Avatar is an amazing film

1. Pro hasn't commented on the fact that the computer generated graphics boost the films rating. I ask the voter to consider whether he/she would go see avatar if it had very poor graphics. I would expect it would ruin the experience of the movie. My point is that you would not go and see the movie for its themes. Finally i will point out a film which has received great box office but poor reviews: Spider man 3. Spider man 3 made almost 900 million in box office (Wikipedia) but received a meta score from critics of 49%. I quote from Rotten Tomatoes avatar is "more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling." Next, As pro states, the film is apart of the science fiction genre. Wikipedia describes science fiction as "different from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature." Furthermore, dictionary.com says that science fiction is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc." Thus, being apart of the science fiction genre, the film must conform to the rules of the science fiction genre or otherwise be considered poor science fiction which would support my claim. Therefore, Ehwa is postulated to be a group of neural connections between trees as suggested by Dr. Grace Augustine. Since no ability of telekinesis (or any other force controlling ability) has been suggested by the film, ehwa's abilities which involve telekinesis are, within the context of the film, impossible. If telekinesis was postulated by the film, then wouldn't other creatures have that ability since they are evolutionarily liked? (With their neural connections). Also, even if Ehwa did have telekinesis, why would Ehwa spend energy lifting up mountains? THe ultimate conclusion from this is that I am not comparing the movie with real world science, i am analyzing the movie with the relative postulated science of the movie. Therefore, everything which goes against the postulated science of the movie is considered a paradox and thus further degrades the quality of the movie. Finally I would like to say that many of the errors in the film are not just science errors, but logic errors which significantly degrade the quality of the movie. Also anything not otherwise postulated by the film should automatically be considered with regular science. FOr example self evident things such as gravity). Point 3- I will point out that technology is directly proportional to a civilization success because of the rules of Technology and Society which says that "Technology and Society or technology and culture refers to the cyclical co-dependence, co-influence, co-production of technology and society upon the other (technology upon culture, and vice-versa). This synergistic relationship occurred from the dawn of humankind, with the invention of the simple tools; and continues into modern technologies such as the printing press and computers." Since it is not postulated otherwise in the film, we can assume this relationship is true. Thus, we can assme humanity is thriving because of its first rate technology and expansionist attitude. Expansion also equals a strong economy further proving my point of Furthermore to address the concerns about humanity which pro has suggested such as burning Jake Sully's brother's corpse without a considerate military funeral, I will ask the question: Is every civilization perfect? To address all points about supply issues, the space shuttle has clearly made multiple runs to the mining site because of the vast amount of mining equipment, military hardware, and people we see in the film which makes this assertion postulated. As we learn, the humans have already made significant contact (sometimes militarily) with the aliens already and thus would know what they would need in order to protect themselves against the Na'vi and thus would request what they need by the next shipment. Pro also hasn't commented on my point about the kevlar being stronger and more sophisticated than contemporary kevlar. @ Animals Getting Shot I will point out a contradiction in the film further. The Puma in the beginning of the film which chases Jake Sully, takes multiple mg rounds from Jake Sully and does not die which postulates that the animals cannot die from bullets. It contradicts itself because the Puma is killed by the machine gun in the final battle which scientifically doesn't make sense in the context of the film. To address the larger animals, I urge the voter to consider the fact that these guns would be able to take down these larger animals since they would have had to clear man animals from the mining sites. @ Blindfire/Snipers Bullets are easily abundant if air, which the humans use a lot more of, is abundant. @bunker buster- The bunker buster would achieve the same result as the incendiary missiles--bringing down the tree. Starwars is good science fiction because everything that is postulated is consistent throughout the film such as the force unlike avatar which has numerous contradictions between postulations.