Marc Eastman › Comments

"I vaguely suspect you might be serious." - Marc Eastman

"I didn't contradict myself at all, but this has been about as fun as it's probably going to be. You can't even follow that setup you just put together. You could have a similar case like this - I complain that it is rather odd that halfway through the movie it is revealed that the natives always give birth to twins, and as part of their religion always kill one and raise the other. You say, don't nitpick about little trivialities of the alien religion. I say, it doesn't have anything to do with religion really, it just seems internally inconsistent to the religion they have as presented in other ways throughout. You say, don't give me this internal consistency, you're talking about religion. I say, yes, this point of their religion seems internally inconsistent. You say, aha, see, you are talking religion." - Marc Eastman

"I'm not being vague. That particular point of the technology of the story I find rather internally inconsistent. And?" - Marc Eastman

"On the first point, I guess you're just not getting me. It's not the technology, it's the internal consistency. You either get it or you don't at this point. As to - "*rofl* You've clearly read neither. Please explain the "painstakingly thought through" reason that a man can close his eyes and wish himself to Mars?" you similarly have no idea where I'm coming from apparently. It's not in the sense that there is some reason that we explain by way of the real world (I guess, I'm not actually sure what you're asking). As example, take a fantasy story involving magic which has rules by which people can use magic. If that story then has other things thrown out which don't make sense according to those rules, that's a problem. In other words, "in this world where magic works like this, does it make sense that... whatever." That's what I mean by internal consistency. Finding that to be a problem does not mean that I would be mocking the very existence of magic in a story, and it would not..." - Marc Eastman

"Woops on the pasting at the end there." - Marc Eastman

""Context is so important. I said "If, in actuality, you are right, I can only be grateful for my ignorance." I can think of other places where I'd apply it, too. If I had a child who grew up to be a mass murderer, I might be grateful for my ignorance hwne I raised him, too." I'm not sure it is. If I'm right. If I'm not. There is some circumstance in which you would be grateful for your ignorance. If I am right, then you are. I would not be. "Example of something that can't be mined effectively where you find them: alluvial diamonds. You can, of course, mine for diamonds, but not where you'd find the alluvial ones (and the cost differential for mining for diamonds and picking them from the soil is astronomical). As for the argument that traveling for five years is so much more difficult than say mining a different way, depends on what's easiest. Going by boat even at many times the distance used to be much easier than going across land, even a hundred miles, even though going by water..." - Marc Eastman

"I think you're missing the point actually. I'm nitpicking the technology of anything, I'm nitpicking the internal logic of the story. The other stories you mention do not suffer the same problems. They build their world and what follows flows logically from the world created. The science is irrelevant. Somehow real means not caricatures. And, I don't mind escapism at all, but I still maintain that the internal structure has to make a bit of sense. Burroughs and Bradbury (I'm a fan of both) create the rules of their stories and stick with them. Indeed, they both rather painstakingly thought through their worlds and why and how things in those worlds would be the way they are." - Marc Eastman

"I pretty well agree with your comment, but it doesn't seem that your comment is itself agreeing (in a very precise sense) with Stephanie." - Marc Eastman

"Yes, I really didn't see more than that. Apart from the many examples throughout the film, the end solidifies all the rest. He's really just a loon. His actions are build the same things in many situations, but if you are going to fight one guy in an army, of which you know much remains, when you also know that your army is lost, and there's no one else coming for five years... you're just a nut. There is nothing to him at all, except stereotypically nutjob marine. I am not a scientist, but you are making a poor claim here. Always? Well, I suppose you can't always do anything. Is that relevant? You can't always fly five-year space missions either, but in certain circumstances, like making some crap up, you can. In terms of the technological advances necessary for the entire world here, it doesn't make sense to argue from the perspective of technology available in reality. I don't have anything against you either. I suppose different people see different things in many forms of art,..." - Marc Eastman

"I think it works on that level too." - Marc Eastman

"Light sabers and sound in space are not really the plot of Star Wars, but are we not allowed to tear into the plot of Star Wars? The question is not whether or not light sabers make sense (I don't know that they don't), the question is whether or not other things make sense within that world. Suspension of disbelief is allowing the world to be put forward as having light sabers in it, or technology that allows for five-year trips through space and coordinated mining bases on alien worlds. It was a fun film, but being escapist fantasy does not remove the need to have characters that are somehow real, and plots that are not internally nonsensical." - Marc Eastman

"Well, changed your life might be a little much, but I pretty much agree with you completely. It's wild and cool, looks amazing, and throws in something for everyone. If it had taken itself a little less seriously, I think it would have been better, but for purposes of going out and having a lot fun watching a movie, this is a great choice... no question. It just could have been better. I agree about the 3-D as well, I'm not sure that it made a lot of difference." - Marc Eastman

""As an archaeologist, I can tell you that destroying people's land and disrespecting their culture for the purposes of monetary gain is nothing new, and a lesson we should not forget in a hurry." Really? Yes. Interesting lesson. That doesn't make a movie good... hopefully. It is, however, not taken too seriously, certainly a fun ride." - Marc Eastman

""It's all well and good to say the story makes no sense to have people (who don't see themselves as bad guys) travel through thick and thin to displace the natives from their land when other land is handy or workable, when there are alternatives, but that's exactly what happened. In history. Natives were kicked from their land over and over so people could take it when there was a whole continent (Africa) within easy reach to Europe. With at least as many natural resources. (And, since they were strip mining, the most destructive but easiest method possible, drilling underneath is not an option)." To say it is what actually happened, so it is "okay" (or whatever) that it happened here is precisely the problem. The situations may be analogous, but when the movie tries this hard to be serious, the analogy begins to fail. It demands you think too much, take it too seriously, and then the comparison fails. The completely general statement of what happens is the same, but the situations..." - Marc Eastman

"I'm not completely sure if I understand, but I think my response is no. Cameron does what he wants, especially here, and he wouldn't think the movie is dumbed down (I would wager)." - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"No, it didn't come across as an attack at all. It just seemed like we were not quite so much on the same page, and I just wanted to make it clear that we were, in case it wasn't.... or something. :)" - Marc Eastman

"What's brilliant about the internet is that an article can be an entire conversation, and the comments are as much the article as the thing initially published. Thanks for the comment, and my only comment on your comment is that you seem to be suggesting that our opinions differ somewhat, and I don't think they do (well, except insofar as The Great Gatsby is concerned). You said, "But, I maintain the general audience is just as entitled to like movies for what they like, that there's something to be said for a movie that brings out an emotional response, even if the audience is poised to feel that way already. If Transformers 2 left me cold, my husband loved it. There's something to be said for making a world compelling enough to envelope the audience, even if you're cherry-picking an audience that're already fans, that are predisposed to accept." I maintain the same thing. I certainly understand liking things that are not even meant to be among the picks of best of the year, and I..." - Marc Eastman

"I have to admit to having no idea what you're talking about. Sorry." - Marc Eastman

"That's a somewhat misleading definition in that it doesn't give a full idea of the word I think. Trivially true is better, or meaninglessly redundant - as in saying, "She's a widow... and a woman," wherein gender has not only been established once in the initial statement, but twice." - Marc Eastman

"Thanks so much for the kind words, but I do feel I have to say... it's just me. :)" - Marc Eastman

"That's a really tricky question actually, but I was never particularly interested in the series either. I would have to answer by saying that if you liked the Azkaban movie, you'll probably like this one." - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman

"You win!" - Marc Eastman