×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

162 comments

Good luck maybe. (5, Funny)

multiben (1916126) | about 2 years ago | (#39469265)

I can't decide if I hope it all goes well because of Terminator and Aliens, or if it's a complete failure because of Titanic and Avatar.

Re:Good luck maybe. (1, Insightful)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#39469291)

Avatar , is not a good movie ,but it is an amazing cinematic experience on the proper theater.

Re:Good luck maybe. (1)

multiben (1916126) | about 2 years ago | (#39469481)

Meh. 23 years ago I saw a one hour 3D demo and it totally blew my mind. To this day I have not seen anything which has improved upon that experience.

Re:Good luck maybe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470483)

Was it some kind if Imax 3d acid trip? If yes I saw that as a kid and it totally blew my mind :)

Re:Good luck maybe. (5, Funny)

Edis Krad (1003934) | about 2 years ago | (#39469297)

I'm actually more worried if it turns out to be like The Abyss

Re:Good luck maybe. (4, Insightful)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#39469401)

That wouldn't be so bad since the aliens in The Abyss seemed to be quite benevolent at the end of the film.

Unless I missed the sequel where they drowned everyone.

Re:Good luck maybe. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#39469875)

Waterworld?

One thing I don't need to look up - that one's not by Michael Bay. Even he isn't dumb enough to try and make water explode.

Re:Good luck maybe. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469963)

That wouldn't be so bad since the aliens in The Abyss seemed to be quite benevolent at the end of the film.

Unless I missed the sequel where they drowned everyone.

There is a version of The Abyss (director's cut maybe ?) where the aliens were intent on drowing all humankind.
Not so benevolent if you ask me.

Can't wait for the footage (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#39469289)

One of my "If I was a billionaire" fantasies was a documentary trip back to the trench. Amazing that it's taken this long to get back.

Re:Can't wait for the footage (4, Funny)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#39470045)

One of my "If I was a billionaire" fantasies was a documentary trip back to the trench.

Noble, but for me its two chicks at the same time (deadpan). It used to only take a million$ to set that up but with inflation and all...

Re:Can't wait for the footage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470137)

Yeah, my waistline is getting bigger too.

Re:Can't wait for the footage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470511)

You can get that for less than 200€...

Good (-1, Troll)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 2 years ago | (#39469295)

Maybe he will stick to things like this instead of making shitty movies.

*cough* Avatar *cough*

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469333)

Maybe he will stick to things like this instead of making shitty movies.

*cough* Avatar *cough*

yeah it's cool to hate on things other ppl enjoy, makes you feel so much more sophisticated than them huh?

Re:Good (1, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39469459)

What level of sophistication is even required to dislike Avatar, or the Indy-butt-raping scandal that was his last attempt at Indiana Jones, Jumping the Shark?

I just love the fact he took a famous chick-flick and turned it 3D so he could force a ton of guys out there to take women to see that movie all over again, at prices greater than the original ticket price. Although, in that situation there could be a silver lining.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469535)

Although, in that situation there could be a silver lining.

Dumb people reproducing?

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about 2 years ago | (#39469567)

He made a movie that had a lot of elements that the masses enjoy. (action, etc)

He created a sci fi world with at least some effort at plausibility. (not all of it, but some details were there, for instance Jake suffering muscle weakness after prolonged time in the tank)

The reason the "indians" won was because the entire planet was a biological entity that could defend itself, by mobilizing all resources against the human invaders. It was never actually an underdog story : the planet has vastly superior technology and numbers to the human invaders (the brain transfers shown at the end of the movie were obviously extremely high tech), but the humans couldn't perceive it.

Anyways, sure it ripped stuff off, but compare it to the competition. And, the film did use some of the best visual effects ever seen. Stop being a snob : would you rather all movies were some low budget indie film that tries to "make a point" but it's hard to figure out what it is because the movie was made in someone's garage? To make a movie with an enormous budget, an enormous number of people have to watch it, and you have to make the story accessible to them.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469839)

...the movie was made in someone's garage?

Wayne's World! Party on!

Re:Good (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#39470061)

would you rather all movies were some low budget indie film that tries to "make a point" but it's hard to figure out what it is because the movie was made in someone's garage?

And worse, if it does make a point, the point is something as inane as, "we are all different" or "life is pain" or "sometimes endings aren't happy." Rare to find real insight in art, even if it is Indy.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470481)

That movie would be Primer, and it was better than Avatar.

Re:Good (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#39470113)

He created a sci fi world with at least some effort at plausibility.

Oh, c'mon! Where the frig in the Periodic Table does one find "Unobtanium"? Seriously? I heard that, and gave up on the flick from that point on.

The reason the "indians" won was because the entire planet was a biological entity that could defend itself, by mobilizing all resources against the human invaders

Entity, meet biological warfare (easily possible, given the ease with which the DNA was replicated) and a gaggle of large asteroids being flung at the surface just for good measure (also possible, given the massive energy require to go FTL (or was it near-light?) speeds in the first place). There's at least half a dozen ways, given that story's tech, in which to destroy the inhabitants without harming the material, endangering a single human being, and basically turning the place into an airless rock that can be strip-mined.

Seriously... good visual effects (easily give it that), but the story had more holes in it than a sieve.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470165)

You make a good point regarding unobtainium. There's no way among the trillions and trillions of planets out there that even one could contain an element unknown the human race.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470231)

Oh, c'mon! Where the frig in the Periodic Table does one find "Unobtanium"? Seriously? I heard that, and gave up on the flick from that point on.

I'm sorry you didn't get it - but that name shows a reasonable amount of science/engineering cred.

There's at least half a dozen ways, given that story's tech, in which to destroy the inhabitants without harming the material, endangering a single human being, and basically turning the place into an airless rock that can be strip-mined.

And the movie also gave good reasons why they didn't do this stuff: in the movie's universe there was already PR problems emerging. It would make sense that they'd want to break the resistance while killing as few of them as possible, not killing them all with some superweapon.

I saw the movie once, when it was released, and wasn't a huge fan. But your comments make it clear you aren't an engineering geek, and that you can't follow plot at all.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

simtel (798974) | about 2 years ago | (#39470257)

Honestly, I found the name "Unobtainium" no less plausible than a number of the heavier elements in the periodic table. Comparing "Unobtainium" to, say... "Promethium", "Ununoctium", "Berkeluim", "Californium"; not to mention a number of the proposed names for the current temporary ones... How does "Unobtainium" defy logic any more than those do?

Or are you claiming that because we haven't discovered it yet, it doesn't exist? In a science fiction movie. Really? Really?

As for orbital bombardment... That's probably the part the Cameron didn't show. Humans go down to the surface and try to strip-mine politely because of politics. Think of the PR win that it would be for the (then current) administration if they can convince these primitive creatures to live/act like humans! But now that we're kicked off planet, time to warm up the nukes.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470671)

Cuz the name 'Unobtanium' is cliche and just plain gay when it comes to science fiction cred. The OP speaks the truth. I was even buzzed, and I thought the movie was lame, unoriginal, and made for children. It was all gay and feel-goody by having a love story and the underdogs winning. C'mon, how many times to I have to see a story like this? The visuals were 'interesting,' but I miss the good old days where everything wasn't fucking CG. I remember when explosions were real and looked real. If they wanted to do something in the movie, they had to actually do it in real life, making it look real. The days of that are over. Everything is just green screened now. I've given up on movies in the past 5 years, as producers try to take existing films and remake them in a worse way or they take a topic, integrate it with one 3 potential plots, and poop out a turd for a movie that they are sure some of the masses will come to see. Sigh, a good movie is hard to come by.

Re:Good (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about 2 years ago | (#39470781)

If you don't like naming them after places, why single us out? Ytterby, Sweden has four elements named after it.

(Posted from Berkeley).

Re:Good (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#39470605)

There's at least half a dozen ways, given that story's tech, in which to destroy the inhabitants without harming the material, endangering a single human being, and basically turning the place into an airless rock that can be strip-mined.

As was explained in the film, "killing the indigenous looks bad."

The Na'vi as an advanced, post-industrial society. (4, Insightful)

Guppy (12314) | about 2 years ago | (#39470689)

Oh, c'mon! Where the frig in the Periodic Table does one find "Unobtanium"? Seriously? I heard that, and gave up on the flick from that point on.

I figured Unobtainium to be some sort of ClarkeTech-level meta-material, much like the Cavorite in A Deepness in the Sky. In that story, Cavorite was a mineral discovered by the native Spider civilization, possessing miraculous anti-gravity properties Yet it was composed of nothing more than common elements, mostly diamonoid carbon, that should have yielded an unremarkable pile of dust. In that story, it was insinuated that the material was not naturally occuring, but the legacy of some hyper-advanced intelligence or civilization.

The implication being that the Na'vi were not a primitive pre-industrial society -- but a primitive post-industrial one. The planet-wide bio-net and cooperative defense system doesn't make sense from a Darwinian evolutionary standpoint, but it might have made sense if it was designed that way. And those Unobtanium "ore" formations? Perhaps the remains of some ancient server farm or energy storage-facility... or garbage dump.

Entity, meet biological warfare (easily possible, given the ease with which the DNA was replicated) and a gaggle of large asteroids being flung at the surface just for good measure (also possible, given the massive energy require to go FTL (or was it near-light?) speeds in the first place). There's at least half a dozen ways, given that story's tech, in which to destroy the inhabitants without harming the material, endangering a single human being, and basically turning the place into an airless rock that can be strip-mined.

In the aftermath of Avatar's release, I found similar viewpoints all too common among my fellow nerds. It bothers me to think that we can consider genocide to be the "obvious" solution, and that not resorting to total war at the get-go as being the mark of a plot hole.

The corporate managers in Avatar weren't actually evil, but merely self-serving and cynical. They told themselves it was ok because they weren't really doing anything evil -- just moving some stubborn natives somewhere less inconvenient. I'm sure after the orders were given, they told themselves that it was the natives who forced them to act as they did, their superstitious and ignorant natures prevented the savages from listening to reason.

In any case, we often forget that the humans were employees of a corporation, not a sovereign military force. The soldiers were the equivalent of some Blackwater mercenaries. Regardless of how powerful corporations sometimes seem, it is government who still holds the leash, being jealous entities that hold the best goodies (like WMDs) for themselves.

Re:The Na'vi as an advanced, post-industrial socie (1)

ChatHuant (801522) | about 2 years ago | (#39471079)

much like the Cavorite in A Deepness in the Sky.

And, in another show of useless pedantry, I have to note that Vinge named his material Cavorite as a homage to Wells who used the name in his 1901 book The First Men in the Moon [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39470835)

He created a sci fi world with at least some effort at plausibility.

Oh, c'mon! Where the frig in the Periodic Table does one find "Unobtanium"? Seriously? I heard that, and gave up on the flick from that point on.

Unobtainium: well, why not call it Carbon, formed in large quantities into some kind of useful room-temperature superconductor (or other highly valuable commodity) by processes unique to the formation of Pandora. Sure you could synthesize it, but it's cheaper to go dig it up. The miracle of Unobtainum was irrelevant to the plot beyond the fact it was valuable and they had to take down HomeTree to get it. Any time wasted explaining what Unobtainium was good for is just pandering to a very small percentage of the audience, a small percentage with relatively little influence over ticket buyers, apparently.

The reason the "indians" won was because the entire planet was a biological entity that could defend itself, by mobilizing all resources against the human invaders

Entity, meet biological warfare (easily possible, given the ease with which the DNA was replicated) and a gaggle of large asteroids being flung at the surface just for good measure (also possible, given the massive energy require to go FTL (or was it near-light?) speeds in the first place). There's at least half a dozen ways, given that story's tech, in which to destroy the inhabitants without harming the material, endangering a single human being, and basically turning the place into an airless rock that can be strip-mined.

Seriously... good visual effects (easily give it that), but the story had more holes in it than a sieve.

Yeah, and the U.S. could have nuked Afghanistan and Iraq into oblivion, as well as any upstarts like Iran or North Korea who would have chirped about it. Maybe, just maybe, there were political implications back home that prevented waging all-out war on obviously sentient beings that are absolutely no threat to us, and whose only crime is sitting on something valuable.

Re:Good (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#39470487)

sci fi world with at least some effort at plausibility. (not all of it, but some details were there, for instance Jake suffering muscle weakness after prolonged time in the tank)

'Cause a culture capable of interstellar travel couldn't eliminate muscle weakness or fix nerve damage.

The reason the "indians" won was because the entire planet was a biological entity that could defend itself, by mobilizing all resources against the human invaders. It was never actually an underdog story : the planet has vastly superior technology and numbers to the human invaders (the brain transfers shown at the end of the movie were obviously extremely high tech), but the humans couldn't perceive it.

I remember writing that story in the early 90s and everyone who read it told me it was cliched back then. I seem to remember it was also a Star Trek episode in the 60s?

The best I can say about Avatar was that the last hour was really funny. I just wish we hadn't had to sit through the previous six hours to get there.

Re:Good (2)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 2 years ago | (#39470655)

'Cause a culture capable of interstellar travel couldn't eliminate muscle weakness or fix nerve damage.

They could. Jake was going to get taken care of when he got back. If you remember, it was just a matter of cost. He couldn't afford it on his pension.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470711)

Well. They could fix nerve damage but it was expensive. Apparently the world does not become a socialist hell hole in the future.

Re:Good (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39470867)

sci fi world with at least some effort at plausibility. (not all of it, but some details were there, for instance Jake suffering muscle weakness after prolonged time in the tank)

'Cause a culture capable of interstellar travel couldn't eliminate muscle weakness or fix nerve damage.

I've had minor nerve damage twice, no, we can't fix it, and we're not likely to figure out how anytime soon. All this brain-machine-interface crap is just that, literally two-bit crap - when compared to actual nerves containing hundreds of thousands of fibers.

If you want to kvetch about the tech in the movie, go after the Avatar link - as if lag, even light-speed lag, and other factors wouldn't make that wholly unworkable... I was also a little disappointed that they could make this magical link, and yet be unable to run a simple tracer to find Jake when he got lost in the jungle... but, those are both "suspension of disbelief" points central to the storyline.

If you want realism, watch a PBS documentary.

Re:Good (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39470683)

Look, I did not like Avatar. I am not being a snob though. My question was serious. What level of sophistication is even required to dislike Avatar?

Saying it does require sophistication is snobbery. I have liked maybe 5 of Cameron's movies in total. Those were Terminators, Aliens, and True Lies (which was just goofy).

You don't have to be sophisticated to dislike a movie. That was my point.

Re:Good (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39470783)

+1 - Sensible.

There is certain "herd logic" on /. that makes no sense to me, "Avatar Sucks!!!" being one.

It was over-hyped, and maybe too expensive to make, but I don't really care about that - I ignore the hype and if Hollywood wants to risk that kind of money, that's their business.

Looking at the end product of Avatar, its story, scientific accuracy and entertainment value were no worse than any number of "good" science fiction movies, it was a little too heavy on the Vietnam parallels for me, but what the hell, it's his story, let him tell it.

Tell you what, if Avatar Sucks, tell me why AND name 3 movies that both did it (your point) better, and were better movies overall.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39471033)

Avatar sucks because of:

- No aesthetic coherence (compare Aliens, LOTR, Blade runner, etc.), it look like a big rip-off from every fantasy/sci-fi cliches mixed together in a disgusting pizza. As a 3D designer, I can tell you that there are two kinds of talented 3D modelers, the technically gifted ones and the artistically and technically gifted ones. I can tell you for sure that the people that designed avatar are amongst the former category; the ones always ending up modeling sport cars, mechwarriors and other crap.

- a one dimensional story-line without any nuances, psychological depth to the point that, even when trying to only enjoy yourself at some easy entertainment, you feel insulted. (I'd say avatar's script quality is nearly equal to The Core)

- The lion king effect: all that bonding with nature scenes accompanied with tribal music is just tasteless. Compare with Dances with Wolves, Dersu Uzula.

- The basketball scene was just plain awful.

- Poor acting performances.

- Unoriginal, unimpressive and dull direction.

- etc.

Re:Good (SPOILERS!) (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#39470913)

Actually I only have a couple complaints with the tail end of the film.

#1: Norm

So Norm is out there fighting and he gets shot. We cut back to the science lab and Norm is crawling out of his linking device, clutching the area where he was shot. It's a, "I saw myself get shot! I'm dead! No, I'm not--my avatar is. Whew!" type of moment. Cut back to the air battle going on. Trudy has reached the end, her helicopter is shot up, and she says her emotional goodbye, "Sorry, Jake," just before a missile slams into her helicopter and blows it to pieces. A scene or two later, we see Norm exiting the lab with his air mask on, machine gun in hand, angry and determined look on his face, going...

Where the fuck are you going, Norm?!

Now it was pretty obvious that there was something between Norm and Trudy, even though most of the scenes were cut (but take a look at the deleted scenes on the DVD for the true meaning of "Norm's attitude is improving." Classic!). But Norm was off-line when Trudy was blown up, thanking his lucky stars that he wasn't killed. His radio was on his dead avatar. So he doesn't know that Trudy is now in little tiny pieces. But even if he does, where is he going? To find the pieces?! Is he going to stand with the Dragon Lady at the Tree of Souls? Then why isn't he there when we see her? Is he going to avenge his dead avatar in the forest? Even Norm isn't that stupid.

Of course, we know why Norm is leaving. Because if he sticks around, he'll mess up the big fight scene at the end of the movie.

#2: Jake Sully, Military Strategist

Okay, I'm no military genius. But come on! We've got a line of troops with machine guns and grenade launchers and flame throwers and walking tanks with really big honkin' machine guns. And Jake's strategy? Frontal assault! Even I know that's a recipe for disaster.

So all the folks on the ground are "combat ineffective", running for their lives if they're not dead. By the end, it appears that all his air assets are gone and he's the only one left alive and still fighting. Eywa comes along and distracts the bad guys so he can hit the bomber and destroy it. And, at the end, it appears he's now the leader of the tribe?! I'm sure Eywa's thinking, "Oh great! Now I'm going to have to babysit this schmuck or he'll get everybody killed. Which dead ancestor had this bright idea!?"

If I were a present-day Marine, I'd be kind of offended at how stupid "recon gyrenes" are made out to be in this movie.

Re:Good (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#39469835)

I'm smart and I don't like his movies, therefore the hundred's of millions of people who do enjoy his movies must be tasteless morons. /sarcasm

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469909)

WTF? Cameron has nothing to do with Indiana Jones. That's all Lucas and Spielberg's doing.

Re:Good (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#39470047)

I just love the fact he took a famous chick-flick and turned it 3D so he could force a ton of guys out there to take women to see that movie all over again, at prices greater than the original ticket price. Although, in that situation there could be a silver lining.

Silver lining indeed! If that dude who bounces off the propeller in the original gets a little special treatment in the 3D version (including the curiously satisfying distant "PONGG!" sound when he hits it), it might just be worth the (inflated) ticket price.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#39469933)

Without those shitty movies he wouldn't be able to do things like this...

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#39470459)

Reminds me of one Michael Caine's most brilliant ripostes. When asked about what he thought of Jaws 4, he replied "I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it was terrible. However I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."

That's neat! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469309)

I personally think that deep trenches are at least as interesting as outer space, if not even more so. There is a rich flora and fauna which have evolved to adapt to the high pressure and lack of sunlight and oxygen at such depths, it almost makes them seem like species that are alien to this planet.

Unfortunately, travelling and exploring the the murky depths are prohibitively expensive for the average guy. A small excursion itself would cost about $40,000, so I would imagine that James Camerons trip is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars. Ah, I envy the rich. :)

Anyway, here's to hoping that he gets excellent clips.

Re:That's neat! (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39470891)

I personally think that deep trenches are at least as interesting as outer space.

Interesting, certainly, inspiring? No. The possibilities of space are (cough) endless. Once you get to the bottom of the trench, you're pretty much done. Can't live there, nothing of immediate value there, much harder to sustain a colony there than outer space.

Not saying we shouldn't visit the trenches too, just that I don't think it warrants as much attention or investment as outer space.

This is what he's actually good at (4, Insightful)

chispito (1870390) | about 2 years ago | (#39469313)

Forget Avatar and Titanic... this is the kind of stuff he will be remembered for.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39469359)

Forget Avatar and Titanic... this is the kind of stuff he will be remembered for.

Ah, remembered for? Ha, no not quite. You give far too much faith in society today.

There is no arguing what a certain man has done to advance deep-sea exploration way before overzealous directors started showboating, looking for their next "extreme" shot behind the camera.

Now, I challenge you to find anyone under the age of 30 who knows who Jacques Cousteau is.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469407)

I'm 23 and I know who Jacques Cousteau is. Do I get a prize?

Re:This is what he's actually good at (5, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39469469)

Yeah... you get to be 23. Now get of my lawn and go nail a college student.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (2)

youn (1516637) | about 2 years ago | (#39471183)

This is slashdot, the average reader does not know much about seduction except through biology books... the closest he'll ever get to nail a college student is if he takes a hammer, nails & bangs towards the wall :)... praying he actually manages to aim in the right direction... he could probably build a robot that will do that with precision though maybe even imitate a woman :)

Re:This is what he's actually good at (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about 2 years ago | (#39469425)

I know he hears bells in random order, deep beneath the perfect water.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469491)

Wrong, it was Jacques Piccard who made the dive in the Trieste bathyscaphe in 1960 (not Jacques Cousteau), but it only proves your point, James Cameron will not be remembered for this adventure and it will not overshadow his film carreer. Anyway, good thing is that unlike Piccard he is bringing back some juicy 3D&4K footage of these ocean depths.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469569)

I'm 26.

I grew up watching his nature documentaries. It still blows my mind that he invented the aqua-lung [wikipedia.org] and I was watching his amazing under water movies in the beginning and mid nineties. I wonder if I can find his works online, thanks for reminding me of him.

I also remember the news item of his ship, the Calypso, [wikipedia.org] sinking in port. It should be more famous than the useless Titanic.

RIP Jacques-Yves Cousteau [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is what he's actually good at (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469757)

Yeah, he was the Pink Panther detective.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#39469785)

I loved the old "Undersea" series, but I don't associate Cousteau with deep sea exploration. Yea, he had that saucer that could go down a ways, but he was mostly about reef and wreck diving (and talking with that cool French accent).

Of course this isn't about science, it's just a rich guy's publicity whoring stunt. There's no need to send a manned vehicle that deep when robots can do the job better. Several unmanned vehicles have been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench over the past couple of decades.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (3, Funny)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#39470059)

My 8 year old does, and he isn't even in to ocean stuff. He just happens to like Pinky and the Brain.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469647)

Hogwash, he'll be remembered for "Aliens" and "Terminator 2"!!! :-) And this, too.

Re:This is what he's actually good at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469853)

>Forget Avatar and Titanic... this is the kind of stuff he will be remembered for.

"for:"

FTFY

I am not even sure if he directed ID4.. but I know good movies..

Cool rich guy (3, Insightful)

lucm (889690) | about 2 years ago | (#39469317)

As far as rich guys hobbies go, this is way cooler than buying a fighter jet or trying to get a monopoly on fighting HIV in Africa.

still some things left (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469319)

Awesome. there are still magic (quite a lot) in one of the most, if not the most inhospitable place on the planet apart from Brierley hill.
Tally ho old chap.

We'll Smoke you a Kipper for breakfast

Have at it, Cammy. (2)

Cazekiel (1417893) | about 2 years ago | (#39469323)

Couldn't do it; I have a pretty severe phobia of pressurized things. That scene from 'The Abyss', where the villain's ship goes down too far and... *shivers* Everyone at work pokes fun at me every time we have to change the fountain soda machine's carbon tanks, because I take off to the side room to steer clear. I came close to whaling on the bosses' son for taking a nearly-empty one, bring it over where I was and spurt out at me.

Can he take... (5, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#39469335)

Can he take George Lucas with him, and leave him at the bottom?

Re:Can he take... (3, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#39469345)

Too much hot air in Lucas. The sub would just float on the surface and be unable to dive.

Re:Can he take... (5, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39469483)

Weigh him down with a couple of steel Jar-Jar Binks statues. That way a couple hundred years from now people will know why.

Re:Can he take... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469543)

Glory and Honor to Senator Binks of Naboo!

Reminds me of the old days (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#39469431)

like when aristocrats used to fund and participate in science. We're seeing more of this kind of thing now, like this study [csmonitor.com], or this [gatesfoundation.org]. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing, but there are definitely parallels to the way science was done during the renaissance.

Re:Reminds me of the old days (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39470903)

In the old days, the government didn't have the resources, or the vision, to fund most valuable research.

I'm not sure the trench counts as valuable science, science certainly, but more valuable as PR.

Rescue mission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469439)

I hope he can find Ed Harris

How come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469455)

How come he hasn't gone to space yet?

Godspeed! (1, Informative)

bbbaldie (935205) | about 2 years ago | (#39469465)

I can't believe the last time we were there was 1960. May God go with you, Mr. Cameron. Apologies to you atheists for that last one ;^)

Re:Godspeed! (5, Insightful)

braeldiil (1349569) | about 2 years ago | (#39469753)

The reason we didn't send a manned mission back is that there's really no point - a realization they came to on the first trip. The people in the sub can't directly interact with the environment in any way. They have to look at the world through cameras, and all work is carried out by robotic arms. Essentially, all you've done is take the control room for a remote vehicle and send it down with the robot. It's a lot of engineering work and no small danger for basically zero gain.

Re:Godspeed! (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 2 years ago | (#39470245)

Mr. Cranky Pants. There's no reason to keep going back to the peak of Everest, either. It's his money & his life, and if finds a new monster, he can call it Cameronzilla, and wouldn't you be all jealous that you don't have a supermonster named after you?
Who knows, maybe he will find something interesting. Slim chances, but we never really expected to find life in/on/around undersea volcanic vents, either.
Cheers!

Re:Godspeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39470693)

I guess you didn't here about the engineering advances they achieved to make that type of sub possible to reach that depth. I'd give you links, but you wouldn't read them anyways.

Ever hear of this thing called innovation? Privately funded 'glory' projects never produce anything of significance to Science.

Re:Godspeed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39471157)

So, why are you still driving to work?

He is testing his submarine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469475)

And if it works well he will use it to film Titanic 2.

The New Adventurers (4, Interesting)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | about 2 years ago | (#39469507)

The rich men are at it again. Some are going into outer space. Some are going under the ocean. I can't wait for the earth explorers, digging down deep into the crust.

Re:The New Adventurers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469667)

"I can't wait for the earth explorers, digging down deep into the crust."

Leave it to the USSR, they loved that kind of thing! (presumably the project was started to 1up the USs drilling project that was started in '57 and later canceled)

The drill spun for 30 years, and the hole is 7 miles deep: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-deepest-hole/

"The previous record holder was the Bertha Rogers well in Oklahoma. It was a gas well and it stopped at 32,000 feet when it struck molten sulfur."

Challenger Deep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469689)

Did you see it? They said it was hauled from the Challenger Deep, but I'm positive that beast never swam in terrestrial waters until a week ago...

The real question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469711)

Can an ego that big go that deep??

So for all us Titanic haters... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469777)

Does this mean that Titanic is no longer the lowest point in James Cameron's career?

Re:So for all us Titanic haters... (4, Funny)

0olong (876791) | about 2 years ago | (#39471189)

You've got to admit, this guy knows how to sink to new levels.

Well... (3)

multi io (640409) | about 2 years ago | (#39469791)

Kinda interesting, but I understand he chose the spot of the seafloor he's visiting simply on the basis of it being the deepest point in the ocean, not because of something that's there and that's worth seeing/exploring. So chances are that all he'll find is... um, a seafloor, made of a lot of sand. I hope I'm wrong.

Re:Well... (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#39469997)

Doesn't just being the deepest point in the ocean make it worth exploring? I mean, its the only one. Explorers typically tend to explore the "most somethings".

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

multi io (640409) | about 2 years ago | (#39470233)

Doesn't just being the deepest point in the ocean make it worth exploring?

Maybe not. I mean, yeah, I'll probably stare in awe at Cameron's video footage of the seafloor, thinking of the 10,900 meter water column above and of how this is the single patch of seafloor that endures a higher water pressure than any other patch of seafloor anywhere else. But from a scientific standpoint it might have been better if he'd visited some place that's only, say, 8,000 meters deep, but is located in the vicinity of some deep-sea volcano, hydrothermal vent or other geologically interesting feature, thus making it more likely to find many living creatures or other interesting things there.

Re:Well... (4, Informative)

stuckinarut (891702) | about 2 years ago | (#39471115)

The test dives all went well past the 8,000 meter mark and I'm sure the sponsors wanted the deepest point moniker attached to the venture. There are many mountains more challenging to climb than Everest but everyone want to go to the highest none the less.

All along he's said that it's about the science and having reached the deepest point I'm sure they'll be visiting those places that maximise the science. James Cameron says he does not want this dive to the deep to be a one-off, and wants to use it as a platform for ocean exploration. [bbc.co.uk]

Having reached the deepest point there is no where marked off limits and there are several other ventures out there on the same Race to the bottom of the Ocean [bbc.co.uk] quest.

Re:Well... (1)

sk999 (846068) | about 2 years ago | (#39470815)

Rumor is his next movie is going to be called "Voyage to See What's on the Bottom", which kinda means he really does need to reach the Bottom.

Sounds wonderful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469981)

We're leaving him down there, right?

You know what would be funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39469985)

Someone go down with him with a squirt gun and right as the sub reaches the depth squirt some water on the back of his neck and scream Oh my God a leak!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...