Badmovies.org Forum

Hello badmoviephiles.    A few weeks ago, I caught James Cameron's Avatar on HBO (I like to call it Horrible Body Odor :bouncegiggle:)  I was delighted that the makers of this film went the extra step to make the aliens appear less human.  However, this movie has one serious reality flaw. 

I was told by my brother that the planet these aliens were on was ten times the size of Earth.  If a planet was ten times as big as Earth (making it a super earth) it would also be 5 to ten times as massive.  And when a planet is 5 to ten times as massive, the gravity is 5 to ten times as strong.   On a planet with ten times the gravity, a 150 pound man would weight 1500 pounds!  Also, the fact these aliens were twice as tall as humans wouldn't be possible because the planet's gravity would severely restrict their growth.

Also, why did the aliens have blue skin?  There is no such thing as natural blue pigment.  Sure we have blue birds, but their feathers as blue, not their skin.

Shouldn't you be going by the movie rather than what your brother tells you?  :bouncegiggle:



Although it's an uncommon coloration, there are plenty of animals with blue skin: fish, frogs, the mandrill has a blue nose, and certain species of monkey have blue scrotums (I'll spare you pictures of the last).

It's possible for people to be born with blue skin.  (It's called methemoglobinemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methemoglobinemia).) 

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MhAZFoV72MI/SrU7pu5CSPI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/--WU1rUNbn8/s400/4.jpg)

Can't give you a passing grade on this post.

Pandora is a moon of a gas giant; the aliens did not live on the gas giant itself.



The Blue-tailed Skink:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Blue_Tailed_Skink.jpg/220px-Blue_Tailed_Skink.jpg)

The Blue-footed Booby: "Their feet range from a pale turquoise to a deep aquamarine"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Booby.jpg/250px-Booby.jpg)

And Chow dogs have blue tongues.

Next?

They specifically mention the gravity on Pandora is slightly less than Earth's.  The implication is it is somewhat smaller. 


And of course, lifeforms on another planet will follow the exact same rules as Earth.  There's also NOTHING, literally not a single physical thing, unique to any planet besides Earth.  Right?  

I'm no scientist, but wouldn't a lesser gravity allow for taller beings, being that it's not restricting the growth of it's life forms ?  The movie also mentioned that the Na'vi had bones "the strength of carbon fiber" in one part of the film.  If I'm right, CF is a light material. That also would come as a natural development on a planet where there gravity was lesser, would it not? A great combination of strength and durability w\o any weight to hold them down.  Just a thought.

I think you're right, actually.  But I'm not sure if the lighter gravity is enough to really cause much effect - if this is true (it might be noted there's only one slight reference, and it's from Quarritch, hardly a scientist) it has to be minimal as nothing appears to fall at a different rate than on Earth.  Also, I'd say ultra-light strong fibers in bones is probably more likely on a HIGH gravity planet, since the lighter you are on a heavy planet the easier it is to support your increased weight.  I dunno though, just guesing really.

Actually I think you may be right also. Reading your reply, it does make sense that a lighter, yet tensile-strength skeletal structure would be a balance to a body with increased weight, for terms of movement.

The Na'vi were very strong, agile people despite their height (and great weight) and their muscularity probabaly developed as a result of their adaptation to the planet and it's gravity, with their bones reaping the benefits of the tensile strength they possessed.

Indeed, science fiction movies make for some interesting speculations and question raisers..

Actually, I don't mean to refer back to this but there is some interesting thought it might have an opposite effect.  The body will only build what is needed to sustain it.  In the absence of gravity, the body atrophies.  It is possible that less gravity would result in smaller creatures as there seems to be some need to have the counter affect to produce mass.   I have read some speculation on the point but of course it is limited thinking as we are limited by our perception.  Just a thought to throw out there. 

Wired Weenie...I thought you got off yer reality kick.
It's a fantasy...it's basically the whiteman driving out the Indians. It's a dam cartoon. FANTASY, you momo!
I was gonna give you a demerit for old times sake,but it ain't worth the trouble to move my arrow to the "you're a dumbass" key.

OK, I can go with that...the absence of gravity would be a counter to producing mass and strength.  It would be the same if you were training with weights, only gravity is the natural progressive resistance we go thru every day, thus your natural weight training you've had since you've learned to walk.   Great thread, BTW, some good thoughts thrown out there.   :bouncegiggle:  :smile:

I like the exercise.  It is enjoyable to ponder the subject.  We could never know for sure but it is grounds for interesting thoughts and speculation.  We always think what can be or what would be of course being unsure 'til we see.  It is the limitation of us as a species.  We are a bit of the old "Doubting Thomas"?  Unable to know or believe 'til we see first hand.  If you should ever like I am always open to discuss such topics.   

Agreed!  We as humans are held back by our classic "if we can't see it, how do we know it's real?" school of thought.   

Naturally, seeing such things as The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or extra-terrestrial life would be the greatest payoff, but at the same time, would be a bit let down if we did, because then the mystery would be solved, and they would be tossed out in search of a new toy, so to speak.

And at the same time, there's enough evidence that something is out there, we just don't know what.  The age old battle: "we can't see it, BUT...."

I think, perchance,that some newcomers may not understand my aversion to WyreWizard. Back in the day,he usta bait us. Me and Menard usta call him out. Fact is...why rag a movie because it's "unreal"? It's fantasy-let go! Back in the day Wired Weenie was more blatant...he;s doing the same...but being subtle....ICheck out his old threads...he's an instigator.

WW......This is directed to you.....if you wanna just hang out and discuse film....GROOVY! Don't start your "Realty" Bullsh1t.

Everyone here missed you while you were away RC.    :thumbup:

Yes, we did!

RC, I am sorry I got sucked into feeding our resident troll.  But only because it encourages him to do it again.  :tongueout:

A fantasy, you say?  Strange, the DVD and Blue-Ray packages all say its science fiction.  If its fantasy, where is the magic?  The wizards?  The medieval battles?  The beautiful princesses in distress?  If this is a fantasy then its a techofantasy

I was gonna take the high road and ignore you.....but nah! What I realy wanna say is....your a dick!

Avatar had only one nasty reality flaw?

 :buggedout:

I thought that guy was blue because he ate pieces of silver all the time.

let me help RC, Wire- read the Bolded word: fiction