Comments on: Avatar: Transhumanist Perspective http://frontierchannel.com/media/avatar-transhumanist-perspective/ The Great Frontiers From Cyberspace to Outer Space Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:43:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Frontier Channel » Avatar’s Accomplishments http://frontierchannel.com/media/avatar-transhumanist-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-33305 Frontier Channel » Avatar’s Accomplishments Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:17:04 +0000 http://frontierchannel.com/?p=997#comment-33305 [...] the movie is not without its problems, “Avatar” continues a successful box office run that defies expectations. The movie is [...] [...] the movie is not without its problems, “Avatar” continues a successful box office run that defies expectations. The movie is [...]

]]> By: Barmaid http://frontierchannel.com/media/avatar-transhumanist-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-31711 Barmaid Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:00:48 +0000 http://frontierchannel.com/?p=997#comment-31711 I disagree with both. I think the first response is irrational and overly reactionary. And missed the point, likely from being a little too caught up in subjective reaction to really think outside the box. That, or just would rather nitpick than roll with the fact it's his article and it doesn't need to mirror your thoughts word for word, long as you get the gist of the concept. At any rate, agreed the story itself was far too simplistic for this amazing new visual delight, but the story didn't suck in and of itself...it's still fiction. We got the same superficial, one dimensional tale in Spiderman. It is true that Jake came off as unappreciative on the whole, and took for granted all the technology that allowed any of this to even be possible. And it is true that the plot was stripped out of Bush's headlines (or any for that matter) when it "could" have been any number of things. The upside is that the technology blasts open the doors to other filmmakers who have other stories to tell, so we will be seeing the exquisiteness of Avatar in the future. I share the vision/hope for a more immersive experience and a revolution in our current media. On a final note, now that Cameron's broken ground, I think he seriously needs to cater to those of us who weren't finished exploring the wonderland of Pandora and get on the ball making for us a breathtaking standalone feature called Pandora.... (i.e. Fantasia 2010) I disagree with both. I think the first response is irrational and overly reactionary. And missed the point, likely from being a little too caught up in subjective reaction to really think outside the box. That, or just would rather nitpick than roll with the fact it’s his article and it doesn’t need to mirror your thoughts word for word, long as you get the gist of the concept.

At any rate, agreed the story itself was far too simplistic for this amazing new visual delight, but the story didn’t suck in and of itself…it’s still fiction. We got the same superficial, one dimensional tale in Spiderman. It is true that Jake came off as unappreciative on the whole, and took for granted all the technology that allowed any of this to even be possible. And it is true that the plot was stripped out of Bush’s headlines (or any for that matter) when it “could” have been any number of things.

The upside is that the technology blasts open the doors to other filmmakers who have other stories to tell, so we will be seeing the exquisiteness of Avatar in the future. I share the vision/hope for a more immersive experience and a revolution in our current media.

On a final note, now that Cameron’s broken ground, I think he seriously needs to cater to those of us who weren’t finished exploring the wonderland of Pandora and get on the ball making for us a breathtaking standalone feature called Pandora…. (i.e. Fantasia 2010)

]]> By: Bo Westerlund http://frontierchannel.com/media/avatar-transhumanist-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-31674 Bo Westerlund Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:13:47 +0000 http://frontierchannel.com/?p=997#comment-31674 I agree with the previous speaker. I agree with the previous speaker.

]]> By: John B. http://frontierchannel.com/media/avatar-transhumanist-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-30980 John B. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:13:57 +0000 http://frontierchannel.com/?p=997#comment-30980 I wasn't sure, at first, if I wanted to dignify this article with a response, but here goes: First of all, the story does NOT vilify technology and progress; it vilifies the destruction of nature for economic gains, as well as the use of technology for the destruction of nature. The technology that allowed Cameron to make this film was not detrimental to the environment. Second of all, your thoughts and comments about the "social norms" and other aspects of the movie were obviously not thought-out. You made a comment about the ability to treat Jake's paraplegia "economically," but in the movie, the Earth's economy is in the crapper, which is why they're mining on Pandora in the first place. Also, the colonel says, "You're not in Kansas anymore," because it's a famous phrase that will be around forever; it's also something that the audience can relate to and enjoy. What is he supposed to say, "you're not in galaxy B-42 anymore"? The audience wouldn't understand that and it would lose its humor. That brings me to my final point: "I found myself wishing over and over again for him to explain something in more detail..." For the sake of getting the movie done and keeping the audience focused on the main point of the story, they kept the detail to a minimum. The movie would have been well over six hours long if they had sat there and explained every little detail, such as how the mountains float or how those hammock things work. I remember when viewers had something called imagination, and weren't afraid to use it. Nowadays, everyone wants things spelled out for them because they're too dull minded to figure it out or interpret it in their own way. Whiny, narrow-minded people like you are the reason the world is in such bad shape. This article makes me want to pull my hair out. I wasn’t sure, at first, if I wanted to dignify this article with a response, but here goes:
First of all, the story does NOT vilify technology and progress; it vilifies the destruction of nature for economic gains, as well as the use of technology for the destruction of nature. The technology that allowed Cameron to make this film was not detrimental to the environment. Second of all, your thoughts and comments about the “social norms” and other aspects of the movie were obviously not thought-out. You made a comment about the ability to treat Jake’s paraplegia “economically,” but in the movie, the Earth’s economy is in the crapper, which is why they’re mining on Pandora in the first place. Also, the colonel says, “You’re not in Kansas anymore,” because it’s a famous phrase that will be around forever; it’s also something that the audience can relate to and enjoy. What is he supposed to say, “you’re not in galaxy B-42 anymore”? The audience wouldn’t understand that and it would lose its humor. That brings me to my final point: “I found myself wishing over and over again for him to explain something in more detail…” For the sake of getting the movie done and keeping the audience focused on the main point of the story, they kept the detail to a minimum. The movie would have been well over six hours long if they had sat there and explained every little detail, such as how the mountains float or how those hammock things work. I remember when viewers had something called imagination, and weren’t afraid to use it. Nowadays, everyone wants things spelled out for them because they’re too dull minded to figure it out or interpret it in their own way. Whiny, narrow-minded people like you are the reason the world is in such bad shape. This article makes me want to pull my hair out.

]]>