New Avatar trailer is out

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe their solution to the least amount of lives taken is to trick the natives into selling their land or something, but whatever the plan was, it went south and they found themselves ending up engaging in close combat with the natives. And because their plan screwed up, maximum amount of casualties on both sides were had?

Turns out that sometimes, in very rare super special occasions, people make dumb mistakes and a lot of people get killed in the process? (Who knew[/STRAK])

OR they could just chuck rocks at the areas they intend to mine till no native dares set foot there.
Again nobody's saying blow up worlds. Unless you think Tunguska level events blow up worlds now

Or since someone mentioned that the aliens could use the ecosystem against people, then the humans could've used defoliants like Space Agent Orange at the areas they intended to mine till no native dares set foot there - and the natives will also be too busy giving birth to horrifically deformed children to waste their time fighting the humans. Or they could've used napalm, whose smell we all love in the morning. Or they could've used a binillion other ways to achieve their goals. Hell, they could've just employed the aliens to serve as menial labor in the stripmining of their planet and paid them by building them nifty condos with swimming pools and giving them denim pants and stuff - like how South American natives are ditching their proud noble savage traditions to go to the cities for booze and hookers.

But that didn't happen and now the humies are stuck with this situation.

Geeze, I wonder if people are also in uproar over sci-fi movies like Starship Troopers or Aliens, or war movies like Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam, because the humans in those stories didn't use blinding military superiority to end the movie short by killing the crap out of the aliens by mining North Vietnamese ports and commencing strategic bombing at the earliest stages of the war just like what Curtis LeMay said.

[Gramzamber]

Meh, for all the military incompetence displayed, the characters in Aliens did at least try to carry out a logical plan after they confirmed the colonists were dead. Nuke everything from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Shroom Man 777]

No they didn't. The corporate guy continued to hamstring them and they fucked up and weren't able to evac, and almost all of them died. The only one who was for any nuking from orbit was the crazy woman who wanted to become mommy.

[neoolong]

And Hicks.

[Crossroads Inc.]

For all those predicting exactly how the movie will play out, I am surprised no one has mentioned the obvious Hollywood route here. That being that the "Avatar" in question will undoubtedly "go native" and no doubt end up making some impassioned plea on Behalf of the aliens toward the climax of the movie. I mean, given Hollywood doesn't the following just write itself???

"""Send Human in changed into an alien, to convince aliens to let Humans strip-mine planet.. "Human" lives among aliens, sees the beauty in their "noble savage" ways, changes mind, convinces evil Humans the error of their ways."""

Once I heared what the movie was being made into it was the first thing that came into my mind.

[Ford Prefect]

It's pretty much no secret that Jake Sully falls for a big blue chick.

[Pick]

The whining in this thread has made me more interested in the film than anything their marketing department cooked up. I hope it's a bunch of hippie bullshit, just to piss you all off when the helicopters have to pack up and go home.

[Ford Prefect]

What really gets me is that there are lots of legitimate concerns regarding this film, especially in regards to how the central theme is handled. It could easily turn out to be really heavy handed, hopelessly naive or whatever. I mean, it is James Cameron, a man who has made no films I dislike, most of which I think are excellent, but when you are already using such an obvious culture clash to deliver your message you're skating on thin ice.

[Molyneux]

The whining in this thread has made me more interested in the film than anything their marketing department cooked up. I hope it's a bunch of hippie bullshit, just to piss you all off when the helicopters have to pack up and go home.

Why would you think I would spend money to see this?

[Shroom Man 777]

The whining in this thread has made me more interested in the film than anything their marketing department cooked up. I hope it's a bunch of hippie bullshit, just to piss you all off when the helicopters have to pack up and go home.

It would piss you all off when the helicopters have to pack up and go home, end up landing on crammed aircraft carriers and get thrown off deck, and the movie actually ends up having a pretty nice and thoughtful and compelling plot, with stunning visuals, excellent characterization and acting, and all that stuff that makes a good movie despite the absence of space rocks or massive mongo militarimerican murderdeathkillification.

Of course, if the movie also ends up sucking, I'll probably be sad too. Come on, James Cameron, don't go into menopause... please.

And where can I see that damned trailer?

[Gramzamber]

I'm not one for mindless military worship, but at the same time I don't like seeing futuristic societies get their asses handed to them BY THE POWER OF NATURE LOL solely because they're too damn stupid to use their stuff properly.

Sorry but bullets, robots and helicopters > dragons, plants and shit.

[mr friendly guy]

Since the trailer has been taken down, I am going have to rely on people's description.

For those "why don't they orbital bombard them" LOL people, what in the trailer gave you the idea that the humans are genocidal nutbars, and would do as you suggest except they are just too stupid to think of it? Because if the youtube trailer is anything like this one I can't see any thing to indicate that.

That being said, assuming the aliens win (in typical Hollywood style) I can't imagine they would defeat a much more technological advance society, unless there is something the trailer didn't show us. I mean, they are stronger than us, and we can't breath in their atmosphere, but I don't think they are exactly Hulk level or Superman level power. Now by the power of plot device its still relatively plausible for them to win eg H.G. Wells had us "defeat" the Martians because of microbes on the earth and protests ala Vietnam style on steroids could explain it away.

Needless to say, I am going to see it just because of the new technology he used to film it, so I can check out is it as visually stunning on the big screen as its cracked up to be. If I think it sucks you guys will be the first to know.

[Gramzamber]

a) Humans want the resources of the planet for themselves
b) They're willing to fight the natives for it

Those two points taken together demonstrate that these humans aren't the nicest bunch of people around. If they're out there for resources then they have a profit motive. Gearing up for the resource exploitation of another planet in another star system would be a tremendously expensive operation and people would want results.
At the cost of the natives? Yes, you know, just like throughout all of human history.

[mr friendly guy]

In other words, through an incredible leap of logic. Gotcha.

I must therefore conclude that since humans are willing to go to war for certain goals, this automatically leads to humans willing to commit genocide.
I mean its not like history has examples of conquests which don't automatically lead to genocide. I guess the Mongols and the Romans must have wiped out ALL those people they conquered right?

Hey, its not like how modern day humans has articles on war to try and minimise suffering which sort of includes lines we aren't supposed to cross. No sirree.

The characters there might turn out to be genocidal nutjobs, but there is no fucking way you can conclude that from just that trailer without going through some incredible leap of logic. Your attempt to criticise Cameron for a plot hole based on a 2 minute trailer fails miserably and your attempt to justify your initial criticism just makes you look like a bigger retard. Keep sinking that ship.

[Gramzamber]

Speaking of leaps of logic, how does dropping rocks to clear the general area where they wish to mine equate to genocide?
The idea is to scare the natives off, not kill them all.

[mr friendly guy]

Speaking of leaps of logic, how does dropping rocks to clear the general area where they wish to mine equate to genocide?
The idea is to scare the natives off, not kill them all.

Hmm..

If humans want to strip mine the place, why not just chuck rocks at them from orbit?
Oh right cause we wouldn't have a movie.

Who is this "them" you are referring to? Oh thats right, the natives. Later on you change it to chuck rocks at areas the natives aren't in to scare them from entering that area in the first place. What intellectual honesty you display there.

Now that we set the stage showing that you have mastered the abilty to shift the goal posts lets see much destruction you want to rain on the natives

Again nobody's saying blow up worlds. Unless you think Tunguska level events blow up worlds now.

Well, we only need the power of Tunguska level of events to scare the natives off. How many more times powerful than Hiroshima was the Tunguska event? You want to scare the natives off with an explosion more powerful than an early nuke aimed at them? Not only one, you want to throw several rocks equivalent to nukes at them. Them being the natives of course despite your whining about genocide when you were called on it. Let me guess, you are going to say nukes won't kill all of them, so it won't be genocide, AM I RITE?

Lets go on

Jesus Christ, why do people ask this? It's on Spacebattles as well 'if they want to mine the place why don't they genocide the natives?' they ask. Gee, maybe because they're not homicidal maniacs? It should be pretty fucking clear from the premise that the humans are trying to achieve their goals without completely wiping out a sapient species.

And yet from the preview footage they still end up in a shooting war, so...

Its clear you think two things. One that how the humans went about avoiding wiping out a species is crap and two the genocide option was better (for the evil humans anyway). Its only later that you changed your tune I didn't mean to kill them, just scare them off by throwing rocks at them, er I mean throwing rocks at areas we want to mine.

In reply to my query about genocide you said

At the cost of the natives? Yes, you know, just like throughout all of human history.

So you think the humans more realistic if they are potrayed as genocidal, but they are just too stupid to know how to do it effectively.

In short, you sir are a fucking moron. You were called on it and tried to backpedal furiously. Hey, you do realise on this board you can't edit your posts after sufficient time has passed right? Who the hell do you think you are fooling?

EDIT - it gets even better when I realised that dumbass boy on one hand is saying that humans aren't going to play nice, yet says they should use his scaring the natives strategy which seems to indicate a willingness to "play nice". But hey, thats what happens when you keep on shifting the goalposts. You lose track of what you were initially saying.

[hongi]

I saw the 3D trailer down at the cinema, and the visuals are gorgeous. The trailer alone was much better than the movie I came to watch...Final Destination 4 is the shittiest shit shit ever put on screen.

[Shroom Man 777]

Anyway, why the hell should a parable of purple blue alien people depict the violent victory of a bunch of genocidal warmongering resource-whoring assholes, anyway? Those people sound like a bunch of dickish fucks and I'd totally root for the purple blue alien people to karate kick down those war whores' helicopters.

[Starglider]

Anyway, why the hell should a parable of purple blue alien people depict the violent victory of a bunch of genocidal warmongering resource-whoring assholes, anyway?

The problem is not that the humans don't win. I find myself rooting for nonhumans more often than not. The problem is that the setup probably won't make economic or political sense. It's not impossible that there will be some cleverly justified setting, but frankly it isn't likely. That's ok in the sense that nearly all sci-fi movies have some setting implausibility, and some otherwise good ones have really silly settings, but we're still going to bitch about it.

Those people sound like a bunch of dickish fucks and I'd totally root for the purple blue alien people to karate kick down those war whores' helicopters.

The other plausibility issue is the spectacular incompetence needed on the human side and/or the outright magic needed on the alien side to make such a victory possible. It's the same problem as Independence Day, but with the humans on the high-tech side (and presumably with a happy ending because humans deserve to be forgiven and giant bugs don't...).

[Shroom Man 777]

Yeah, that is true. You could kick it up a notch and instead of ID4, use a Battlefield Earth example.

I guess all of us will have to forget our differences, hold hands, and hope that James Cameron knows what he's doing and won't fuck us over?

[Gramzamber]

In short, you sir are a fucking moron. You were called on it and tried to backpedal furiously. Hey, you do realise on this board you can't edit your posts after sufficient time has passed right? Who the hell do you think you are fooling?

EDIT - it gets even better when I realised that dumbass boy on one hand is saying that humans aren't going to play nice, yet says they should use his scaring the natives strategy which seems to indicate a willingness to "play nice". But hey, thats what happens when you keep on shifting the goalposts. You lose track of what you were initially saying.

You're the one creating a false dilemma that either the humans are playing nice or are genocidal fucks.
It turns out that no, killing a few natives is not in fact genocide, if you think it is then I suppose the conflict in the trailer is also genocide?
The goal here is to be able to mine the area without interference, not kill natives. If natives happen to be in the areas the humans want to mine then yes the asteroids will kill them, and the rest will be scared off. That is not genocide or playing nice, that's trying to get to the resources they came all this way for with the least amount of effort.

[Shroom Man 777]

Turns out people equate casually using the destructive power of the Tunguska event against a bunch of loinclothed natives to be about as genocidal as the casual use of nuclear weapons done Sheppy-NUKEY-NUKEY-(ala nuke the arabs till they glow in the dark, and then shoot them in the dark and then take all their oil)-style?

[mr friendly guy]

You're the one creating a false dilemma that either the humans are playing nice or are genocidal fucks.

Ha ha ha. Not only do you ignore the majority of my post which demolishes your prior statements, you choose to attack a statement which was made as an after thought through the edit function. Apparently pointing out a contradiction now counts as a false dilemna now. Do you even know what that is?

It turns out that no, killing a few natives is not in fact genocide, if you think it is then I suppose the conflict in the trailer is also genocide?

No shit Sherlock. But neither me nor the trailer came up with the bright idea of lobbing nuclear level of destruction at them from orbit. I believe that was you. I trust I don't need to explain to you firing an asteroid at them is going to do more damage than what was seen in the trailer. Especially given that you thought it was stupid that humans were NOT using the more destructive option right off the bat. I would quote you that line again, but I suspect you would just put your hands over your ears and shout nyah nyah nyah and pretend you never said it.

The goal here is to be able to mine the area without interference, not kill natives. If natives happen to be in the areas the humans want to mine then yes the asteroids will kill them, and the rest will be scared off. That is not genocide or playing nice, that's trying to get to the resources they came all this way for with the least amount of effort.

Kind of hard not to kill the natives when you advocated throwing 15 MT of destruction at them. Not one asteroid, but several of them. I am no military expert, but I am pretty sure that unless the natives turn out to be Superrman level powers they are going to carck it when that asteroid hits. But please, pretend you never said that. It just makes you look more dumber when anyone can see in your very first post what you thought. Give yourself an A for awesomely stupid.

Oh, and I was absolutely right when I said you would fall upon the "its not genocide because it won't kill ALL of them" argument. Mate, that was meant as a joke. I didn't realise you were actually retarded enough to use it.

[Gramzamber]

Ha ha ha. Not only do you ignore the majority of my post which demolishes your prior statements, you choose to attack a statement which was made as an after thought through the edit function. Apparently pointing out a contradiction now counts as a false dilemna now. Do you even know what that is?

I didn't feel like quoting and replying to every single statement and instead wanted to provide a general answer using the last paragraph quote for reference. But if you want to turn it into some kind of debate dishonesty, be my guest.
I've never once said that the natives should be genocided, nor was the "drop rocks on them" statement meant 100% literally, given that it's a broad paraphrase of what I actually mean.

No shit Sherlock. But neither me nor the trailer came up with the bright idea of lobbing nuclear level of destruction at them from orbit. I believe that was you. I trust I don't need to explain to you firing an asteroid at them is going to do more damage than what was seen in the trailer. Especially given that you thought it was stupid that humans were NOT using the more destructive option right off the bat. I would quote you that line again, but I suspect you would just put your hands over your ears and shout nyah nyah nyah and pretend you never said it.

If it's a situation where the natives are using the entire damn eco-system against them then yes, nuclear level destruction is an option for a group of people ruthless enough to want to strip mine a populated planet to begin with.

Kind of hard not to kill the natives when you advocated throwing 15 MT of destruction at them. Not one asteroid, but several of them. I am no military expert, but I am pretty sure that unless the natives turn out to be Superrman level powers they are going to carck it when that asteroid hits. But please, pretend you never said that. It just makes you look more dumber when anyone can see in your very first post what you thought. Give yourself an A for awesomely stupid.

The fuck are you going on about? When did I say the goal is NOT to kill natives?
I said the goal should be to scare them off, and that it isn't specifically to kill them, but if they're in the way, then they die.
What part of this do you not understand? There's a difference between actively seeking to kill the natives and just not caring.

Oh, and I was absolutely right when I said you would fall upon the "its not genocide because it won't kill ALL of them" argument. Mate, that was meant as a joke. I didn't realise you were actually retarded enough to use it.

And how the fuck is it genocide to clear out areas that might not even be densely populated given that they're noble savages living in villages?
It's certainly murder, but again it turns out colonial exploitation has never been a particularily nice thing humanity has done.

[mr friendly guy]

I didn't feel like quoting and replying to every single statement BECAUSE I CAN'T ACTUALLY COUNTER THOSE POINTS and instead wanted to provide a general SPECIFIC answer TO A MINOR POINT ONLY using the last paragraph quote for reference (KIND OF OBVIOUS SINCE THE LAST POINT WAS THE MINOR ONE).

Fixed for you. No, theres no charge for that.

But if you want to turn it into some kind of debate dishonesty, be my guest.

Too late you already did.

I've never once said that the natives should be genocided,

I never claimed you did.
I do however claim that you believed the humans in Avatar would behave in such a manner based on incredible leaps of logic from a 2 minute trailer, and the fact they don't right at the beginning is due a plot hole by James Cameron, or else there would be "no movie".
Do try and keep up.

nor was the "drop rocks on them" statement meant 100% literally, given that it's a broad paraphrase of what I actually mean.

Ah, a variation of the "its hyperbole" come back. Useful when your quotes are starring you in the face and you can't fall back on the I was misquoted line.

Tell you what, when I become a fully fledged Dark Lord of the Sith I will be able to read your mind and know what you really, really meant. Until then like all other mere mortals I am forced to resort to the primitive medium known as language. You might have heard of it.

Thus its pointless crying over spilt milk and whining that you really meant something similar when its clearly cannot be interpreted in that manner. One might almost think you were deliberately dishonest and changing what you said instead of just being stupid and typing the wrong thing. Or maybe both.

If it's a situation where the natives are using the entire damn eco-system against them then yes, nuclear level destruction is an option for a group of people ruthless enough to want to strip mine a populated planet to begin with.

Ah, so its no longer a plot hole that humans don't use the really destructive option right at the beginning. The humans will only use the nuclear level option after the natives fight back with sufficient force. What are you now saying? We do get a movie now. So when can I expect you to concede your laughable claim that if they just dropped rocks from orbit there would be no movie?

The fuck are you going on about? When did I say the goal is NOT to kill natives?.

3 posts ago and later on in this very post I am replying to. Of course you try and have your metaphorical cake and eat it too by saying the goal should be scaring them off, but they should also die if they get in the way of the scare tactic or continue to get in the way after said tactic.

The goal here is to be able to mine the area without interference, not kill natives.

You go on to saying dropping mass drivers won't be genocide because (you hope) only a few natives are in the areas you wish to mine. The rest will (you hope) lack the curiosity to investigate this big fireball coming from the sky.

I said the goal should be to scare them off, and that it isn't specifically to kill them, but if they're in the way, then they die.

Ignoring for a moment is blatantly shifting the goal posts and I just haven't felt generous enough to let that slide by without commenting.

Ignoring for a moment (assuming I I let this slide), your plan B may still have the same result as your first plan given we have no fucking clue how close and how much of their population is near the areas we wish to mine (unless you can magically see something from the trailer that no one else can), so its an unsupported claim that this would just scare them off without killing too many. Moreover since you quite freely say humans will kill them if they still get in the way, its blatant semantics and pseudo justification to say it makes a difference.

Now that we got that out the way, how do I know this time you really really mean 100% of what you just typed, given it contradicts your very first post. And if its not 100% of what you type, which parts are what you really meant. I mean, I wouldn't want to throw your quote back at you only to find thats not what you really really meant.

What part of this do you not understand? There's a difference between actively seeking to kill the natives and just not caring.

And if you had retracted your first statement about how "its great big plot hole they didn't just drop rocks from orbit at the natives" (ie actively trying to kill them) and change it to "its a great big plot hole they didn't just drop rocks from orbit with the aim of scaring the natives off" (ie just not caring, except enough to scare them off instead of killing them outright of course) I would have pointed out the flaws with the second argument.

Here's a hint. If you are going change your position from one that can't be defended to one you think its easier to defend, concede the initial one instead of getting irked because people aren't buying your shfting the goalposts bullshit, that your position is the same, it just needed clarification, or your (blatantly contradictory post) is only seen that way because it can't convey 100% of what you are saying.