So… We manage to master space travel. We manage to master interstellar travel. We eventually find a planet with suitable environment for sustaining our species. And we just overlook it.
Can someone explain me the reasoning behind this?
Sci-fi to the side, there are more minerals available - readily - on asteroids and barren planets than anywhere else. Why go hopping around looking for habitable planets, to the reason of 1 out of who knows how many, to then strip mine it?
If the Avatar universe has physics like ours, which it looks like it does from the way things move etc…
The protoplanetry disk that the planet formed from, must have had the unobtanium, since it is so evenly spread around the later formed planet.
Yes, there are higher concentrations in various places, which could have come from impact events in the past; if this is the case the impactors are likely from the local asteroid belt or equivalent.
The unobtanium must be available, in a much easier to extract form, in asteroids in the soloar system or the moons of Pandora.
Either way, a mineral is a terrible maguffin for a space faring civilization.
In the second movie, the whale brain juice is a much better maguffin, but still kinda stupid for a technologically advanced species.
Assume that to get interstellar travel, with the suspended animation and brain beaming tech we are shown, humans are a good 200 years ahead of where we are now…given that they can also make fully functional alien bodies from scratch, that can breed and pass on genetic material to what look like viable offspring. The level of synthetic biology expertise must be insane, and they can’t make this brain juice…it is just stupid.
It’s supposed to be an indictment of capitalism. But that falls flat when you realize it was one of the most profitable movies of all time; grossing over 2 billion and being one of the fastest to reach the various benchmarks at theaters.
There are exactly zero minerals available inside planets that are unavailable on asteroids.
Sci-fi will be sci-fi but can we go back to the time it was at least well thought? Can’t hurt. If the objective of the movie was to make social criticism, it didn’t need to go to such lenghts.
And it was a boring movie; failed to captivate me.
You’re intelligent. Or at least, well read/educated.
I didn’t say it was a good plot-device. The entire movie was hamfisted from the world building through the dialog, the character development, and those hamfists evolved into bulldozers to bring the moral home.
The only thing it had going for it was the CGI… which was obsequious.
Regardless, it’s their fictional world. They designed it to be stupid and boring so they could make some sort of moral superiority bullshit statement about capitalism while grossing 2+ billion.
Also, I’m just gonna say it. It wasn’t even sci fi. sure, sure. it had ships and stuff. but that’s not what makes sci fi sci fi.
Usually, at this point, I would say even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I’m trying to get accostumed to receive a compliment, so I’ll instead say thank you for those kind words. And that we agree.
Science fiction is an exploration of how science or technology changes society, or how society might respond to stuff, or how a society with a given tech might exist; it’s a form of speculative fiction.
Avatar isn’t that. It’s supposed to be an indictment of capitalist greed.
Just because it has technology doesn’t make it “sci-fi” and the elements that might are just a maghuffin to explain what they’re doing there. It could have just as easily been gold. Or diamonds or alien art.
Take Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein and compare it to say, avengers.
So… if it has robots and space and cloning, its science fiction and if it doesn’t it’s not?
so by that definition Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein is not proto-SciFi?
Or Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? The Steam House? Around the World in 80 Days?
Or HG Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau, The Sleeper Awakes, and The Invisible Man are not?
Or maybe Snow Crash? …Children of Men?
I find it hilarious that you’re criticizing me for gatekeeping. Science Fiction as a genre is much broader than just space, or robots, or cloning. or any of the cool, glittery-glowy-things.
Sure, any single work can span a few genres. Even things you might not necessarily think go together like Comedic SciFi as in Red Dwarf, Farscape or Dr. Who. Sure, books and movies don’t have to be overt about it, and most the really good ones aren’t. The core of Science Fiction is (or any form of speculative fiction, really,) is asking “the question”. It’s asking “what if…” For example, The World Well Lost; the scifi elements are secondary to the emotional and social aspects.
If you enjoy Avatar, that’s great. I’m glad you did. I found it annoying, cliche and trite with terrible plot development and horrible characterization. The science or technological elements in Avatar could easily be removed for more…historic… settings, devices or straight up objects. the Unobtanium could easily be replaced with Lunar regolith or some sort of fancy Martian Marble™️ being sold for countertops. Or Inca gold. Or Peruvian emeralds. or anything to which an obscene value could be placed.
It serves no purpose at all to the plot. none of the technology or science or technology influences the characters, the plot or anything else. The entire movie is an orgy of CGI and an anti-capitalist screed. (nothing wrong with being anti-capitalist, mind.)
Ultimately, genres are delineated not because they’re necessary for the art they’re describing, but because people want to know what they’re getting into before they sit down and watch it. When you tell me something is scifi, and it turns out to be horror with aliens or… a marvel superhero movie… I’m not going to be very happy with you.
So… if it has robots and space and cloning, its science fiction and if it doesn’t it’s not?
At no point did I say this. Even remotely.
You can’t just inverse something I said and assume it’s still equivalent. You’d think someone this passionate about reading would have a higher level of comprehension…
There was no point in me reading past this pathetic strawman. Hope you enjoyed writing that pointless essay.
I’ll grant that but what use for crystalized urea is there? Urea I know a few. And if we already know how to cultivate diamonds and other artificial gems, why bother mining for that?
Drag was making an allegorical point. Perhaps Unobtanium results from an organic process. In the second movie, the capitalists are killing whales for a substance in their brains that makes people immortal. Can’t find that on an asteroid.
We can save mental effort and just go for the Dune series at this point. What is the point in that? In considering the advances in modern chemistry, there are ever few organic compounds that can not be synthesized.
I fall back to my original thought: is well thought sci-fi so hard to achieve nowadays? If seems there is a fixation about misery and destruction nowadays.
Avatar does have some good science fiction like the idea of a planetary hivemind being worshipped as a god. The Na’vi religion is literally true, it just seems false to humans who don’t know anything. That’s very different to Dune, where the Fremen religion is true because people like Paul’s mum make it true.
I’ll grant that waffer thin idea as a good attempt of putting something akin to good sci-fi into an otherwise solely for visuals work, although I disagree with the notion of deifying something that is tangible, as in the setting put forward in the movie.
And I mentioned Dune because of the immortality mention. The spice is also irreplaceable and unique, produced only in a single planet, through a rather complex organic process, harvested at great risk and cost, then to be synthesized by the tons.
That was good sci-fi, with sound social and religious criticism in it.
I fall back to my original thought: is well thought sci-fi so hard to achieve nowadays? If seems there is a fixation about misery and destruction nowadays.
considering that mass media will slap a space ship into anything and call it “Science Fiction”… yes, actually. Because they’re idiots who will only copy what’s already been done because it’s a reliable way to make money.
That said, even the masters will fall back on nonsense to make a point. Asimov had coal-powered spacecraft in the Foundation Trilogy to show how technology was slipping backward as if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Dune is a universe where computers are severely limited. The ability to synthesize organic chemicals may be limited by that alone.
IIRC, the Tleilaxu do figure out how to produce spice artificially in their Axlotl tanks, but those are another example of Dune getting weirder and more disturbing as it goes.
I think there’s a tendency to see inter- (and intra-)stellar travel through the lens of the inter-continental expedition and colonialism. It… kinda makes sense… superficially, there’s some similarities; a voyage in a vessel, going to uncharted places, kicking off a new era of settlement and extraction. For this reason, movies and games really like the comparison, cus it makes for an easy narrative the audience is already familiar with.
In reality, though, nothing about space bares any similarity to anything in our past. Everything about the expeditions to, the colonizing of, and the industrial development and extraction of the Americas? All that was couched within the biosphere, contingent on it. Movies and media and junk get to ignore that because they exist to tell a story. So what if SciFi du jour doesn’t actually make sense? Doesn’t harm anyone, right? Except…
…except Musk and his fanclub really like describing Mars as the next colonial outpost. They’ll tell you it’s only a few short decades away! And I think that’s cus they don’t see where the metaphor falls short. To them, colonizing Mars is just the next thing that will happen in the narrative of history. After all, it’s happened once - so it must happen again right??? They don’t see the sheer wall of work and resources and work and decades (probably centuries, realistically) that would have to go into it. They don’t think about anything more than a superficial picture on a screen. People needed boats to cross the Atlantic, we’ll need rocketships. Now that they’ve got rocket ships, thats most of the work done. Afterall, in movies, you just need to get there. Then the plot can advance.
Tbf, the air on Pandora is toxic to humans. That was the entire point of using the avatars in the first movie… Wouldn’t exactly call that suitable for sustaining the life of our species
And that material they found in the planet was some fictional things humans had never encountered before.
So… We manage to master space travel. We manage to master interstellar travel. We eventually find a planet with suitable environment for sustaining our species. And we just overlook it.
Can someone explain me the reasoning behind this?
Sci-fi to the side, there are more minerals available - readily - on asteroids and barren planets than anywhere else. Why go hopping around looking for habitable planets, to the reason of 1 out of who knows how many, to then strip mine it?
The resource being extracted on the avatar planet was unobtanium.
It was only available on that planet, precisely so intelligent people like you can’t say “why not mine barren rocks instead”?
This annoyed me also.
If the Avatar universe has physics like ours, which it looks like it does from the way things move etc…
The protoplanetry disk that the planet formed from, must have had the unobtanium, since it is so evenly spread around the later formed planet.
Yes, there are higher concentrations in various places, which could have come from impact events in the past; if this is the case the impactors are likely from the local asteroid belt or equivalent.
The unobtanium must be available, in a much easier to extract form, in asteroids in the soloar system or the moons of Pandora.
Either way, a mineral is a terrible maguffin for a space faring civilization.
In the second movie, the whale brain juice is a much better maguffin, but still kinda stupid for a technologically advanced species.
Assume that to get interstellar travel, with the suspended animation and brain beaming tech we are shown, humans are a good 200 years ahead of where we are now…given that they can also make fully functional alien bodies from scratch, that can breed and pass on genetic material to what look like viable offspring. The level of synthetic biology expertise must be insane, and they can’t make this brain juice…it is just stupid.
Me too.
It’s supposed to be an indictment of capitalism. But that falls flat when you realize it was one of the most profitable movies of all time; grossing over 2 billion and being one of the fastest to reach the various benchmarks at theaters.
There are exactly zero minerals available inside planets that are unavailable on asteroids.
Sci-fi will be sci-fi but can we go back to the time it was at least well thought? Can’t hurt. If the objective of the movie was to make social criticism, it didn’t need to go to such lenghts.
And it was a boring movie; failed to captivate me.
You’re intelligent. Or at least, well read/educated.
I didn’t say it was a good plot-device. The entire movie was hamfisted from the world building through the dialog, the character development, and those hamfists evolved into bulldozers to bring the moral home.
The only thing it had going for it was the CGI… which was obsequious.
Regardless, it’s their fictional world. They designed it to be stupid and boring so they could make some sort of moral superiority bullshit statement about capitalism while grossing 2+ billion.
Also, I’m just gonna say it. It wasn’t even sci fi. sure, sure. it had ships and stuff. but that’s not what makes sci fi sci fi.
Usually, at this point, I would say even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I’m trying to get accostumed to receive a compliment, so I’ll instead say thank you for those kind words. And that we agree.
Aliens, Mech suits and remotely controlled vat-grown body doubles aren’t enough to make it sci Fi?
Nope.
Science fiction is an exploration of how science or technology changes society, or how society might respond to stuff, or how a society with a given tech might exist; it’s a form of speculative fiction.
Avatar isn’t that. It’s supposed to be an indictment of capitalist greed.
Just because it has technology doesn’t make it “sci-fi” and the elements that might are just a maghuffin to explain what they’re doing there. It could have just as easily been gold. Or diamonds or alien art.
Take Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein and compare it to say, avengers.
Sorry, no. Genre doesn’t require a specific theme. This is some literature vs pulp gatekeeping.
So… if it has robots and space and cloning, its science fiction and if it doesn’t it’s not?
so by that definition Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein is not proto-SciFi?
Or Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? The Steam House? Around the World in 80 Days?
Or HG Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau, The Sleeper Awakes, and The Invisible Man are not?
Or maybe Snow Crash? …Children of Men?
I find it hilarious that you’re criticizing me for gatekeeping. Science Fiction as a genre is much broader than just space, or robots, or cloning. or any of the cool, glittery-glowy-things.
Sure, any single work can span a few genres. Even things you might not necessarily think go together like Comedic SciFi as in Red Dwarf, Farscape or Dr. Who. Sure, books and movies don’t have to be overt about it, and most the really good ones aren’t. The core of Science Fiction is (or any form of speculative fiction, really,) is asking “the question”. It’s asking “what if…” For example, The World Well Lost; the scifi elements are secondary to the emotional and social aspects.
If you enjoy Avatar, that’s great. I’m glad you did. I found it annoying, cliche and trite with terrible plot development and horrible characterization. The science or technological elements in Avatar could easily be removed for more…historic… settings, devices or straight up objects. the Unobtanium could easily be replaced with Lunar regolith or some sort of fancy Martian Marble™️ being sold for countertops. Or Inca gold. Or Peruvian emeralds. or anything to which an obscene value could be placed.
It serves no purpose at all to the plot. none of the technology or science or technology influences the characters, the plot or anything else. The entire movie is an orgy of CGI and an anti-capitalist screed. (nothing wrong with being anti-capitalist, mind.)
Ultimately, genres are delineated not because they’re necessary for the art they’re describing, but because people want to know what they’re getting into before they sit down and watch it. When you tell me something is scifi, and it turns out to be horror with aliens or… a marvel superhero movie… I’m not going to be very happy with you.
At no point did I say this. Even remotely.
You can’t just inverse something I said and assume it’s still equivalent. You’d think someone this passionate about reading would have a higher level of comprehension…
There was no point in me reading past this pathetic strawman. Hope you enjoyed writing that pointless essay.
Crystallised urea
Nice to cross paths with you again!
I’ll grant that but what use for crystalized urea is there? Urea I know a few. And if we already know how to cultivate diamonds and other artificial gems, why bother mining for that?
Drag was making an allegorical point. Perhaps Unobtanium results from an organic process. In the second movie, the capitalists are killing whales for a substance in their brains that makes people immortal. Can’t find that on an asteroid.
We can save mental effort and just go for the Dune series at this point. What is the point in that? In considering the advances in modern chemistry, there are ever few organic compounds that can not be synthesized.
I fall back to my original thought: is well thought sci-fi so hard to achieve nowadays? If seems there is a fixation about misery and destruction nowadays.
Avatar does have some good science fiction like the idea of a planetary hivemind being worshipped as a god. The Na’vi religion is literally true, it just seems false to humans who don’t know anything. That’s very different to Dune, where the Fremen religion is true because people like Paul’s mum make it true.
I’ll grant that waffer thin idea as a good attempt of putting something akin to good sci-fi into an otherwise solely for visuals work, although I disagree with the notion of deifying something that is tangible, as in the setting put forward in the movie.
And I mentioned Dune because of the immortality mention. The spice is also irreplaceable and unique, produced only in a single planet, through a rather complex organic process, harvested at great risk and cost, then to be synthesized by the tons.
That was good sci-fi, with sound social and religious criticism in it.
considering that mass media will slap a space ship into anything and call it “Science Fiction”… yes, actually. Because they’re idiots who will only copy what’s already been done because it’s a reliable way to make money.
That said, even the masters will fall back on nonsense to make a point. Asimov had coal-powered spacecraft in the Foundation Trilogy to show how technology was slipping backward as if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Sad but true.
Dune is a universe where computers are severely limited. The ability to synthesize organic chemicals may be limited by that alone.
IIRC, the Tleilaxu do figure out how to produce spice artificially in their Axlotl tanks, but those are another example of Dune getting weirder and more disturbing as it goes.
But they do eventually manage, don’t they?
I think there’s a tendency to see inter- (and intra-)stellar travel through the lens of the inter-continental expedition and colonialism. It… kinda makes sense… superficially, there’s some similarities; a voyage in a vessel, going to uncharted places, kicking off a new era of settlement and extraction. For this reason, movies and games really like the comparison, cus it makes for an easy narrative the audience is already familiar with.
In reality, though, nothing about space bares any similarity to anything in our past. Everything about the expeditions to, the colonizing of, and the industrial development and extraction of the Americas? All that was couched within the biosphere, contingent on it. Movies and media and junk get to ignore that because they exist to tell a story. So what if SciFi du jour doesn’t actually make sense? Doesn’t harm anyone, right? Except…
…except Musk and his fanclub really like describing Mars as the next colonial outpost. They’ll tell you it’s only a few short decades away! And I think that’s cus they don’t see where the metaphor falls short. To them, colonizing Mars is just the next thing that will happen in the narrative of history. After all, it’s happened once - so it must happen again right??? They don’t see the sheer wall of work and resources and work and decades (probably centuries, realistically) that would have to go into it. They don’t think about anything more than a superficial picture on a screen. People needed boats to cross the Atlantic, we’ll need rocketships. Now that they’ve got rocket ships, thats most of the work done. Afterall, in movies, you just need to get there. Then the plot can advance.
You realized I just opted for having a divergent view on the subject, right?
It seems more like intentionally missing the main point of the comic.
Tbf, the air on Pandora is toxic to humans. That was the entire point of using the avatars in the first movie… Wouldn’t exactly call that suitable for sustaining the life of our species
And that material they found in the planet was some fictional things humans had never encountered before.