Avatar

MoP · Post by **MoP** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:33 pm

The people mentioned don't deserve a death in 60 minutes. They have to suffer longer than that. Unless of course we make a 60 minute compilation, then I'm all for.

Nagash · Post by **Nagash** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:21 pm

I can live with that. Saves one from having to watch them too long...

owly · Post by **owly** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:34 pm

darkhorse wrote:Hey Owly, did you find out what the rock is that sells for 20 mil a kilo?

No they don't really say why it costs so much for a kilo.......

Gerien · Post by **Gerien** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:34 pm

Unobtanium. No shit.

owly · Post by **owly** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:02 am

Do you know what/why it cost so much Gerien?

Please enlighten us.....

Gerien · Post by **Gerien** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:21 am

Because it's unobtainable.

Avatar: a quick word about 'Unobtainium'
Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:09 Martin Anderson EDITORIAL - RANT

To those that think James Cameron invented a new type of super-metal for Avatar...the truth.

[snip]I just noticed a comment on my review of Avatar at the Fortean Times, claiming that the metal that the unscrupulous company is mining on Pandora is a real-life 'naturally occurring superconductor' capable of facilitating levitation. I have also heard criticism on the web that Cameron lazily retained a 'working title' for the metal and decided to leave it unchanged in Avatar.

I would just like to point out that Unobtainium is a joke name invented by the science community for a 'MacGuffin'-type metal that is, well...unobtainable.

I'm no expert on this, but director Jon Amiel explained that 'Unobtainium' is no more than a scientific in-joke in his commentary for The Core (2003), which also features a metal called Unobtainium (see clip from The Core below), used to allow a group of subterranean scientists to resist the fierce heat of the Earth's dying molten core. The fallacious nature of Unobtainium is also explained at this Wikipedia article.[/snip]

Wikipedia

owly · Post by **owly** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:37 am

thanks i was wondering what it was, that was a good read......

owly · Post by **owly** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:31 am

i have a question about the end of the movie now, did the transfer of his being work and he transferred into the Avatar?

Nagash · Post by **Nagash** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:31 am

"Unobtanium"?!? Please tell me you're kidding.

Gerien · Post by **Gerien** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:02 am

Nagash wrote:"Unobtanium"?!? Please tell me you're kidding.

Dude we're Americans. And we geeks do love to play a good joke on everyone: which one this is I don't know.

Nagash · Post by **Nagash** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:21 am

It is a joke alright... but more in the sense of "what a joke".

Bogumil · Post by **Bogumil** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:27 pm

I chose to believe the characters were just using it as a slang for what they were mining. *shrugs* Of course, I'm not in the habit of letting something completely irrelevant like that ruin a movie for me.

Gerien · Post by **Gerien** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:36 pm

Just saw it. VERY cool. And the "unobtanium" and such was really minor.

asoc · Post by **asoc** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:45 am

darkhorse wrote:Both of them (U-571, I like the movie but...and Red October) took too long to sink.

Almost like the Posiedon Adventure...

But then again, anything with more than five minutes of Steve Guttenberg is too long anyway.

The Red October was never sunk.
And The Hunt for Red October it is a GREAT movie.

Nagash · Post by **Nagash** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:00 pm

Gerien wrote:Just saw it. VERY cool. And the "unobtanium" and such was really minor.

Worth a check then, despite the rather lame terminology?

Gerien · Post by **Gerien** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:19 am

Storyline is only okay - quite enjoyable in its cliched way - but my god the tech really is everything they're saying about it and gives me hope for the future of sci-fi movies. They really did manage to avoid the uncanny valley that plagues so much of CGI.

Oh, and I saw it in 3D, which I think was worth it. We may even go see it again (2D this time) because there was just SO much to see and all that worth seeing on the big screen.

owly · Post by **owly** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:55 am

It must of been cool seeing it in 3D, even though i seen the movie on the puter i would love to see it on the big screen 3D or 2D, either or......

Gerien · Post by **Gerien** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:02 am

Dude you really missed out.

owly · Post by **owly** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:19 am

No.... no we didn't....

We going to see it on the big screen on sunday at the 2 dollar movies, probz be 2d but i don't care. i'll be able to look at the background more carefully since i already seen it and know the outcome.....

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:25 am

Saw it in 3d and it was pretty good.

A lot of the movie was cliche and it seemed that they watched Last of the Mohicans on mushrooms. As I typed that I realized that its a pretty good premise for a movie and probably why I liked it.

Monarchs Glen

Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Who is online