It is incompatible, unless everyone was in VR to start with. In which case they were piloting bodies remotely from their VR selves.
Rather odd choice to choose to play as a cripple and invent this whole thing about compatible DNA with your twin and so forth if you’re just hanging about in VR space of course.
Why do you say you are actually Eliza?
It IS incompatible. If the Na’vi are virtual and the humans are real, how is the virtual Neytiri able to hold the real Jake at the end?
You’re absolutely right. Just like in the movie A.I. those creatures at the end could have been aliens or advanced robots and there are arguments to be made on both sides.
…except that they’re robots.
So you’ve read all the logical and complete refutations to the VR argument, and simply dismissed them…how?
I have a 3-D question about movies like Avatar. I saw the Scrooge movie before it, in 3-D and they had previews of Avatar which was next. All went well, I saw the 3-D and all, but what happens if the next 3-D movie uses the wrong kind of glasses??? See what I am saying, how do they do a preview of a 3-D that uses different glasses than what the audience has tonight?
Yes, and that’s certainly one way to watch a movie. So, for example, I *could *watch The Godfather as a story about the experience of Al Pacino and Marlon Brando as actors in a movie. It’s a documentary record of a particular experience those two real people had playing pretend in an imaginary world, and instead of focusing my attention on the fictional story, I can pay attention to how they deploy their professional skills to make that imaginary world seem real.
But that kind of reading is possible for any movie, not just Avatar.
I could also imagine that what I’m really watching is a group of characters playing roles in a VR simulation. So, for example, I could watch To Kill a Mockingbird as though the events on screen were taking place in virtual reality where the fictional characters were controlled by other invisible fictional characters hidden offscreen. Then if I detect any inconsistencies in the actions or motivations of the visible fictional characters I can explain them as glitches in the VR system or the result of the hidden characters slipping out of character.
But this alternate kind of reading is also possible for any movie, not just Avatar.
If you think there is a logical and complete refutation to the VR argument contained in this thread then you don’t understand it. natch.
Is it similarly possible to interpret the new Sherlock Holmes movie as taking place entirely in virtual reality? How about the new Chipmunk movie?
If not, why not? What makes you think all the characters in *Avatar *are actually in a VR simulation, but Alvin, Simon, and Theodore aren’t?
Well, did you like Disney’s Pocahontas? If so, then you can easily transpose the plot over to Avatar.
I explained that in the OP! There are many possibilities that are fully compatible with the movie, and which I think most posters in this thread do not grok, otherwise they wouldn’t so readily dismiss them: 1) Everything we see in the movie is virtual, supported by physical brains using devices similar to those we see in the movie 2) Everything we see in the movie is virtual, and all the people are AI implemented on digital logic. There are no physical brains, although physical reality continues to exist outside of what we see in the movie. 3) Everything in the movie occurs in the real world using neural tech that can transplant your conscious mind into a new body. 4) Combinations of the above.
Since this thread is about the plausibility of Avatar, and since (as has been neatly pointed out by previous posters) Avatar lacks surface validity, you may be tempted to invoke one of the first two scenarios in explaining the movie. If you stick with the third scenario then you may have to accept that Avatar is a fantasy movie that is implausible.
I’m just going to ask one simple question, because I think there’s a great deal of confusion here:
Do you remember the final battle sequence between the hired mercenary army and the Na’vi, specifically the final scene where the grizzled general got in a mecha and was in hand-to-hand combat with the marine Na’vi? What “level” of VR was that taking place on, and how in the world are you still contending that it’s some alternate virtual reality?
I clearly explained this in the OP.
Humor me. I’ll make it easier:
How does Michelle Rodriquez interact with both the Marine and the Marine Avatar, when we see the transition between “worlds” to be seemless and incredibly NOT virtual?
No. You are wrong.
Maybe all teh characters and locations in Avatar are part of a VR world? And that world is being seen through the eyes of outsiders who only observe but don’t affect events! In 3D! Oh wait…that’s what it is because it’s a freaking movie.
Power-off Einstein.:rolleyes:
Duh?
But would it persist in insisting on itself?
What does that even mean?
But you could interpret ANY MOVIE as 1 or 2. So it’s ultimately not a very interesting or useful interpretation of Avatar in particular. Which is what people keep telling you and you keep ignoring.