mass of that anti-gravity rock.
Last edited:
Why am I not surprised that you casually dismissed all of the reviews since they all present a uniformly positive experience by people who have actually seen the movie, vs. niggling trailer analysts. I have never met one intelligent reviewer who makes a judgement of an entire movie experience based upon a montage of selected promo clips.
There are in fact discerning and critical reviews amidst the remarkably high Rotten Tomatoes collective 90% score, some with seemingly good reasoning, but at least they are based upon seeing the entire film. Here is a mediocre review just to make you feel right as rain.
Cameron's tongue-in-cheek "King of the World" proclamation after winning 11 Oscars is only taken seriously by insecure & bitter sycophants. As I said previously, but apparently 'we' are slow on the uptake...his attention is commensurate with a string of highly successful motion pictures that include Titanic, Aliens, Abyss, Terminator, Rambo, True Lies, Dark Angel, etc.
If one takes the time to read about his uneducated, unsophistocated background, his personal insecurities, simple-minded approaches, and lack of intricate movie complexity makes perfect sense. The point is that there is plenty of room for a wide diversity of artistic expressions among movies...and most people only judge by whether or not they had an entertaining experience.
I'm not expecting to watch a Tarantino, Coen, Scorsese, Spielberg film. I'm expecting to have an overall experience of having been entertained and immersed into the Sci-Fi world. Personally, I thought Titanic was mediocre at best in comparison to my list of greatest films...yet I did leave feeling entertained and that I got my money's worth. Also despite what I think, there is that perplexing enigma of its total sales.
What I give Cameron credit for is that he makes sure the person who buys a ticket will feel like they have been entertained and got their $12 worth. Without any doubt, the CGI & 3-D special effects are revolutionary and set a new standard for the future of the movie industry. That alone makes it worth watching and promoting.
One last thing...does someone have a gun to your head, forcing you to go see this movie that you love to hate so much?
$11 for a matinee afternoon showing in 3D IMAX
Around 7 USD in my town in Romania for Avatar 3D (not IMAX) and around 5.50 USD for Avatar. Avatar IMAX 3D (not available in my town, only in Bucharest) - around 12 USD.
First run on December 17, 22:00 UTC (December 18, 00:00 EET).
First run on December 17, 22:00 UTC (December 18, 00:00 EET).
flashy bazook
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,139
I think Cameron did spend effort and resources to support the behind-the-scenes "reality" of Avatar.
I read for example that he hired a linguistics professor to invent a proper language for the Avatar aliens.
He also waited for 15 years (or so) to film the movie because he was not satisfied with the state of technology available then.
There are good reasons for movies to want to move on technologically, now that houses have big screens at HiDef. The 3-D technology is (still) not widely available so it may be something to draw the crowds.
I have observed over the years that movies have lost much of their magic. It is often not a very popular suggestion to go out to see a movie; and if a movie is shown even in a house, it can be very difficult to get people to maintain focus (they start getting up, multitask, etc.). Basically if the movie is just a little-bit away from their main interests, they have trouble staying with it.
Personally, I am very much looking forward to getting to see the movie with the snazzy new technology. For example, the cameras were manufactured specially so they are lighter. Cameron had a nifty little hand-held gadget that would show him the movie background IN REAL TIME!! In other words, as the actors run through their scenes against a blue-screen background, computers would generate the appropriate background and render a rough approximation of it. This would allow Cameron to frame the shots better and quicker.
I have tried not to follow too much details about the movie itself, of course it is not possible to skip it entirely. I agree that the theme of colonialism and exploitation of the unspoiled wilderness is a bit old. But, it will allow for stunning landscape shots so...probably it can be appropriate for this movie.
Cameron kept complete control. When he first pitched the idea to Fox studio executives, their first question was a bit surprising: can we get rid of the aliens' tails? He said...NO. After that, they stopped asking questions and just let him get on with it.
Eventually, I suppose, 3-D will lose its magic, and seem more of an unnecessary novelty (or taken for granted). Not sure what movies will do at that point to keep audiences returning? Maybe that will be the end? (well, that AND the endless re-makes...).
I read for example that he hired a linguistics professor to invent a proper language for the Avatar aliens.
He also waited for 15 years (or so) to film the movie because he was not satisfied with the state of technology available then.
There are good reasons for movies to want to move on technologically, now that houses have big screens at HiDef. The 3-D technology is (still) not widely available so it may be something to draw the crowds.
I have observed over the years that movies have lost much of their magic. It is often not a very popular suggestion to go out to see a movie; and if a movie is shown even in a house, it can be very difficult to get people to maintain focus (they start getting up, multitask, etc.). Basically if the movie is just a little-bit away from their main interests, they have trouble staying with it.
Personally, I am very much looking forward to getting to see the movie with the snazzy new technology. For example, the cameras were manufactured specially so they are lighter. Cameron had a nifty little hand-held gadget that would show him the movie background IN REAL TIME!! In other words, as the actors run through their scenes against a blue-screen background, computers would generate the appropriate background and render a rough approximation of it. This would allow Cameron to frame the shots better and quicker.
I have tried not to follow too much details about the movie itself, of course it is not possible to skip it entirely. I agree that the theme of colonialism and exploitation of the unspoiled wilderness is a bit old. But, it will allow for stunning landscape shots so...probably it can be appropriate for this movie.
Cameron kept complete control. When he first pitched the idea to Fox studio executives, their first question was a bit surprising: can we get rid of the aliens' tails? He said...NO. After that, they stopped asking questions and just let him get on with it.
Eventually, I suppose, 3-D will lose its magic, and seem more of an unnecessary novelty (or taken for granted). Not sure what movies will do at that point to keep audiences returning? Maybe that will be the end? (well, that AND the endless re-makes...).
Stillphoto
Flashlight Enthusiast
Cameron was interviewed on the local news this morning. Visit this site and look for the interview if interested.
http://www.ktla.com/entertainment/
http://www.ktla.com/entertainment/
Holy Crap! Read this review from James Cameron's arch-nemesis critic, Kenneth Turan, from the LA Times which developed into a vituperous conflict after Turan's repeated trashing of Titanic.
This is one of the most meaningful reviews from the most unlikely of sources. It describes the exact experience I was hoping for in going to see this movie tomorrow.
Now I really can't wait.
This is one of the most meaningful reviews from the most unlikely of sources. It describes the exact experience I was hoping for in going to see this movie tomorrow.
Now I really can't wait.
bstrickler
Enlightened
We debate because its mental stimulation!
You gotta keep your mind healthy somehow!
Plus, its fun, hearing all the answers people come up with, and I find it amazing how much knowledge some people have.
~Brian
Mike Painter
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Messages
- 1,863
That will come with time and processing power. It will require the ability to add chaotic action to all parts of the face and mimic the little tiny details that give rise to our understanding of a look. Chaos is why even the best rendition of trees blowing in the wind don't look quite real.
Just remember it's all pixels. Fake or "real"
I believe my imagination is better than any CGI presentation and in a play I have to use my imagination to fill the gaps.
Stillphoto
Flashlight Enthusiast
IMAX 3D seats reserved for Tuesday! Preferred to wait till I could reserve seats for the center of the front row of the second tier, figured I was paying enough, might as well go for optimal placement.
Plus there is no question on the length of a unicorn. Everyone knows they are 20" long. However measuring the mass of a waiting to be discovered "unobtanium" sample is indeed worth exploring.
3:45pm today, baby. I'll be in another world.
