Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Sci-Fi Entertainment

First Review of Avatar Special Edition 387

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the more-blue-giant-chicks-please dept.
brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek has the first review of James Cameron's extended cut of Avatar. Its thoughts? 'As opposed to, say, the extended cuts of Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Abyss, the new scenes add little of particular note to everything we've already seen.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Review of Avatar Special Edition

Comments Filter:
  • I doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZeRu (1486391) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:00AM (#33367672)
    I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o
    • by WED Fan (911325) <akahige&trashmail,net> on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:35AM (#33368056) Homepage Journal
      With a few minor exceptions, this review was a rehash of prior reviews.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rainmouse (1784278)
        What bothers me most about this review is that the reviewer walked into the cinema having already seen and hated the film and full knowing he will hate it again. Why should we value what this guy has to say? A large part of the re-release was the fact that places like IMAX was fully booked out the entire time Avatar was showing right up until the moment IMAX was contractually obliged to change to the next feature of waterfalls or dolphins or whatever it is they show these days. The release is for people
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      In reality....

      They nuked them from orbit when they left...... Just to be sure....

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXraSkgssFk [youtube.com]

    • by yuriyg (926419)
      If I recall correctly (and I'm not a big fan), it wasn't something like United Federation of Planets, who tried to colonize Pandora. It was a private company, whose assets were probably destroyed during the last part of the movie. So "humans" would have a tough time coming back with 100x more firepower.
      • by stiggle (649614)

        The company would appeal to the marines to 'protect their interests' just like what happened in Hawaii.

    • by Suki I (1546431)

      I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o

      I am going to see it anyway, just to prove you wrong!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by roc97007 (608802)

      Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:01AM (#33367680)

    So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JLennox (942693)
      Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

        I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?

        There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
        It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by boneclinkz (1284458) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:13AM (#33367810)

          There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it. It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

          I would compare it to Star Wars, really. It was an ambitious movie with a cliche plot, passable acting, and very impressive special effects. I enjoyed it in the theaters and now own it on blu-ray. It's not The Usual Suspects, by a long shot, but it is a satisfying movie in its own way.

          • So the question to ask the guy who saw the special edition: Does Colonel Miles Quaritch still shoot first?
          • by XMode (252740)

            I pretty much agree with the parent. The plot sucked, the dialog was sloppy and the characters were not that deep.. I haven't seen the movie in 3D and I suspect that is what most people were gushing over. The special effects were pretty good, but in the days of computer animated everything, its not really that surprising.

            I did however enjoy the movie and i guess that's the point. I don't love the movie like everyone else seemed to, but I don't hate it either.

            • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @10:39AM (#33368850)

              I did however enjoy the movie and i guess that's the point. I don't love the movie like everyone else seemed to, but I don't hate it either.

              Yeah I'm kind of surprised at how many people here are ragging on it so hard.

              The movie isn't the second coming of Citizen Kane, but if you've seen the trailer or commercials for it, you pretty much know what you're getting into if you go see it. If you like that kind of movie, it's at least watchable in the theatre. I put people who went to see Avatar and now have to talk about how it was a giant stinking pile in about the same category as my friend who keeps dating strippers and then complains that his girlfriends are always crazy, materialistic, and cheat on him.

              Maybe the problem is that kids these days are spoiled and didn't live through the relative drought of good sci-fi movies that we did. (And don't even get me started on fantasy.) Back in the day we had to walk through snow and razor blades uphill both ways to see even terrible sci-fi movies because that might be all you got in a given year. Also, somebody should get off my lawn.

              • Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)

                by Zenaku (821866) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @11:39AM (#33369596)

                I'm pretty sure "The Second Coming of Citizen Kane" would be a terrible movie that would be universally reviled. Would Kane be an undead revenant trying to find his sled or something? Or would it turn out he faked his death? In any case, it would be a poorly written opportunistic sequel rushed out by Hollywood to capitalize on the popularity of the original.

        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by kestasjk (933987) * on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:18AM (#33367876) Homepage
          There was a great movie released in France by an independent movie a couple years ago about a heroin addict's fight to save his sister from cancer..

          It didn't have a happy ending or great production values, but .. you haven't seen it and I have so I can act as savvy and cultured as I like and look down my nose, and isn't that what seeing movies is all about?
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by xtracto (837672)

          Well, I have get into this "movie sucks" bandwagon because I also thought that as a movie Avatar sucked.

          See, I saw the movie first in 2D and *then* in 3D, both in the theater. When I first saw it in 2D I though it sucked; it reminded me of Final Fantasy movie... just a bunch of computer animation with a *veeeeery* thin storyline which is a rehash of Dance with Wolves (I like the name someone gave "Dance with Thundercats").

          Then I saw it in 3D and I thought the 3D effects made the movie OK, just OK for the

        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)

          by xtracto (837672) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:23AM (#33367934) Journal

          BTW, to answer your question of "which movies I think are good" I can mention you one 3D movie which I think has both i) A good story and ii) Nice use of 3D effects, and that is Coraline.

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Junta (36770) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:24AM (#33367950)

          It may have been an entertaining sort of flick, but I wouldn't give it suspenseful. Nor would I give it particularly any credit for being particularly thought provoking.

          To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable. In a single viewing of a 90 second trailer, the entire plot is already known, all plot twists are pretty well trivially guessed because we've seen this same basic film countless times already. You simply can't build suspense in that sort of flick.

          To be thought provoking, it would have to be subtle or somehow distinct from the general sentiment beaten into the minds of the general populace over and over and over again by simply looking at TV or internet for about 15 seconds.

          It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by whisper_jeff (680366)

            To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable.

            I didn't think it was predictable at all. I mean, who could have predicted that the natives, following the lead of a trained soldier, would mount a cavalry charge, head on, against a vastly superior force that possessed dramatically more firepower rather than utilize their superior knowledge of the terrain and abilities to blend in to attack from stealth...

            Or, to put it more bluntly, who could have predicted that this movie would manage to make Ewoks look like strategic geniuses?...

            But, yeah - the plot

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TheRaven64 (641858)
              It had the same moral as much British colonial fiction:

              Blue people make good soldiers, when led by white officers.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by fahrbot-bot (874524)

              who could have predicted that the natives, following the lead of a trained soldier, would mount a cavalry charge, head on, ... rather than utilize their superior knowledge of the terrain and abilities to blend in to attack from stealth

              Me. The movie was already 2.7 hours long. A stealth response would have easily added another hour to the film. Furthermore, BIG battles and explosions are easier for youngsters and popcorn eaters to follow :-)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by unix1 (1667411)

            It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.

            You are underestimating how many people sit down in the movie theater or in front of a TV, let their minds go blank, and just let the show take them on a ride. It's like a roller-coaster (but a mental one) - if you look at it from outside you may know what to expect, but most people are not in it to analyze or evaluate it, they are just enjoying the ride. So, no, I bet most people didn't think of Pocahontas while they were watching Avatar and they let their minds fully absorb whatever suspense the show gave

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)

          by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:34AM (#33368040)

          There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.

          That's pretty much anything popular ever, at least on the internet.

          For example, just tossing this out there

          I like the following

          -Rap music
          -Halo 3
          -Team fortress 2
          -Sex
          -The Matrix
          -Inception
          -Beer

          Anyone care to comment on... hang on, just got a text that TF2 is extremely overrated and blah blah blah.. and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.

          • by AndrewNeo (979708)

            Oh, come on, you like TF2, but Halo over Half-Life? :(

            (For the record I like all three)

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.

            I'm devastated. I thought she was enjoying it.

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          Machete, that's a GREAT movie.

          Go see that one, it's grungy, edge of your seat and true to the roots of the director instead of the wishy washy hollywood crap.

        • by hal2814 (725639)

          I thought Avatar was crap and there were quite a few films I liked in 2009. Up, Watchmen, Moon, Taken, Zombieland, and Sherlock Holmes were all movies I thought were at least good. Moon is the only one in that list I wouldn't categorize as popular. Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films. And none of them bludgeon me over the head with their moral message because I REALLY hate that sort of thing. So as far as I'm concerned, Avatar sucks. And it's not bec

          • Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films

            When it comes to invading (hostile) aliens, you are going to need at least one of them to switch sides and lead you if you hope to stand a chance.

            Higher in the gravity well = you win.

          • Up, Watchmen, Moon, Taken, Zombieland, and Sherlock Holmes were all movies I thought were at least good. [...] And none of them bludgeon me over the head with their moral message because I REALLY hate that sort of thing.

            Wait.. what? What other movie called Taken was released in 2009? That thing was full of moral messages being thrown at you - maybe Liam Neeson kicking ass distracted you enough from that? :)

        • by Triv (181010)

          I see it like this:

          If a movie is so horribly unoriginal, or cliche, or badly acted, or badly written, that it keeps me from suspending my disbelief or drops me back to reality over and over, then it's a bad movie.

          It doesn't have to be thought-provoking or artsy or complicated, but if I keep remembering that I'm watching a movie while I'm in the theater then there's something wrong with it.

          There was something wrong with Avatar.

      • by Joce640k (829181)

        A sense of when to let something go...?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You didn't like it when specifically going to a cinema to see it, yet tried to watch it FIVE times?
        Why would you do that to yourself?

      • by plumby (179557)

        Presumably you're missing something better to do with your time, if you bothered going back 5 times to watch the rest of the film.

        If I hadn't been there with my nephew, who loved it, I would have walked out as well. The 3D was quite impressive, but by an hour into the film I'd seen more than enough of that. And I can't believe anyone would bother sitting through the whole thing in 2D.

      • by dbet (1607261)
        It's the first movie that has ever had visuals like that. Why would you walk out? It's like walking out on the first "talkie" because the story was boring.
        • by Duradin (1261418)

          Well, when everyone was talking about how talkies are the cat's pajamas and the bee's knees the only way to keep your cred up with the flapper crowd would be to not like it, and to make a show of not liking it.

        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by pete_norm (150498) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:38AM (#33368092)

          It's the first movie that has ever had visuals like that. Why would you walk out? It's like walking out on the first "talkie" because the story was boring.

          Usually the goal of a movie is to entertain you, not to be a technology showcase. If he was not entertained, it's pretty normal he walked out. A movie that is all technology and no story doesn't seem really appealing to me.

      • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:52AM (#33368268)

        Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

        You may be missing your ADD meds. No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.

        I just can't imagine someone having such a low tolerance that they would walk out of a movie like Avatar. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Manos: The Hands of Fate either.

        Besides, what the hell did you expect? You are obviously someone who has very particular taste, how could you not know what you were walking into?

        At $13/ticket (don't know what 3d costs around you) I could probably find something in even some of the most boring movies. Hell, mocking the movie with my friends is easily worth that amount.

      • by fnj (64210)

        The only thing you're missing is the discrimination to know it was crap without having to sit through it in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AvitarX (172628)

      Probably has something to do with the fact that at this point Cameron can put whatever he wants in the original cut, as he should be. With him I've never felt like I was watching hours and hours of OMG, this guy needs an editor.

      I think he showed the world his ability to make a long movie people would watch with Titanic (not my cup of tea, but it was a whole lot of peoples). I would imagine that any issues you had with Avatar are more with the pointless part, than the length, an even chopped to 90 minutes

  • I gotta say (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:07AM (#33367744) Homepage

    Avatar as a film is so-so...it's entertaining enough, but it's fairly brainless. That being said, I don't think there has ever been a better movie to show off your home theater. The Blu-Ray looks and sounds amazing on a good TV/sound system.

    The Fountain is also an amazing movie to show off your home theater.

    • by jonwil (467024)

      The real question is when they are going to release the 3D version on blu-ray for all those 3DTVs.
      If there is anything that will convince home theater geeks with money to burn that they need to replace their perfectly good 2D setup with an expensive 3D setup, it will be Avatar in 3D. (everyone I know who is serious about 3D has said that Avatar is the best 3D film to date)

    • by Danathar (267989)

      Yes, brainless and brutally subtle in it's racist overtones.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      I watched it for the 3D effects, and the 3D effects only. It looks beautiful. Though the only reason this movie will be remembered for longer than the time it's in the cinemas is because it's the first mainstream feature in 3D. And that part was pretty well done. For the rest... meh. Can't be interesting to watch on a flat screen. In 3D it was boring enough.

  • Special Edition? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crow_t_robot (528562) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:08AM (#33367752)
    Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
    • by Cruciform (42896)

      Go back to his roots? Is he going to be working on Piranha 3D?

    • The 10-year-rule (Score:5, Interesting)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:59AM (#33368340)

      Every director has about 10 years of peek creativity, give or take a few years. And Cameron is well past his creative prime (basically from about 1983 to 1992).

      There are some notable exceptions to the 10-year-rule, BTW. I would argue that Stanley Kubrick and John Sayles are two of the VERY rare exceptions. Many would include Scorsese as well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Joe Tie. (567096)
        I don't get why people expect the high end of the creative spectrum to remain there for life, anymore than someone would expect an olympic level running to still be getting the gold at age 60. The mind comes from the brain, and the brain is an aging and dying piece of meat the same as the heart or any other part of the body.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ed1park (100777)

        Not that I believe in such a silly rule, but what about Clint Eastwood? :)

        If Avatar wasn't at least technically and artistically creative, then you have a very narrow definition you're working with.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by stewbacca (1033764)

      Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Lucas, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.

      See what I did there?

    • Re:Special Edition? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BobMcD (601576) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @11:50AM (#33369776)

      Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.

      Check out his TED talk [ted.com]...

      1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.

      2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...

      3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.

      4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.

      I bring this up because you seem to be taking Cameron as some sort of artist who'd be interested in your critique. In reality, he's met all of his goals, and now has further funding for his true passion - exploration.

      Rather interesting, don't you think?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Weirsbaski (585954)

        Check out his TED talk...

        1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.

        2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...

        3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.

        4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.

        Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this

  • no, really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Triv (181010) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:11AM (#33367792) Journal

    "Blockbuster movie producers attempt to convince fans to buy a special edition that has little to no added value."

    Whoa. Shocking.

    Seriously, what were we expecting?

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @09:21AM (#33367914) Homepage Journal
    May not be safe for work:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA [youtube.com] (part 1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0 [youtube.com]
  • it's the last review.

  • The special effects were superb, the writing... not so much. I don't think I would be interested in enduring an extended edition unless James Cameron actually rewrote and reshot (for the better) some of the hokier dialogue and contrivances.
    • I saw the movie only in 2D... and I have to say, the movie DID suck. it was bad, very bad. 3d probably made it good, but I can't compare really.

      As a normal movie, avatar was just plain bad.

  • by wowbagger (69688) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @10:07AM (#33368442) Homepage Journal

    Everybody has been creaming themselves over how well the "science" holds up - as if this were really a hard science movie.

    I don't understand this, as there was a plot hole so glaring to me that even as I marveled over the storytelling and the effects it continued to eat away at my Circle of Suspension of Disbelief.

    OK, so Pandora is supposed to be in another star system - as I understand Proxima Centari. Let's take a distance of 4.3 lightyears for discussion. Now, at a minimum there had to be 2 trips from Earth to Pandora, and possibly as many as 4:
    1) We had to identify that there was unobtanium there: if that required a probe to be sent that is 1 trip there, plus one communication back. If there is some way to detect it by observation then no trip is needed, so let's assume that to be nice.
    2) We had to send a probe there to get the Na'vi DNA, and somehow communicate that back to Earth. That is at least one trip there + one communication back (the reason for the distinction will become clear shortly).
    3) We had to send people + Avatars from Earth to Pandora.

      There are three possible assumptions:
    1) Humans have faster than light travel. Thus a "trip" and a "communication" are the same, and take some time less than 4.3 years as viewed from Earth. However, I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight. (it also seems likely we would be able to synthesize a room-temp superconductor, but I digress).
    2) Humans have relativistic flight (.5c to .9c) - trips take about 8 years, communications 4 years. Minimum time is thus 8+8+4 = 20 years, plus another 8 years before unobtanium would be flowing back to Earth. That's a long time to wait. Moreover, if you can do .5c ships, you are able to manipulate energies much higher than we can now, so again, no chemical projectile weapons.
    3) Humans have non-relativistic flight (.1c or less) - trips take 400 years, communications 4 years. Again, that's just too long to wait.

    "What if you cannot use energy weapons on Pandora because of energy fields?" OK, but that still doesn't prevent a ship in orbit from slamming a large mass into the One Tree at great speed, with a much more efficient and devastating effect on Na'vi morale. Again, tell me why they used massed rockets rather than a small rock?

    • by space_jake (687452) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @10:16AM (#33368554)
      Same reason Bond villians never just put a bullet in Bond's head.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oodaloop (1229816)
      Non-chemical weapons could be possible, but that doesn't mean they're suited for combat. We have caseless ammo, lasers, rail guns, etc now, but the military doesn't use them for a variety of reasons, ranging from cost, weight, durability in the field, ease of field maintenance, etc etc. Combat weapons have to be cheap and effective, not necessarily the most technologically advanced.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Assuming that anyone with FTL will have practical energy weapons is probably a big fail. There's still no evidence that it is actually physically possible to deliver more energy with one than with a kinetic kill weapon. Keep in mind that all matter is energy at a different frequency (or spin or something) anyway... The best energy-based weapon is a slug-thrower.

      Beam weapons will have their uses. But missiles and projectiles are likely to continue to be some of the most effective options for some time to com

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by JackDW (904211)

      I think it's quite reasonable that the Unobtainium mining project might have been running for a century or more. A huge amount of effort had been put into it.

      What's really surprising is that the Na'vi learned English, but never bothered to try to understand what the humans wanted in all the time they'd been there. If the Na'vi had just bothered to figure this out, then some sort of arrangement could surely have been reached. The humans made every effort to communicate with the Na'vi, even dressing up as th

    • by Drakantus (226374) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @10:52AM (#33369044)

      First off, I thought Avatar was a great entertaining movie. It wasn't incredibly realistic and the story was a rehash of the same story we have heard so many times, yet still entertaining. That said, while the movie has a few realism problems I find your argument a bit silly.

      You missed a few important details and possibilities.

      - The humans came to Pandora not with the goal of wiping out the Na'vi, but with just digging some rocks out of the ground. Some military was sent along to encourage the locals to cooperate, but the original mission was not anything like "destroy worldtree".

      - As you have shown, it's a very long round-trip. After deciding to attack the Na'vi, it's not like the humans can run back to earth and grab the big guns, they had to use what was available.

      - Your basic premise "well if we have fast spaceships we must have amazing laser guns too" isn't really a valid argument. look at the past 50 years, computers and technology have made amazing leaps and bounds, but we still put on pants one leg at a time. Great advancements in spaceflight doesn't automatically mean we would also have equal advancements in weapons.

      - The natives used bows and arrows, which couldn't even pierce the armor on the human aircraft without additional velocity. Projectile weapons are plenty enough to kill them and energy weapons could have been considered crazy overkill.

      - The humans on Pandora were from a corporation with some hired ex-military mercenaries. Even if earth has developed stronger energy weapons, it's very possible such "WMDs" are limited to the government military, I don't see GM and Ford running around with nuclear bombs so I don't see why a corporation of the future would have free access to the latest and greatest weapons we have developed.

      - Long trip, limited energy. Maybe energy weapons just aren't feasible given that the majority of energy collected needs to be used to power the vehicles, mining equipment, life support, and ships.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chas (5144)

      FTL or relativistic travel vs no energy weapons.

      Doing this on a large scale, where you can apply brute-force methods (solar sails, high capacitance batteries jammed into 90% of the ship's hull, etc) is a vastly different proposition from creating a small hand-carried (or even mech carried) laser weapon that's suitable for extended environmental combat use. Plus, something that works fine in terrestrial atmospheric conditions may not work properly in the Pandoran environment (which has other things in the a

  • by TheHook25 (1886344) on Wednesday August 25, 2010 @10:23AM (#33368648) Homepage
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/aliens_avatar [theoatmeal.com] Pretty much sums up Avatar pretty well.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...