looks good. Kinda like they mixed the movie Dune with the video game Turok
looks good. Kinda like they mixed the movie Dune with the video game Turok
Comparing something to Turok isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
There was really nothing in that entire trailer that has convinced me to see this film.
I believe you are looking for this (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,23452.0.html) thread.
I might dig this movie if only I knew what it was about. What's up with that trailer? It really didn't tell me anything, aside from that it looks pretty. For all I know it could be about Atlantis emerging from the sea with the Atlanteans going to war.The New World.....in SPACE!
The trailer looked a bit CG-rompish to me. If it's meant to be seen in 3d, that worries me a little. I really don't think technology is quite ready for these movies yet.
We're not at the point where real life actors can still be easily replaced by CG ones, and that's what this movie looks like. I still prefer make-up and "gorilla" suits to the new CG creatures in film. The first Underworld had the werewolves as real people in power-operated suits, and they looked great. The new Underworlds have crappy werewolves.
Avatar looks great, and I'll be seeing it, but I still think we're a good five years away from life convincing animation. It just 'feels' fake, still.
The trailer looked a bit CG-rompish to me. If it's meant to be seen in 3d, that worries me a little. I really don't think technology is quite ready for these movies yet.
We're not at the point where real life actors can still be easily replaced by CG ones, and that's what this movie looks like. I still prefer make-up and "gorilla" suits to the new CG creatures in film. The first Underworld had the werewolves as real people in power-operated suits, and they looked great. The new Underworlds have crappy werewolves.
Avatar looks great, and I'll be seeing it, but I still think we're a good five years away from life convincing animation. It just 'feels' fake, still.
the first Terminator
okay but it better be worth 2 hours of gorgeous2 1/2 hours of gorgeous.
cause i probably am gonna see this it looks too pretty or whatever
Dances With Wolves+The Last Samurai+Halo=Avatar.
Who fucking cares, it's $237 million dollar's worth of fucking gorgeous.
P.S. Unobtanium is a laughably terrible name.
(Does anyone else here even get that joke?)
Not saying it's not stupid but;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Science_fiction
its makes a particularly bad argument when you say things like "I hate that dog for being a dog and not being a cat, because I like cats".
Hell, yer talking to the guy who walked out on An American Werewolf In London because he found it BORING!
EVERHell, yer talking to the guy who walked out on An American Werewolf In London because he found it BORING!
We will never be friends.
And thinks Paul Verhoven should be publicly flogged for Starship TroopersBe very glad they have yet to invent a means of stabbing someone over the internet.
EVERHell, yer talking to the guy who walked out on An American Werewolf In London because he found it BORING!
We will never be friends.
2. What is stopping the company from coming back, completely obliterating everything from space and then harvesting their wonderful mineral? The army guys were really just mercenaries, so why not just hire a crapload more of them and firebomb the hell out of the aliens. It's not like they're people. Think about how much money all that mineral under the tree is worth.
And thinks Paul Verhoven should be publicly flogged for Starship TroopersYou have no love of satire. Boo-hoo.
Way to jump to conclusions. It's one thing to like satire. It's another to like it when some director signs on for a movie based off of a book he never read, reads part of it, decides he doesn't like it, and instead of stepping down for someone that will actually do something with the book, gets together with his buddy from Robocop and shits out some generic satire that has nothing to do with the book. I liked the book.And thinks Paul Verhoven should be publicly flogged for Starship TroopersYou have no love of satire. Boo-hoo.
Do you like Vonnegut? What would your reaction be if they made a film adaptation of Cat's Cradle, and made it into a light-hearted kid's movie?
2. What is stopping the company from coming back, completely obliterating everything from space and then harvesting their wonderful mineral?
1. How will this work on DVD? Won't they have to un-3-D it? Won't they completely undermine much of the appeal of the film?
1. How will this work on DVD? Won't they have to un-3-D it? Won't they completely undermine much of the appeal of the film?
I didn't see it in 3D because 1) I wear glasses and 2)
No he is not (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360556/)I actually watched that for a paper, we had to write a paper based off of the interpersonal relations in some list of media, but book wasn't in there because of the lack of visual subtext, so I wrote about the movie, and used the book for some comparisons and differences.
1. How will this work on DVD? Won't they have to un-3-D it? Won't they completely undermine much of the appeal of the film?
I didn't see it in 3D because 1) I wear glasses and 2)
They have larger glasses for people with glasses!
Breakfast of Champions got made into a movie. It wasn't very good, but did have Bruce Willis!
First, poor attempt, I guess, at being humorous. Secondly throwing taste to the wayside while I would hate it as an adaptation if done right I could see an enjoyable kiddie friendly version of Cat's Cradle. Just separate from what it is being adapted from.Way to jump to conclusions. It's one thing to like satire. It's another to like it when some director signs on for a movie based off of a book he never read, reads part of it, decides he doesn't like it, and instead of stepping down for someone that will actually do something with the book, gets together with his buddy from Robocop and shits out some generic satire that has nothing to do with the book. I liked the book.And thinks Paul Verhoven should be publicly flogged for Starship TroopersYou have no love of satire. Boo-hoo.
Do you like Vonnegut? What would your reaction be if they made a film adaptation of Cat's Cradle, and made it into a light-hearted kid's movie?
The amount of imagination and thought that was put into Pandora was very good too. Sure, on one hand you have the name "Pandora", six-legged horses, six-legged dogs, six-legged-other-fauna, big blue men, air jellyfish, dragons. That's taking earth and mixing things up a bit. But on the other, you have trees with nervous systems that create a brain-biosphere, domestication that relies on linking on the neuron level, and bioluminescent, well, everything. I liked that a lot. But seeing how they made a big deal about the linking, I was expecting it to happen with the sex, too. Was anyone else?
The amount of imagination and thought that was put into Pandora was very good too. Sure, on one hand you have the name "Pandora", six-legged horses, six-legged dogs, six-legged-other-fauna, big blue men, air jellyfish, dragons. That's taking earth and mixing things up a bit. But on the other, you have trees with nervous systems that create a brain-biosphere, domestication that relies on linking on the neuron level, and bioluminescent, well, everything. I liked that a lot. But seeing how they made a big deal about the linking, I was expecting it to happen with the sex, too. Was anyone else?
I hear they'll be showing that on the DVD.
Most of you probably didn't get subtitles of any sort, but I wonder whose decision it was to style the subtitles of Na'vi speech in Papyrus font.
2. What is stopping the company from coming back, completely obliterating everything from space and then harvesting their wonderful mineral? The army guys were really just mercenaries, so why not just hire a crapload more of them and firebomb the hell out of the aliens. It's not like they're people. Think about how much money all that mineral under the tree is worth.
Say what you will, but Cameron does have some serious attention to detail.
Say what you will, but Cameron does have some serious attention to detail.
Except the part where the oxygen poor atmosphere feeds flames.
Or the part when the Colonel is on fire and the flames go out when he moves to an oxygen rich environment instead of causing him to practically explode.
Or the part where an oxygen deprived brain suffers no consequences.
I'm sure there were more, but it's been a while since I saw it.
Say what you will, but Cameron does have some serious attention to detail.
Except the part where the oxygen poor atmosphere feeds flames.
Or the part when the Colonel is on fire and the flames go out when he moves to an oxygen rich environment instead of causing him to practically explode.
Or the part where an oxygen deprived brain suffers no consequences.
I'm sure there were more, but it's been a while since I saw it.
Say what you will, but Cameron does have some serious attention to detail.
Except the part where the oxygen poor atmosphere feeds flames.
Or the part when the Colonel is on fire and the flames go out when he moves to an oxygen rich environment instead of causing him to practically explode.
Or the part where an oxygen deprived brain suffers no consequences.
I'm sure there were more, but it's been a while since I saw it.
I'm not going to buy a supplemental book for a movie that I didn't really like much.
That would still cause the humans to suffocate and cause the brain to die. Ten minutes without oxygen and there is basically no saving the brain; after a few minutes there is certain to be brain damage. Basically, if the humans can't breathe the air on the planet, there isn't enough oxygen to allow the brain to function.
It also still doesn't explain why the Colonel didn't end up a big charred mass when entering an oxygen-rich environment while on fire. To give you an idea of what it would do, a patient receiving oxygen can severely burn him or herself just by smoking a cigarette; now imagine what a larger open flame would do when immersing oneself in pure oxygen.
NEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerds!
Also I'm not sure why anybody's having issues with that link to the biologist's article. It works for me...
Well, I don't either.
Three days, three separate tries and it still won't load.
All I get is the dreaded white screen of death.
Talk about frustrating.
A biologist is moved by "Avatar"
From Shermin de Silva, University of Pennsylvania:
I just saw Avatar, and must admit that I lead a sheltered life from the media and neither saw nor heard any of the hype the preceded this film. We went in expecting the typical mix of gimmicky 3D effects and an empty storyline but got more than we bargained for. Now, no one can say that the story line is particularly original and it doesn't try to pretend that the Tribe, the planet, the worldviews being espoused are anything other than symbols for peoples, ecosystems and events in our own history. We've all seen the same storyline in one form or another (Pocahontas meets The Matrix, meets Star Wars).
But I didn't care about that. This very fact is what actually surprised, moved, and made me terribly sad.
I was first sad in watching this movie because it fantasizes about another planet in another time in which humanity might not make the mistakes it has already made on our own, having already ruined and decimated the indigenous cultures and ecosystems native to Earth. I am sad because it reminds me forever and ever of something I already know, and because it's fantasizing a about an opportunity to alter a wrong, a lesson to be learned, that it is already too late to learn.
I was also sad that the ineffectiveness of the scientists is all too accurate. I remember of course that Sigourney Weaver played a far darker role in the past, and this is just a dim and G-rated reincarnation of the Diane Fossey that was murdered in the mists.
I am also sad that the threat in this movie -- the aliens, the outsiders -- are no longer the threat here on earth. Instead it's as though the Tribes have swallowed whole the philosophies and values of the conquerors. Here on earth you really can trade a forest for blue jeans and coke, and this makes me solemn about the joke. The threat isn't from out there in many places, it's the local people trying to eke out a living on the land that was once fertile and is now barren because of all that we've done to it. And we will still mine it and we will still destroy it. Who's going to stop buying gold and diamonds, even though they've seen what it's done to Africa??
I study elephants. I see the largely privileged White Fight and White Burden that's being played out on the world stage (give them medicine, and give them schools?? for diseases we can't cure and a way of life we don't understand, never will). I know that as Europe and the World Bank throw money at so-called aid and development schemes, people still dream of blue jeans and coke, that one by one the animals are going, and the forests, and of course then who knows... Pandora may be a beautiful dream steeped in an eco-message, but it's a message whose time is long past. We already killed the Na'vi of earth, or else assimilated them into desiring the same destructive way of life.
I came out of the theater and started reading the reviews, and now it makes me sadder still that all people seem to talk about is the special effects. Finally, we have a film with CG eye candy that has enough appeal not to bore audiences while moralizing. Maybe the most I can hope for is that lots of kids see this and a few of them go on to read some history and actually understand that behind the fantasy there was Earth, and much of this Earth is already lost, but perhaps we can try to salvage what there is left.
Why I write to you is that I like and respect your reviews and thought I needed to vent somewhere besides an anonymous blog with the masses of other comments that will never get read.
Sorry if in the interest of being brief the words are strung out in stream of consciousness.
I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians! You won! Alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends - you had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story.
I bow before your superior intellect
Well, I don't either.
Three days, three separate tries and it still won't load.
All I get is the dreaded white screen of death.
Talk about frustrating.
That's a bummer. Here's a copy-paste:QuoteA biologist is moved by "Avatar"
From Shermin de Silva, University of Pennsylvania:
I just saw Avatar, and must admit that I lead a sheltered life from the media and neither saw nor heard any of the hype the preceded this film. We went in expecting the typical mix of gimmicky 3D effects and an empty storyline but got more than we bargained for. Now, no one can say that the story line is particularly original and it doesn't try to pretend that the Tribe, the planet, the worldviews being espoused are anything other than symbols for peoples, ecosystems and events in our own history. We've all seen the same storyline in one form or another (Pocahontas meets The Matrix, meets Star Wars).
But I didn't care about that. This very fact is what actually surprised, moved, and made me terribly sad.
I was first sad in watching this movie because it fantasizes about another planet in another time in which humanity might not make the mistakes it has already made on our own, having already ruined and decimated the indigenous cultures and ecosystems native to Earth. I am sad because it reminds me forever and ever of something I already know, and because it's fantasizing a about an opportunity to alter a wrong, a lesson to be learned, that it is already too late to learn.
I was also sad that the ineffectiveness of the scientists is all too accurate. I remember of course that Sigourney Weaver played a far darker role in the past, and this is just a dim and G-rated reincarnation of the Diane Fossey that was murdered in the mists.
I am also sad that the threat in this movie -- the aliens, the outsiders -- are no longer the threat here on earth. Instead it's as though the Tribes have swallowed whole the philosophies and values of the conquerors. Here on earth you really can trade a forest for blue jeans and coke, and this makes me solemn about the joke. The threat isn't from out there in many places, it's the local people trying to eke out a living on the land that was once fertile and is now barren because of all that we've done to it. And we will still mine it and we will still destroy it. Who's going to stop buying gold and diamonds, even though they've seen what it's done to Africa??
I study elephants. I see the largely privileged White Fight and White Burden that's being played out on the world stage (give them medicine, and give them schools?? for diseases we can't cure and a way of life we don't understand, never will). I know that as Europe and the World Bank throw money at so-called aid and development schemes, people still dream of blue jeans and coke, that one by one the animals are going, and the forests, and of course then who knows... Pandora may be a beautiful dream steeped in an eco-message, but it's a message whose time is long past. We already killed the Na'vi of earth, or else assimilated them into desiring the same destructive way of life.
I came out of the theater and started reading the reviews, and now it makes me sadder still that all people seem to talk about is the special effects. Finally, we have a film with CG eye candy that has enough appeal not to bore audiences while moralizing. Maybe the most I can hope for is that lots of kids see this and a few of them go on to read some history and actually understand that behind the fantasy there was Earth, and much of this Earth is already lost, but perhaps we can try to salvage what there is left.
Why I write to you is that I like and respect your reviews and thought I needed to vent somewhere besides an anonymous blog with the masses of other comments that will never get read.
Sorry if in the interest of being brief the words are strung out in stream of consciousness.
For that biologist, it's as if Avatar is the only text that's done any of that.
Just saw this a second time. Guys this movie is so good.Haven't seen the new Star Trek so can't comment. You seem to be misusing pretentious there. I'm not sure where your use of idiot for Star Wars is for, but if your complaint to the fans is Star Wars usage of as many cliches, ect. than there is a world of difference. With Star Wars the big difference is that the intent of Star Wars, at least for the original trilogy, was to examine old space operas and serials. Crank up the cliches and give the ultimate byronic experience. In a way it is an examination on old school basic storytelling. Avatar on the other hand has heftier goals in trying to comment on the treatment of Native Americans and the present war in Iraq, amongst other things. Because of that goal the use of cliches must be very careful or else you'll just end up being an other Crash, the Haggis one not the great Cronenberg one. sadly Avatar does use those cliches in a way that while not as bad as Crash still causes a reductive moral landscape.
If you don't like this but you liked Star Trek, you're lying to yourself.
If you don't like this but you liked District 9, you're pretentious.
If you don't like this but you liked Star Wars, you're just an idiot.
This movie is so fucking good, the only complaint I have is I have to get all my viewing in while it's in theaters, because I can't imagine watching it not in 3D.
So you love melodramatic cliche space opera and you didn't like this, which is epic melodramatic cliche fantastical sci-fi?
Fuck you.
Just saw this a second time. Guys this movie is so good.Haven't seen the new Star Trek so can't comment. You seem to be misusing pretentious there. I'm not sure where your use of idiot for Star Wars is for, but if your complaint to the fans is Star Wars usage of as many cliches, ect. than there is a world of difference. With Star Wars the big difference is that the intent of Star Wars, at least for the original trilogy, was to examine old space operas and serials. Crank up the cliches and give the ultimate byronic experience. In a way it is an examination on old school basic storytelling. Avatar on the other hand has heftier goals in trying to comment on the treatment of Native Americans and the present war in Iraq, amongst other things. Because of that goal the use of cliches must be very careful or else you'll just end up being an other Crash, the Haggis one not the great Cronenberg one. sadly Avatar does use those cliches in a way that while not as bad as Crash still causes a reductive moral landscape.
If you don't like this but you liked Star Trek, you're lying to yourself.
If you don't like this but you liked District 9, you're pretentious.
If you don't like this but you liked Star Wars, you're just an idiot.
This movie is so fucking good, the only complaint I have is I have to get all my viewing in while it's in theaters, because I can't imagine watching it not in 3D.
Personally I feel that Avatar is enjoyable and adequate, but I fully understand the stance against it considering what I outlined. Your comparisons, at least for the two I've seen just don't work.
I liked all three of the movies he mentions, and I didn't like Avatar. I really tried, you know. But when a movie as visually stunning as Avatar causes me to nearly fall asleep halfway through, it's less endearing and more "I'm so glad someone else paid for me right now."
So you love melodramatic cliche space opera and you didn't like this, which is epic melodramatic cliche fantastical sci-fi?
Fuck you.
Here's the difference: That scene lasted about 11 minutes. It left me actively amazed that I enjoyed a scene like that because those kind of scenes almost never work for me, but then the rest of the movie left me sort of luke warm. Avatar didn't have any given moment half so entertaining in it AND it took several hours. Gah.
I kind of wonder what people will think of it as visual standards change. For example, I remember people being all "Holy shit!" over Jurassic Park back in '93, but now nobody really gives a crap, since it was really just a full-on crowd pleasing spectacle movie. I could see Avatar going down the same path.
And Kieffer, you'll never believe this, but I actually am capable of enjoying myself without declaring every movie I see to be the greatest thing ever.
And go fuck yourselves if you are going to back up your answers by saying Mayans are "Native Americans" because ALL of the new world is "America". Thats a cheap cop-out and makes you look stupid.
I bet you went stoned or some shit, and blame your own sins on the movie, since you can't admit you were tired. There is no fucking possible way you could have come close to falling asleep during that movie.
You can't really deny that part Cheshire. When the french came to Canada they wanted otter skins because they were all the rage in Europe at the time.
Well I can and am denying that part. I cant really challenge someone to prove that by comparing the Na'vi to Native Americans they are referring to Aboriginals of South America, because frankly using awkward ambiguous wording still makes you look stupid even if you are 'right'. And Otter skins? Really? You are going to have to do better than that.
And Alex, dont really know what your family background is, but unless your background involves people who have living memory of what happened between 1642 and the ~1800s I struggle to see the relevance. Though Im personally curious about your background, sinceI always imagined you looked like your avatar.
You can't really deny that part Cheshire. When the french came to Canada they wanted otter skins because they were all the rage in Europe at the time.If by otter you mean beaver then yeah. But that was after we (and everyone else) came for the fish. And after we had settled down we started using the Natives as slaves because importing them from Africa was way too expensive.
"Jared named his son Rowdy after his childhood hero Rowdy Roddy Piper." Bwahahaha.
They said "Unobtanium" with a straight face, and that is what made it ridiculous.One person said it, the aforementioned fast-talking coked-up executive, who probably would have to have anything remotely scientific broken down into two-syllable words, and referring to something as unobtainium would be done with a straight face, not a Groucho Marx eyebrow waggle. So it is basically a MY IMMERSION thing for you?
So you love melodramatic cliche space opera and you didn't like this, which is epic melodramatic cliche fantastical sci-fi?How are these two any different?
You are the most joyless of the fucks.Hey dude, I didn't insult you. I even actually said I enjoyed Avatar, just felt your insults toward other entertainment was out of line. I never said the point to Star wars was to make people think. It's intentionally pure space opera and sure be enjoyed as such. If Cameron's only intention was the same I wouldn't have sympathy with the people that disliked the movie. he does bring in these intentional analogies though, and sure be held to a standard as such. By making the story so cliched I understand that it leads to unfortunate implications and such. Had he left out any attempt at political awareness and gone the route of Star Wars or his own True Lies than that wouldn't be such a contentious point. Again I really did enjoy Avatar put to describe someone who didn't as a 'joyless fuck' is more reductive than Avatar itself.
First, fuck you for telling me my use of pretentious is incorrect. I am saying that you are putting on a fucking pretense if you liked the lower budget "smarter" movie about mistreating aliens as an allegory for mistreating natives and not fucking avatar.
But you are an ESPECIALLY joyless fuck if you think the point of Star Wars, or the point of Avatar, was to make you think. The point was to make awesome, simple, compelling stories with straight forward cut and dry characterization that makes you go oooh and ahhh and maybe holy shit once or twice. You're comparing Avatar to fucking crash? Are you fucking retarded? There is no similarity, at all, between these two movies. I get that you think you are a student of film all "look at me, I can namecheck fucking cronenberg for no reason in my post" but fuck you you joyless fuck. These movies are supposed to be fun and engaging.
Next you'll probably be telling us you don't enjoy the taste of a hearty McDonald's hamburger.I will...and take Jerry Lewis too. (The crowd gives an applause like never before)
Why don't you go back to France or some shit.
It was all fur but beaver was the main one. The Hudson Bay Company used a currency with the Natives called a Made Beaver. So if you brought in a beaver pelt you got 1 MB. And here's a nice little list of what other furs were worth(http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=3673;type=avatar)(http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/respek.gif)(http://i48.tinypic.com/mlkux0.png)
3 martens 2 ordinary otters or 1 if exceptionally fine
1 fox 2 deerskins
1 moose 1 lb castoreum
1 bear cub 2 wolverines
10 pounds Goose Feathers
8 pair Moose Hooves
So yeah, otters were worth quite a bit. I have no idea what castoreum is though.
Also, just something I wanted to point out b/c my friends didn't notice it from the movie, the Avatars all had 5 fingers, while the Navi had 4.
I believe this was intentional, as the avatars were supposed to have DNA mixed from humans and the Na'vi.
It's the goddamn FUTURE why don't we have MIND CONROL COMPUTER!!
Link: Fuck you, Hollywood (http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html)
So apparently some people like Pandora a little too much. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/avatar_blues/)
God that irritates me. "All the bits that didn't make sense in the movie make sense if you read all this extraneous material we've provided for you!" Hey Hollywood I'm buying a ticket to a film, not entry into a cult.Or you could just assume that he thought through the background at some point during the 15 years he had been working on it (although most of it it was probably just on a desk somewhere while he waited for better CG technology), and the parts of the background that you don't get just aren't included because they aren't important and the movie is already nearly as long as any of the Lord of the Rings movies. But viewers seem loath to do that these days, so he writes up the background to show that he did his work for the people that care enough to complain about it. I don't.
I feel like a lot of those people have to joking. Right?
the deleted avatar tentacle sex scene (http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/01/read-this-now-avatars-deleted-sex-scene)
fun fact: Piranha 3D might not be in 3D (http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/01/tragic-casualty-of-the-financial-crisis-piranha-3d)
Saw the thingum tonight. Two thoughts:Bulletproof glass (technically bullet-resistant, since if you use a big enough bullet, nothing is bulletproof) is made to stop bullets. Bullets are for the most part light and fast. Shotgun slugs and old buffalo guns (not as crazy powerful as you would think of a buffalo gun as being, due to old technology) will go through most glass we have with current technology that isn't ridiculously thick. Those bows looked like they were firing arrows closer to what we would consider javelins, a few pounds each and likely flying a hell of a lot faster than any human archer can sling normal arrows. Sure, it would be possible to design glass that will stop the heavier slower rounds, but why? Everyone is using light fast rounds now. 100 years into the future, certainly we could make better glass, maybe even make it weigh less (the weight of an aircraft is rather important), but we will likely still be using light and fast. Armor is designed to protect against the weapons that are expected to be used against it, sometimes to the exclusion of protection from weapons that they don't expect to be used, and they don't seem to have designed their weapons to be more effective on Pandoran wildlife, no reason to expect them to modify their vehicles either.
(1) See it in IMAX if you can. If your town doesn't have IMAX, hop on a bus. IMAX makes this stupid, stupid movie worthwhile.
(2) When the fuck are they going to start putting bulletproof glass on the front of military helicopters? When??
I suppose it is possible that 150 years in the future, mankind has mastered faster than life travelLife moves pretty fast, if you're not careful you might miss it.
Yes, I suppose it is possible that 150 years in the future, mankind has mastered faster than life travel but opts not to use a composite in the windshield of a helicopter resilient enough to withstand a large piece of wood (maybe there's carbon fiber in the wood!!). It just seems odd. Especially when a puncture in the windshield has a fair chance of downing the vehicle what with the lethal gas it lets in and all.Why would they worry about such an outdated type of weapon as a giant bow? People stopped worrying about bows centuries ago from our time, you design armor to stop a certain kind of weapon. You can design it to stop just about anything, but it is expensive, can rely on something that won't last too long (like a top level of armor that blows itself up to deflect shaped charges), and will likely be heavy as hell if it doesn't rely on something like the cage in Alex's picture or the reactive armor that blows itself up.
I bought the original trilogy films on dvd in a boxed set. Each one has a second disc with the theatrical versions of the films. It's great to be able to watch the originals with no other changes other than slightly cleaned up film and sound.
I bought the original trilogy films on dvd in a boxed set. Each one has a second disc with the theatrical versions of the films. It's great to be able to watch the originals with no other changes other than slightly cleaned up film and sound.