tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post8149266756148069051..comments2023-12-29T00:20:29.844-08:00Comments on Logicology: But what does the rock *DO*??Sean W. Malonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-70600243774400080212010-01-06T22:09:08.497-08:002010-01-06T22:09:08.497-08:00Ryan, I do - You're perfectly entitled to enjo...Ryan, I do - You're perfectly entitled to enjoy the movie... I enjoyed several aspects of the film, especially all the flying scenes and such, but I can think of a dozen Sci-Fi films I would rank much higher. And many many films in general that beat Avatar from a purely cinematic standpoint.<br /><br />The point though has little to do with my opinions of the movie for cinematic reasons, and everything to do with a personal mission of mine to point out the negative effect on people's understanding of reality and critical reasoning skills that many films - especially the really big, widely seen ones - have on viewers.<br /><br />There is a school of thought that says that it's just a movie, and doesn't matter, but there is a pile of research that I believe provides substantial evidence to the contrary. And I care, because it's my industry, and because I care about people thinking and supporting things that make sense... I view that as profoundly good for the world overall, and believing that humanity is as they are on display in Avatar just doesn't remotely fit that model.<br /><br />Cheers.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-83059850482753303392010-01-06T18:22:14.881-08:002010-01-06T18:22:14.881-08:00There we go Sean, I finally got that review out of...There we go Sean, I finally got that review out of you. I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan though. Yes, I did enjoy the movie, but I won't go into detail about that, as our opinions seem to differ tremendously. We can agree to disagree. I have my opinions and you have yours. I respect that. That is the reason I had been searching for an article like yours in the first place Sean. I am more interested in the response to Avatar, rather than the movie itself. The reason I have spent so much time debating with you is because you are the only person I have seen so far with opinions as unique as yours. (Except for the little review that you just gave me. That was a little cliche). I could go on and keep rambling about what the movie meant to me, but I realize you have your opinions set in stone, just as I do. But either way, I just want to make sure you know I'm not trying to be a defensive fanboy or anything. I am merely poking and prodding, looking for something interesting to take part in. I thank you for writing such a unique and interesting piece, and for interacting with your viewers. Sean, you are a very talented writer, and I respect your opinions, just as I hope you respect mine and everyone else's.RB4Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264271265650762696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-5911401327556028092010-01-06T17:43:52.864-08:002010-01-06T17:43:52.864-08:00Ryan, you're still severely missing the point,...Ryan, you're still severely missing the point, and considering I've spent the last 7+ years of my life working in the entertainment industry, helping to produce films of all kinds, I don't think I need a lesson in how to view/enjoy Sci-Fi.<br /><br />In either case, some is dramatically better than others. If you want to watch quality science fiction, I'll encourage you to watch Joss Whedon's Firefly, or perhaps Iron Giant, or any other number of excellent stories that aren't based entirely on flawed premises and actually reflect humanity in a more thoughtful way. <br /><br />Notably, I wasn't *reviewing* Avatar, if I had, I'd have pointed out that the characters were cliched, the plot has been rehashed dozens of times over the last 30-40 years, and even the concept of inhabiting other bodies isn't remotely new (see the recent Bruce Willis flop: Surrogates for a recent example). I'd have also noted that, while the 3D and CG were good, so what?<br /><br />The measure of a quality film isn't merely the realism of its special effects. Nor is it the amount of money it's made - if that were true than Transformers 2 would be one of the best films of all time, instead of being one of the worst.<br /><br />Plenty of Sci-Fi is god-awful. Most, in fact. But that's true of everything. Part of the quality of Sci-Fi, in my opinion, is how well it metaphorically reflects truth about the human experience. Avatar fails miserably on that count, basically foregoing humanity entirely and saying that the only "good" human, isn't human at all, but is rather an alien.<br /><br />I struggle to think of a more depressing theme. There was little to no hope in that film at all, at least, not for man-kind.<br /><br />And it's all based on flawed premises to begin with... And the fact that it's a fictional story makes no difference to that point.<br /><br /><br />PS. Don't confuse what an Avatar body costs (which, I believe the Avatar wiki says cost $20 Million to build - which is apparently <b>James Cameron's</b> favorite number, though certainly not mine), with what R&D to get to that point costs. Now we're getting into pure speculation, but for reference the FDA <i>approval</i> process alone for a new medicine costs around $1 Billion. Several times that amount is what's spent on basic drug development.<br /><br />Developing a fully functional, wirelessly controlled Avatar assuredly costs much, much more... But yeah... Good luck with your fandom, Ryan.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-82283832061842300582010-01-06T16:44:16.371-08:002010-01-06T16:44:16.371-08:00Sean, I see all of your points, and agree with a m...Sean, I see all of your points, and agree with a majority of them. However, I am not looking to debate many of the points you have brought up, like the cause of the recession and the basis of greed. I stumbled across your site looking for various opinions on Avatar, and am very glad I came across your article. I am happy that I am encouraging you to right more articles like this; that is what someone with your unique thinking should do. But just to reiterate my point, you are looking to deep into this. I have not yet seen one opinion that involves the in depth attention you have given to a "little grey rock." But just for fun, let's say that your opinions are the correct ones, and everyone believes that James Cameron screwed up pricing the Unobtanium (Which by the way probably took Cameron 10 seconds to think of the price, and was never looked back upon). Fine. Its unrealistic. But there are two very glaring points here:<br />A. The movie is science FICTION, so no facts or figures have to make sense. People who rely so heavily on those little facts shouldn't be watching the movie in the first place, as it takes a little imagination to enjoy science fiction.<br />B. The movie has one purpose, and one purpose only: Make money by entertaining. This goal has easily been accomplished, as the millions of people have flocked to enjoy a revolution in Hollywood, many of them going a second time. They pay their $12 to receive entertainment, and there is no doubt that they get that. Even if they do share your opinion that the entire storyline is based on the number $20 million, they are still entertained. I would be in complete shock if someone thought otherwise about seeing this film because of it being "unrealistic." The ENTIRE FILM IS UNREALISTIC! Most of the movie is based on Jake spending his time on Pandora through his Avatar. Last time I checked, it seems a little unlikely that a person can control another body by just lying in a box. And you know what else makes no sense? Flying banshees, connecting with a tree to talk to your god, and little lizards that glow when they start flying. Its science fiction! If you can just ignore that one miniscule number, then I can bet you would enjoy the movie better. Just sit back and imagine! You don't need to be analyzing every little digit here and there. If you do that, you just miss out on the amazing things going on in the movie! <br />And just one last thing. You say that it is economically improbable that humans would travel light years with billions of dollars of military equipment and that they would go on "spending trillions on Avatar R&D" (Your words). First off, with only 20 known Avatars and each Avatar costing your favorite number of $20 million, operating the program comes out to $400 million. Give the program a godly budget of $100 billion for R&D and you are pretty short of that trillion mark. Second, if you would once again just look a little past this lovely rock we are talking about, you would see that Earth is dying. There is overpopulation, and a extremely bad energy crisis. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Hell, if I am the leader of any country at that time, its time to shoot for the moon, and pray to God that I hit something. While it makes no sense to go on a unobtanium hunt while everything is fine and dandy, your options are pretty limited when things get bad. You are between mining your ass off for a valuable rock or sitting back and watching as your planet falls apart. I think there is a slightly higher chance that you will hit a home run by swinging, as apposed to watching that ball go right past you. If your apartment is on fire, and you are trapped with your back against the 5th story window, what would you do?RB4Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264271265650762696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-66174992474828777692010-01-06T15:18:34.506-08:002010-01-06T15:18:34.506-08:00Oh... Also, if you think the solution to Madoff is...Oh... Also, if you think the solution to Madoff is more regulation... No.<br /><br />To quote from myself in an article about the recent financial overhaul bill, <a href="http://seanwmalone.blogspot.com/2009/12/whos-ready-for-stagnation.html" rel="nofollow">Who's Ready for Stagnation?</a>:<br /><br />"Because some random government officials - likely mediocre graduates of business schools in finance who couldn't find work at actual investment banks - are going to be able to understand and regulate such an incredibly complex realm of investment as derivatives markets. Right."<br /><br /><br />Trouble with all these regulatory schemes is that the regulators will never be smarter or more knowledgeable about investment banking than the guys who do that professionally at a high level - as a result, they're easy to manipulate or "capture", as economists like to say. Madoff was investigated by the SEC numerous times - yet, somehow, they failed to stop his ponzi scheme. More or more powerful regulators won't do any better. What's worse, is that all any of that does is lull the public into an even deeper sense of false security.<br /><br />But the Fed has already spent most of this year ballooning the money supply - once banks actually start lending that money out, we'll see yet another high profile round of fraud... Though if I had to guess, not for a few years yet given the magnitude of the 2008-09 cockup.<br /><br /><i>Less</i> manipulation of the money supply & interest rates, combined with a much more free and competitive market place where the incentive is on individual investors to protect their assets, on the other hand, just might prevent the Madoff's of the world from being able to engage in massive crimes.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-14487119082435207582010-01-06T15:05:17.972-08:002010-01-06T15:05:17.972-08:00As for Bernie Madoff, you're making my point: ...As for Bernie Madoff, you're making my point: Bernie Madoff was a greedy guy, sure... But you know what he didn't do? Expend billions of dollars worth of construction equipment and war-machines in a futile search for a rock of paradoxical worth. Nope. He merely tricked a bunch of people into giving him money for doing <i>nothing</i>. Greedy and unscrupulous people do *that* when they can. They AVOID wars since they are expensive, and these greedy people want to hold onto their money, remember?<br /><br />That said, the Madoffs of the world are largely only possible in a financial environment of expanding money supplies. When the Federal Reserve floods the market with new cash, there are always grifters ready to siphon as much of it as they can into their own little schemes - and because there's so much money flowing freely and the economy always <i>appears</i> to be roaring, people are more willing to risk their money without looking too deeply into what they're risking it on. As a result Bernie Madoff has a much easier time of things.<br /><br />In a world without a Federal Reserve or other fiat currency system, and in times of economic downturn, people are more careful with their investments and investors look into guys like Madoff much more carefully.<br /><br />The point though, is that Madoff's level of greed doesn't fluctuate. At all. So greed is as bad an explanation for the financial crisis as there is, and is akin to blaming gravity every time you break a plate.<br /><br />Naturally greed exists, but it - by itself - has no power, and when there is a flood of cheap money available to greedy people, they *don't* spend it in ways as depicted in the movies. <br /><br />Anyway, Ryan - I'm glad you stopped by and commented, but I think you're largely only convincing me that writing stuff like this is a valuable thing to do from time to time - as it's just one more confirmation that people take a lot more of their beliefs about the world from movies and television than anyone ever cares to admit.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-5666563597731757542010-01-06T15:05:06.586-08:002010-01-06T15:05:06.586-08:00Ryan, the problem is that the price tag is the ent...Ryan, the problem is that the price tag is the entire point...<br /><br />It would make more sense, given the rest of the film, for the price of the rock to be more along the lines of < $2 million per kilo. But at those prices, no one is traveling across the galaxy to obtain the stuff and they're certainly not doing it if it costs them billions in defense and other equipment.<br /><br />It's a severe problem with the overall film actually, because Cameron's failure to understand basic economic principles is the foundation upon which the entire plot is based. Without the high price tag, he cannot make the case that greedy people would even be there in the first place. But with the high price, the rock itself is shown to be far too scarce to be of long-term use to humanity (note again that we don't power our cars with $20,000,000 gallons of gasoline), thus not warranting the demand except in very limited applications.<br /><br />I don't feel the need to rehash half of my article, but the point is <b>not</b> that greed doesn't exist (of course it does!), but that greedy people go for the *EASIEST* way of making a ton of money, not the hardest!<br /><br />Traversing the galaxy with thousands of humans, including an army with massive amounts of heavy machinery and spending trillions on Avatar R&D only to start fighting a war with a species with home-field advantage, a bunch of special powers, and an entire ecosystem that wants you dead for a mineral as portrayed is about the most expensive venture I could ever conceive of.<br /><br />There is *no WAY*, in any universe, that that makes any business sense at all... If you think it does, I'm suggesting that your conception of business people, and even greed as a motivational feature of humanity is entirely derived from film and has no basis in reality.<br /><br />And THAT, Ryan, is why I wrote the article to begin with: People get insane notions of greed and business from the <b>movies</b> they consume, and they believe that that's how the world is because that's how the writers of film & television set up their worlds to be.<br /><br />But none of it makes any sense.<br /><br />The entire operation on Pandora, for the purposes as expressed by Cameron and his writing team, <i>would not</i> happen as written.<br /><br />Now... A government wishing to take over a new planet by force, to expand their territory & power? Yeah, absolutely. But that wasn't the story Cameron wrote. Cameron wrote a story about greed. And his story makes absolutely no sense.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-34409233289398487102010-01-06T14:07:42.610-08:002010-01-06T14:07:42.610-08:00Sean, let me first point out that you wrote a very...Sean, let me first point out that you wrote a very good article, no arguing that. It seems that you misinterpretated my last post however. I did not say that the recession was caused soley on greed. A perfect storm of events occured, not just greed. I also did not say that people are only greedy sometimes. People have been greedy for thousands of years, and will continue to be. What I am saying is that greed plays a tremendous role in all that is wrong with humans, no matter what the reason or motivation. A guy named Bernie Madoff didn't have a truckload of motivation 20 years ago, but the greed that lived inside him took about $65 billion away from America. So who cares about the legitimacy of people wanting money? Would the entire movie be better if Unobtanium was $2 million a kilo instead? Or if it wasn't a mineral, making it more useful in your mind? I applaud your ability to find these small details, as it shows you are very aware and observant. But those small things should not heavily influence your opinion on the movie. Honestly, if you were James Cameron, would you sit around for hours debating whether or not the Unobtanium price tag was legitimate? The purpose of such a high number is to convince the audience that it is worthwhile for the RDA to stay on Pandora. The entire movie was not just based on the price. The bottom line is that the main character who is supposed to be helping the RDA changes his mind and fights for the cause he believes in, after literally steping into the Na'vi's shoes. Once again, I think you did a wonderful piece of writing. I just believe that small things such as the price of a rock that is mentioned no more than 3 times during the movie should not be the basis of critisism. I hope you see what I mean. By the way, I look forward to reading more of your articles, as they are all very interesting and thought provoking.RB4Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264271265650762696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-63982126952461044582010-01-06T08:03:23.355-08:002010-01-06T08:03:23.355-08:00Your analysis of this situation is extremely bias ...Your analysis of this situation is extremely bias and not considerate of real situations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-51519869577219648492010-01-05T22:19:09.646-08:002010-01-05T22:19:09.646-08:00Well Sean. "You are obviously.."
GREED ...Well Sean. "You are obviously.."<br /><br />GREED BAD<br />CORPORATION GREED<br />CORPORATION BAD<br /><br />God you're looking into the politics too much, it's just about the simple message that<br /><br />GREED BAD!<br /><br />I mean it happens all the time. That's why James Cameron had to spend hundreds of millions of corp dollars, gathered from corporate contracts using nationwide corporate clients for corporate corporatti to make greedy corporational corporal revenue for his wealthy corporate rich robber baron godforsaken investors to tell everyone!Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-48300443368215734352010-01-05T21:03:33.232-08:002010-01-05T21:03:33.232-08:00Thanks for the comment, Ryan, but my *job* is to b...Thanks for the comment, Ryan, but my *job* is to be critical of film, as I am a media producer professionally... Plenty of films can have all kinds of things wrong with them and that doesn't affect my personal enjoyment of them what-so-ever, but the problem is that the rock is fundamentally the root cause of all the humans' actions on the planet, and it makes no sense.<br /><br />And as such, the metaphor makes no sense.<br /><br />What's unfortunate though... Is that you didn't grasp the point of my essay here - which was that your conception of "greed" comes purely from the fictitious movie-world and it actually <b>ISN'T</b> reality based. And that's rather important. Likewise, the financial crisis has very little to do with greed.... <br /><br />The thing about greed is that it actually doesn't go away. So when the times were "good", are you proposing that there's less greed in the world? You think people somehow are perfectly lovely and selfless only part of the time? <br /><br />Of course not. Greed is a constant. And thus it's a useless explanation of why things go wrong this year instead of that year.<br /><br />And that's kind of the whole thing - you've missed the point of the article, I suspect, because you fundamentally don't understand the economics I was discussing in it... That fact is also why you believe that the financial crisis is a result of greed, rather than the myriad true causes stemming from a massive expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve, low long-term interest rates, and a bunch of laws written specifically to funnel money directly into the housing market. <br /><br />The bankers weren't any more or less greedy than they'd ever been before, what was different about 2003-2008 was the money supply and the policy directing that money directly into real estate. Beyond that, of course we have the long-term understanding of "too big to fail" corporations being able to pass off their losses onto the taxpayer.<br /><br />I encourage you to read the <b>massive</b> amount of material I've written (and published) on this topic here on the Logicology blog and elsewhere.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-59764604030136931872010-01-05T20:50:03.852-08:002010-01-05T20:50:03.852-08:00Just a response to your comment that out of the hu...Just a response to your comment that out of the hundreds/thousands of humans that settled on Pandora, there is no one who believes in the thoughts and rights of the Na'vi. Well, there was kind of this small and insignificant group of scientists whose entire purpose of being on the planet was to develop relations with the natives. You know, a couple of minor characters like Grace, Norm, and that one guy, I can't remember if his name was Josh, Jack...no, it was Jake, thats right. I believe that you are looking too deep into the movie, and not realizing the basics surrounding it. All this right-wing left-wing crap is just ruining the simple messages the movie is sending out. Believe it or not, Avatar is a simple metaphor, for what goes on in our world today, and how corporate greed can truly get out of hand. What just recently was a huge contributing factor to the recession? A bunch of greedy companies on Wall Street wanting more and more. Who cares how much the rock costs? Does it really alter the meaning that much? The bottom line is that it is desirable, and worth a lot to a "dying planet" (Earth). If that isn't enough for you, then why even dwell on the movie? You are obviously someone who cannot be entertained if the smallest detail is not up to snuff.RB4Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264271265650762696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-55993042587462512122010-01-03T20:04:31.633-08:002010-01-03T20:04:31.633-08:00Yes... That's my point, JJ. The cost is prohib...Yes... That's my point, JJ. The cost is prohibitive, and it doesn't do the job as well as what we already have.<br /><br />It is a fine analogy though... In the case of the real-world example of semi-trucks vs. hovercraft, the reason we don't use them is maybe 50% an issue of utility and 50% an issue of cost.<br /><br />In Avatar, it'd be more like 90% an issue of cost and 10% a problem of utility.<br /><br />Sure the Unobtainium might be useful, but the cost is so prohibitive that it makes no sense to use in anything regardless. <br /><br />The whole issue is about opportunity cost, and the cost of fighting a ground war, hiring the Marines and everything else, simply for the opportunity to access some mineral that you could easily acquire in other parts of the planet or which you could trade for makes no sense. And besides, even if you could get the Unobtainium back to Earth, who could afford to buy it at those prices anyway? <br /><br />I can think of 1000 ways to get the mineral that would maximize profit... The least profitable method was chosen by James Cameron for Avatar, and he presented that as the only logical thing a corporation would do. Fail.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-64372280992775149262010-01-03T19:01:29.356-08:002010-01-03T19:01:29.356-08:00Trucks are used on ice roads because hovercraft ar...Trucks are used on ice roads because hovercraft are way too expensive, and a hovercraft that can carry 80,000# of material takes a crew of three, and breaks down a lot. (Just look at the LCATS). They also don't work against measurable elevation, ie, they can't go up hills. And they can't work on uneven surfaces, which is why they're great on the water and beaches, and pretty much nowhere else.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16324448660397483006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-18283544752956691302010-01-03T16:59:30.342-08:002010-01-03T16:59:30.342-08:00I could see that as being valuable to some extent,...I could see that as being valuable to some extent, but not *that* valuable. Consider the show "Ice Road Truckers" (yes, this is related).<br /><br />The first question that comes to mind on that show for me is: "Why don't they use hovercrafts or boats or something less dangerous to transport goods in that part of the world?"<br /><br />The answer is: Because it is a better use of available resources (read: less costly) to simply replace a truck every so often, than it is to build a fleet of ice-proof hovercrafts.<br /><br />Now apply that idea to Avatar... If Unobtainium is useful in anti-gravity technology, fine... But at $20 Million a kilo, you can't exactly plate a ship in the stuff for anything less than billions and billions of dollars, now can you? So if that were the case, it's still much more cost-effective to either not worry about floating around, or to use more conventional means.<br /><br />In either case, anti-gravity isn't exactly a critical ability for mankind, so traveling X lightyears and expending trillions to come back with an unnecessary product that would still cost ordinary people billions is not only a massive loss but also a waste of time.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-6284025522004075662010-01-03T16:45:36.382-08:002010-01-03T16:45:36.382-08:00Good review, I agree!
My 2 cents: the Earthlings ...Good review, I agree!<br /><br />My 2 cents: the Earthlings are going to such great lengths to acquire Unobtainium because it provides superb anti-gravity properties. Such properties would have some good commercial uses, but more likely the mineral is used in military applications.Will Ramseynoreply@blogger.com