Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

kurzweilai.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#31

Post by gwern »

markbnine wrote: post #13
megaduck wrote: post #10

I think he largely misses the point. Like many other sci-fi pieces, Avatar is a fantasia and not a serious look at our possible future. Much of the human technology was obviously modeled after current American military tech, and that was a deliberate choice. This approach allowed Cameron to tap into current feelings and cultural currents. If things had been more 'realistic', then it would have been alien to modern au…

I thought the low-tech choices for the military were kind of fun. Especially that huge knife for the exoskeleton. That's not something I've seen before. Also the detachable gun.

> Especially that huge knife for the exoskeleton. That's not something I've seen before. Also the detachable gun.

Gundam?

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#32

Post by derefr »

mclin wrote: post #11
megaduck wrote: post #10

I think he largely misses the point. Like many other sci-fi pieces, Avatar is a fantasia and not a serious look at our possible future. Much of the human technology was obviously modeled after current American military tech, and that was a deliberate choice. This approach allowed Cameron to tap into current feelings and cultural currents. If things had been more 'realistic', then it would have been alien to modern au…

It reminds me of this article from little while ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1169875 Nerds want every question answered with a reason, even if that question shouldn't have one. Why is Superman strong? He gets his powers from the sun. Why does he get powers from the sun? Because his skin is a solar battery. Well, why is he still strong at night? Well, he's charged up for years as an adolescent, he has a lo…

Well, yeah—that's what it means for something to be "science fiction." SF is fiction that not only feels scientific, but can be expected to hold up to genuine, in-depth scientific inquiry on its concepts and progression. If you didn't write a movie/book/whatever that will stand up to such nerdery, you should really stop calling it sci-fi.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#33

Post by philwelch »

jawsh wrote: post #28

Ray missed the forest for the trees. No movie de-others the other more than this one. More importantly, he utterly misses the tonality, as if he were watching without a heart. Ray, how is it that your analysis explains nothing of the continued appeal of this movie?

The "continued appeal" of Cameron's last blockbuster (Titanic) lasted about a year longer than this one and then everyone forgot about it. Avatar's gonna go in the history of film for popularizing 3-D, but it's remaining to see whether there's any continued appeal in it.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#34

Post by philwelch »

jcl wrote: post #8

I thought the "networked tree" thing was actually quite clever. Think of it this way: Suppose you were living in Kurzweil's post-Singularity future, where you have absolute command over biological and nanotechnological mechanics, and you wanted to set up a world-wide communications platform that will last forever. You wouldn't mine precious metals and sling fragile fibers as we have done. Instead, you'd engineer it i…

It's an admittedly cool idea, but it's also very blatantly set up as if it isn't technology at all, just so he can paint technology as evil.

James Cameron is a white man using technology and corporations to make movies about how white men, technology, and corporations are evil. I lasted about an hour and a half through the movie before the preachiness outweighed the special effects for me. District 9 was better told and even had a more exciting mecha battle.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#35

Post by sliverstorm »

markbnine wrote: post #13
megaduck wrote: post #10

I think he largely misses the point. Like many other sci-fi pieces, Avatar is a fantasia and not a serious look at our possible future. Much of the human technology was obviously modeled after current American military tech, and that was a deliberate choice. This approach allowed Cameron to tap into current feelings and cultural currents. If things had been more 'realistic', then it would have been alien to modern au…

I thought the low-tech choices for the military were kind of fun. Especially that huge knife for the exoskeleton. That's not something I've seen before. Also the detachable gun.

The american military generally does not follow this stereotype to the least, but there is a long-standing conception of armed forces using somewhat dated, simple technology. The reason of course being reliability and serviceability. Never dated to the point of being useless, but behind the cutting edge.

Frankly if I was on some mission light years from civilization, I'd like to have something dead-reliable and easy to fix if it breaks.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#36

Post by sliverstorm »

eagleal wrote: post #26
yesbabyyes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feelings exactly. I am quite surprised that Kurzweil misses that. After watching the film, I thought the Na'vi had pretty much mastered the whole "hooking everything to the Internet" thing. Kurzweil sounds like a child, angry because Cameron didn't let the humans have that advanced technology. In fact, it's rather Kurzweil who fails to see "beyond" today's technology, and envision a world where technology doesn't…

He looked over the Na'vi bio-networking quite superficially. But his point was that how can a rhinoceros destroy a robot like that. It's like you take an armored elephant against an M1A2 Abrams.

We're talking about technology and life forms that don't exist, but imho:

The rhinoceros was huge. A couple bullets, even from the robots, will not stop something that size in it's tracks.

The robots are smaller, flimsier, and seemed to posses lesser firepower than tanks.

Elephants have armor and defense nowhere in their body. The rhinoceros in Avatar looked like they had a veritable carapace to me.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#37

Post by [deleted] »

eagleal wrote: post #26
yesbabyyes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feelings exactly. I am quite surprised that Kurzweil misses that. After watching the film, I thought the Na'vi had pretty much mastered the whole "hooking everything to the Internet" thing. Kurzweil sounds like a child, angry because Cameron didn't let the humans have that advanced technology. In fact, it's rather Kurzweil who fails to see "beyond" today's technology, and envision a world where technology doesn't…

He looked over the Na'vi bio-networking quite superficially. But his point was that how can a rhinoceros destroy a robot like that. It's like you take an armored elephant against an M1A2 Abrams.

[deleted]

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#38

Post by cryptoz »

philwelch wrote: post #34
jcl wrote: post #8

I thought the "networked tree" thing was actually quite clever. Think of it this way: Suppose you were living in Kurzweil's post-Singularity future, where you have absolute command over biological and nanotechnological mechanics, and you wanted to set up a world-wide communications platform that will last forever. You wouldn't mine precious metals and sling fragile fibers as we have done. Instead, you'd engineer it i…

It's an admittedly cool idea, but it's also very blatantly set up as if it isn't technology at all, just so he can paint technology as evil. James Cameron is a white man using technology and corporations to make movies about how white men, technology, and corporations are evil. I lasted about an hour and a half through the movie before the preachiness outweighed the special effects for me. District 9 was better told…

James Cameron does not paint technology as evil. It is very clear that he thinks the greatest technology of all is the Avatar itself; the Avatar is humanity's achievement in science and technology that allowed us to communicate with aliens in a familiar way.

The dull grey ships and weapons of the military look backwards and old compared to Avatar technology.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#39

Post by sliverstorm »

barmstrong wrote: post #4

Kurzweil probably has no room to criticize given that he has never attempted to make a film like that and probably couldn't do better himself - but I agree with his general point that the movie was anti-technology and anti-corporation. This is a disturbing and misinformed viewpoint held by many people in Hollywood for some reason.

disturbing? misinformed? To a certain degree, the detractors are a positive thing. They are like the brakes on a train, preventing it from becoming a runaway train.

For example, Skynet... imho, that will NEVER happen, cause everybody is so fscking scared of it. We'll get to the point where it could have happened, but fear will probably ensure we have safeguards and such.

Re: Reflections on Avatar by Ray Kurzweil

#40

Post by cracki »

gnaritas wrote: post #30
philh wrote: post #19

I liked the technology. It looked plausible, not primitive. Exoskeletons that are "beginning to be deployed" can plausibly be widespread in the future. I can believe that guns will continue to operate on the same principals as they have done for a thousand years. They didn't show the same restraint with the nature, unfortunately. Why did everything need six legs and four eyes, and why didn't Na'vi hair evolve to be p…

> Why did everything need six legs and four eyes For the same reason most animals on earth have 4 legs and two eyes, common genetic ancestry; It was actually a nice touch. > and why didn't Na'vi hair evolve to be prehensile when they started needing to shove it down the data tubes of irate wildlife They already had hands, a prehensile hair connection wouldn't likely offer enough advantage to become a primary trait.

four eyes might actually benefit the owner. with 2 eyes, you can cover 360 degrees without stereo vision, or half that with stereo vision.

two pairs of eyes should give the owner superior awareness of its surroundings.

six legs... the na'vi didn't have 6 limbs. they're an exception. that should have been continued, to maybe 4 arms, like the tree monkeys did.

showing the use of 6 legs isn't a problem. enough things on earth already do that.

humanoids with 4 legs might have worked... they'd have looked less human though. also, i can't imagine why a 4-legged humanoid would ride a 6-legged horse. Kurzweil pointed out that this film is meant to make money, so 4 legs wouldn't have worked so well.

humanoids with 4 arms, that's already difficult from a practical standpoint. what does a 4-armed humanoid use its arms for? the bow and arrow for a 4-armed creature might just be too hard to extrapolate.

Post reply on HN