Avatar is an amazing film

I sincerely apologize for missing the last round - and Con has been accommodating enough to allow me to post my arguments in the comment section. With that said, let's wrap this debate up. 1. Ratings CGI can definitely boost a movie's rating, because above all else, a movie is a visual experience. Obviously a movie with horrible camera shots will not do well. Con upholds Spiderman 3 as an example of a good movie, despite the fact that it is COMPLETELY impossible - a 'radioactive' spider biting Peter Parker and altering his DNA to the point where he manifests mass physiological changes is completely ridiculous. Also, the idea of the Sandman, and in fact any of the villains, defies expectation. This is going to be a huge reason to affirm this resolution - Con proves my point that science fact is not a necessary part of a movie's strength. If Con is simply pointing out another high-gross, low rating movie, you can see my response that movies that score well in both categories are always good. Con has yet to show me a bad movie that grosses AND rates well. Regarding the definition of science fiction - I have unearthed some interesting information. In an interview, James Cameron himself claims that Avatar was a work of "science fantasy, not true science fiction"[1]. Thus the movie is allowed to bend the laws of science every now and then, so long as it retains basic principles. Remember, the plot is not to be read like a textbook. @ Flying Mountains Ehwa is obviously providing a habitat for the Ikran (smaller flying creatures). Ehwa already has basic telekinetic abilities, and as a spirit force which can manipulate real-world objects (healing wounds, transferring minds), it is easy to extrapolate telekinesis. Of course, every movie will have some plot holes, but I hope the voter will agree that none of them take away from the overall Avatar experience. Finally, trying to apply regular science to the movie is foolish - the force of Ehwa has already been established, and blurs the boundaries between our science and the movie's principles. Point 3 No civilization is perfect, and the movie illustrates that. It pits some of mankind's better individuals against some of its worst. Con attempts to apply a rule of technology and society to the film, and assume that it MUST be true because the film doesn't state otherwise. First, this is a complete non sequitur. We don't have to assume that whichever rules Pro wants to apply actually are applicable in a movie that already bends some rules. Second, technology =/= strong society. A dictator could easily wield technology to subjugate his people and force the development of new technologies. HUman expansionism could just as easily be the human race trying to flee from an overcrowded or diseased planet. The Irish did not flee Ireland during the potato famine because they had a strong economy. We don't know how long the mining colony on Pandora has been set up. It could easily have existed for only 30 years, which means not much more than 5 or 6 trips. Mining equipment just means that they had a large convoy travel to Pandora carrying the equipment at some point.. @ Animals Getting Shot Shooting something doesn't necessarily kill it, and in all likelihood, Jake Sully missed a vital point in the first encounter (it is entirely possible that the animal died later on due to complications). The puma at the end of the movie is shot from the mecha's machine gun which is much larger than Jake's. Clearing animals from a mining site doesn't involve killing them. I can chase neighboring children out of my yard with a broom without impaling them. Further, the appearance of large roaring spaceships, mechas, and helicopters is enough to scare animals away from a mining site. The large rhinos are not carnivores, and thus do not need to be killed. @ Blindfire The masks operate on a filtration basis - the humans don't carry oxygen tanks with them. Again, ammunition on the battlefield was limited. @ Bunke Buster Again, Quaritch wanted to be at least a little 'humane'. Bunker-busting the tree from the get-go would cause greater civilian damage, and thus he chose to gas them first. If the bunker buster would have the same results as the incendiaries, there is really no reason to prefer one over the other, and this point can be dropped from the debate. Regarding star wars, the sheer number of different species in existence is completely improbable. If you've ever watched the movies, you know that there are thousands of different species of aliens. For that many species to arise in different living conditions and then get together under the same conditions is completely impossible, but my opponent looks pas these issues there. What this debate comes down to is the fact that Con seems to have a personal beef with Avatar. As shown above, he accepted all the impossibilities of Star Wars and said that the movie was still high quality. However, the same creative liberties which made Star Wars great seem to detract from Avatar in his eyes. The key thing to remember is that after thousands upon thousands of people voted on IMDB, Yahoo Movies, and Rotten Tomatoes (see R1), the reviews were all extremely positive. Further, Avatar may break the 1 billion dollar mark, as it is still running in worldwide theaters. Thus, it has achieved and then surpassed the two goals of a movie: to make money, and to entertain audiences. The supposed scientific fallacies that Con points out are all creative liberties, and easily explainable even then. Thank you, and vote Pro! [1]http://www.google.com...