impossible planets

[Myasishchev]

Just to point this out, in case someone hasn't already - every known planet in reality is a "one environment" world...it's Earth that seems to be the freak.

That's because Earth is the only planet with continents and oceans and thus the only one with climate--except, perhaps, and only from time to time, Titan. But we could expect any other planet with continents and oceans to be equally disuniform, for the same reasons Earth is.

 

[Christopher]

^
Which isn't really a problem for Avatar. While we also begin with humans in a situation which I guess is fairly plausible; the film gives us the rather fantastical aliens and world of Pandora early on. While there are elements of grounded science fiction it's pretty much an outright science fantasy film.

And that's a shame, because there's a near-total dearth in film and television of the kind of credible, well-thought-out, hard-SF worldbuilding you can find in prose, and of all the filmmakers out there, James Cameron is probably the one most capable of making the effort to bring such credibility to the movies. He does seem to have put a lot of thought and research into Avatar, and there are a lot of plausible things (like sublight-limited space travel) alongside the more fanciful elements. So if he could go halfway like that, why not go the rest of the way?

Of course, part of that was studio pressure. I gather he originally wanted the Na'vi to be more genuinely alien, but the studio insisted they be sufficiently humanlike to be attractive, given that the story involved a human falling in love with one of them. I guess a large part of the reason hard-SF worldbuilding is rare in film is that mass audiences have a limit on their tolerance for the strange and exotic.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Well you should see it, Christopher, to decide for yourself... It's more than fantasy for sure, although Cameron himself would be the first to admit that he was not making a hard SF film. But still, there is a surprising amount of it left in the film.

As for making the Na'vi more humanoid, that was Cameron's idea from the beginning, in order to facilitate a more relateable (sp?) love story. I have seen some of the ideas they started out with, which did look more alien. Ultimately they scaled that back a bit.

 

[Kegg]

And that's a shame,

YMMV, naturally. I happen to like extravagant planetary romance and hallucinatory dream worlds ueber alles, but I'm a rather different sort no doubt.

Of course, part of that was studio pressure. I gather he originally wanted the Na'vi to be more genuinely alien, but the studio insisted they be sufficiently humanlike to be attractive, given that the story involved a human falling in love with one of them.

I don't think that has anything to do with realism, though. The Na'vi aren't inherently less realistic than the other creatures on the planet, they're just marginally less fanciful than they may have been. I'm pretty sure them having a literal bond with nature and the trees acting as a global network powered by a Gaia-type entity is all Cameron, also. It's pretty clear it was never his intention to provide a realistic film and it makes as much sense expecting it as it would be to ask for accuracy from Hercules and Xena.

I guess a large part of the reason hard-SF worldbuilding is rare in film is that mass audiences have a limit on their tolerance for the strange and exotic.

That's not an either-or. Worldscapes can be plenty strange and exotic and alienating to mass audiences while not being remotely plausible; Fantastic Planet is perhaps one of the more bizarre examples.

 

[Christopher]

Well you should see it, Christopher, to decide for yourself...

If I could remotely afford to see movies in the theater right now, I would've already seen this. And District 9. And Moon. And a few others. I hate being broke.

And that's a shame,

YMMV, naturally. I happen to like extravagant planetary romance and hallucinatory dream worlds ueber alles, but I'm a rather different sort no doubt.

There is no reason in the world why extravagant planetary romance can't be grounded in realism. In fact, real scientific discoveries often turn out to be far wilder and more extraordinary than anyone's pure imagination ever came up with. For generations, people have been writing about fanciful, exotic alien environments, but then science has come along and exposed amazing possibilities that never occured to them. The imagination is a powerful thing, but it needs material to work with, to extrapolate from. Scientific knowledge is not in conflict with imagination, but is a very potent enhancement for it.

I don't think that has anything to do with realism, though. The Na'vi aren't inherently less realistic than the other creatures on the planet, they're just marginally less fanciful than they may have been.

Humanoid aliens are not realistic in the slightest. Especially on a planet where all the other life follows a radically different body plan, as others have remarked on.

I'm pretty sure them having a literal bond with nature and the trees acting as a global network powered by a Gaia-type entity is all Cameron, also. It's pretty clear it was never his intention to provide a realistic film and it makes as much sense expecting it as it would be to ask for accuracy from Hercules and Xena.

You haven't listened to a word I wrote, have you? I've explained already why it's not the same thing.

I guess a large part of the reason hard-SF worldbuilding is rare in film is that mass audiences have a limit on their tolerance for the strange and exotic.

That's not an either-or. Worldscapes can be plenty strange and exotic and alienating to mass audiences while not being remotely plausible; Fantastic Planet is perhaps one of the more bizarre examples.

I know it's not an either-or. But try convincing narrow-minded Hollywood executives of that.

 

[Kegg]

If I could remotely afford to see movies in the theater right now, I would've already seen this. And District 9. And Moon. And a few others. I hate being broke.

Moon is hard sci-fi to the best of my ignoramus knowledge. I'd be interested to hear what you thought of it, regardless, if it shows up on TV eventually or whatever.

There is no reason in the world why extravagant planetary romance can't be grounded in realism.

That can be true. But inherently impossible bizarre alien worlds can also be very fanciful and - to me - entertaining, and not something I particularly want to see go away either. I'm none too discriminatory here, the important thing is the world is interesting to me. Pandora mostly is, from a visual standpoint. My problems with the world have less to do with how implausible it is to how silly some of it is.

Unrelated to Avatar I also just like hallucinogenic worlds that fall apart a few days later, and I do like the way Avatar thematically at least relates itself to dream imagery. That's sort of the opposite of carefully constructed worlds too, that's true.

haven't listened to a word I wrote, have you? I've explained already why it's not the same thing.

No, you haven't, actually. You explained why that isn't the same thing for The Abyss, because the science-levels of that film are otherwise so consistently high. As I pointed out, this is not the case for Avatar - it plays its fantasy hand very, very early on in the game.

Basically, it's more like Star Wars as far as that goes.

 

[Myasishchev]

Moon is so ridiculously awesome. And it is pretty hard sci-fi. The only thing that isn't is the gravity generators which have apparently been installed in Sam's base. But as has been noted many places elsewhere, microgravity is probably the special effect with the highest cost-to-benefit ratio I can think of.

 

[Kegg]

Moon is so ridiculously awesome.

Oh, yeah, that too. It's the best sci-fi film to come along in a long, long time. I'd be hard pressed offhand to name a single sci-fi film of the decade just passed I enjoyed as much as I did Moon.

And it is pretty hard sci-fi. The only thing that isn't is the gravity generators which have apparently been installed in Sam's base.

See, I knew it'd be something.

On topic: Since I threw out its name gratuituously earlier on, the Fantastic Planet of the film of the same name is plenty implausible, though most of the film actually takes place on another world, the Draag homeworld (I forget if it has a name). Giant crystal structures that can explode from singing and inchoate madness, the whole thing has the internal logic of an acid trip or something. The planet of Gandahar makes a similar degree of non-sense.

 

[Christopher]

That can be true. But inherently impossible bizarre alien worlds can also be very fanciful and - to me - entertaining, and not something I particularly want to see go away either.

I'm not saying I want fanciful worlds to go away. What bothers me is that truly plausible hard SF is almost completely absent from film and television, and that's a frustrating omission. I'd be happy to have a mix of hard SF, soft SF, and outright fantasy. It just upsets me that hard SF is almost totally lacking from the mix where the mass media are concerned. It's my favorite genre both as an audience member and a creator, and the persistent refusal of the mass media to engage with it makes me feel discriminated against.

You explained why that isn't the same thing for The Abyss, because the science-levels of that film are otherwise so consistently high. As I pointed out, this is not the case for Avatar - it plays its fantasy hand very, very early on in the game.

But it also includes a number of very plausible and well-researched elements, as I said. It's not complete fantasy. So I still say that Hercules and Xena -- shows so fanciful that they never really denied they were just made-up TV stories and casually tore the fourth wall and internal continuity to shreds -- are very poor analogies.

 

[Myasishchev]

Was the oxygen jello actually plausible? I forget. I want to think it sort-of is--I read an offhand comment in some book or other that suggested that lunged animals can't breathe water because the dissolved oxygen ratio is just too low (which is, duh, why fish don't have lungs, but a throughput system to process as much oxygenated water as possible).

 

[Kegg]

It's my favorite genre both as an audience member and a creator, and the persistent refusal of the mass media to engage with it makes me feel discriminated against.

Fair enough, but Avatar is a symptom rather than anything else, and certainly does not pretend to the hard SF mantle. Besides, maybe one of Duncan Jones' later films - Source Code, Mute or so on - will achieve more financial success as far as hard sci-fi goes. Or not, I don't know. I do think the continuing proliferation of SFX will enable more sci-fi films to be made on smaller budgets, which will probably allow more niche fields - as hard SF largely is - to be covered.

But it also includes a number of very plausible and well-researched elements, as I said.

So, wait, the existence of plausiblity inherently precludes fantasy? That's not really a maxim I'd ever sign up to as coherent. I think it's perfectly acceptable to mix and match such elements, and Avatar if anything is very, very light on any hard science. Yeah, the humans use non-FTL, but that's because there's no particularly good plot reason for it to be otherwise - they also use mecha-suits complete with daggers, so the unreality is not confined to the alien world.

If anything I think it's a sensible idea - have some elements that ground your fantasy so not every detail is fantastical. Must the humans use warp drive in a film like this?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Was the oxygen jello actually plausible? I forget. I want to think it sort-of is--I read an offhand comment in some book or other that suggested that lunged animals can't breathe water because the dissolved oxygen ratio is just too low (which is, duh, why fish don't have lungs, but a throughput system to process as much oxygenated water as possible).

I thought the "jello" was real and they used an actual mouse.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, the mouse did "breathe" the oxidizing liquid. It was simulated for the actors though.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There are some things that actors will not do, even with Cameron breathing down their necks.

 

[Myasishchev]

Cool.

 

[DWF]

Was the oxygen jello actually plausible? I forget. I want to think it sort-of is--I read an offhand comment in some book or other that suggested that lunged animals can't breathe water because the dissolved oxygen ratio is just too low (which is, duh, why fish don't have lungs, but a throughput system to process as much oxygenated water as possible).

It wasn't jello but yes liquid breathing is plausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

 

[Myasishchev]

Fascinating stuff, although there appear to be some major problems with getting rid of blood CO2 as the pressure of the PFC or other breathing liquid becomes higher than the CO2 pressure coming the other way.

It all comes back to CO2, doesn't it!

 

[Christopher]

So, wait, the existence of plausiblity inherently precludes fantasy?

No, it precludes Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess as good analogies for Avatar. Don't confuse a specific point with a generalized one. I'm certainly not saying fantasy can't be plausible; hell, I've just written a fantasy story whose core premise depends on the idea of magic being subject to the law of conservation of energy. I'm just saying that H:TLJ and X:WP represent a category of fantasy that made no effort to be even remotely plausible and indeed revelled in its own absurdity, and thus they're really very bad analogies for a plausible fantasy as you're arguing that Avatar is.

 

[Kegg]

I'm just saying that H:TLJ and X:WP represent a category of fantasy that made no effort to be even remotely plausible and indeed revelled in its own absurdity, and thus they're really very bad analogies for a plausible fantasy as you're arguing that Avatar is.

I never argued Avatar was a plausible fantasy. I've just observed it's a fantasy with some plausible elements. The same is true for those schlocky shows, I'm sure, even if those plausible elements are as self-evident as 'people breathe air' and so on. The difference being the plausibility there is doubtless unresearched and uncommented upon, but we do reflexively get details we know to be true right if we have no particularly good reason to do them otherwise.