EXO Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 thats right he drove the sub that he made himself and mixed the appropriate mixture of gasses for those depths. Is your brain attached to your tongue cause if it is i suggest you swallow..... James Cameron and his brother invented breathing apparatus for the Abbys... so people can talk to each other. I'm pretty sure my brain is attached to my tongue somehow... lol.
nugundamII Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 James Cameron and his brother invented breathing apparatus for the Abbys... so people can talk to each other. I'm pretty sure my brain is attached to my tongue somehow... lol. um i dont think so the person who invented breathing under water was the late great jaque cousteou
EXO Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 um i dont think so the person who invented breathing under water was the late great jaque cousteou yeah, that's exactly what I meant... maybe they should teach you how to read in IT land. You're obviously gonna let your arguments live in out of context land, better get back to discussing the movie, I suggest watching it first.
eugimon Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 plausable here on earth in deep ocean trenches , shrimp, crab and worms survive around volcanic plumes. As witnessed in Blue Planet and Planet Earth there are fish in cave streams acidic enough to burn our skin yet living in these streams are little tiny fish???? In my first year biology in University I learned about certain spider-lings riding the wind at altitudes of 20-30k feet. Freezing and unfreezing. Some commercial jets fly at 40k feet. The point being is that there are many extreme environment organisms living on our planet. With the polar Ice caps melting I predict there will be a tone more discoveries. So fauna and life is plausable. Maybe fungal animals, or intelligent fauna, various insecta. Higher lifeforms would be plausable but not take on shapes you and I would recognize instantly. Heavier gravity, may induce evolution of intelligent squat bodies. Also, thought i would point this out. During the evolution of our planet atmosphere, oxygen levels were so high that it was actually poisonous to most organisms today. Gratefully to activities of bacteria that atmosphere composition changed and can now breath.... not sure what your point is. Pandora has a lower gravity than earth, hence the giant life forms. Those deep sea creatures live near the plumes because that's the only source of energy at those depths. And we already know life can survive frozen in ice. Researchers have found, thawed and brought back to life little bacteria found in ice and they've found life in the middle of salt mines buried miles beneath the surface. So your prediction is a bit like predicting that gravity will still be in effect tomorrow. As for the "plausibility" of the atmosphere argument, that actually holds up to what's shown in the movie. Lots of the "vegetation" shown in the movie is just scaled up stuff you find in coral reefs like the giant christmas worms Jake plays with before being charged by that hammerhead rhino thing. So for something to grow that big via filter feeding junk out of the air, there must be a lot of stuff in it. Oddly though, on earth, those filter feeding organisms evolved because those reef environments are devoid of nutrition so between the symbiotic relationship coral has with zooxanthellae and their filter feeding mechanisms they thrive. Carnivorous plants similarly are found in environments where the ground is low in nutrients. Pandora doesn't really seem to have that problem though, so I'm curious as to what reason there would be for such massive filter feeding organisms to evolve.
EXO Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 not sure what your point is. Pandora has a lower gravity than earth, hence the giant life forms. Those deep sea creatures live near the plumes because that's the only source of energy at those depths. The guy never has a point, his reply is always... " I see what your saying but here's how smart I am by spouting nothing that has to do with anything..." Maybe watching the movie would help and by that I don't mean sitting on your computer while your downloaded video is running as you surf the web. Whatever man... I'm done with the guy... keep posting your "impressive" knowledge about film, fauna and flora, maybe insult me a little here and there... you're pointless.
nugundamII Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 not sure what your point is. Pandora has a lower gravity than earth, hence the giant life forms. Those deep sea creatures live near the plumes because that's the only source of energy at those depths. And we already know life can survive frozen in ice. Researchers have found, thawed and brought back to life little bacteria found in ice and they've found life in the middle of salt mines buried miles beneath the surface. So your prediction is a bit like predicting that gravity will still be in effect tomorrow. As for the "plausibility" of the atmosphere argument, that actually holds up to what's shown in the movie. Lots of the "vegetation" shown in the movie is just scaled up stuff you find in coral reefs like the giant christmas worms Jake plays with before being charged by that hammerhead rhino thing. So for something to grow that big via filter feeding junk out of the air, there must be a lot of stuff in it. Oddly though, on earth, those filter feeding organisms evolved because those reef environments are devoid of nutrition so between the symbiotic relationship coral has with zooxanthellae and their filter feeding mechanisms they thrive. Carnivorous plants similarly are found in environments where the ground is low in nutrients. Pandora doesn't really seem to have that problem though, so I'm curious as to what reason there would be for such massive filter feeding organisms to evolve. And we already know life can survive frozen in ice. Researchers have found, thawed and brought back to life little bacteria found in ice and they've found life in the middle of salt mines buried miles beneath the surface. So your prediction is a bit like predicting that gravity will still be in effect tomorrow. yes i know this but my comment was to the stuff they didnt find yet. As for the "plausibility" of the atmosphere argument, that actually holds up to what's shown in the movie. Lots of the "vegetation" shown in the movie is just scaled up stuff you find in coral reefs like the giant christmas worms Jake plays with before being charged by that hammerhead rhino thing. So for something to grow that big via filter feeding junk out of the air, there must be a lot of stuff in it. -> was that ever explained in the movie? I dont remember or are you postulating? Do you consider trees to be filter feeders? It seemed to me the flora were more fungel in nature which feed more on decaying matter then photosynthesis. Pandora has a lower gravity than earth, hence the giant life forms. ok I was agreeing with you in the opposite. But is your opinion that the animals that mimic the behaviour and enhanced look of a lot of species on earth on pandora seem far fetched?? this part of disecting the life on pandora can be debated for a while but im pretty sure that a planet/moon that close to a gas giant if it was depicted as such would not support the flora and life we see in the movie. I havent read anything on gas planets in solar systems that orbit the Goldilocks region and if so could it support life on its moons like we see in pandora
nugundamII Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 The guy never has a point, his reply is always... " I see what your saying but here's how smart I am by spouting nothing that has to do with anything..." Maybe watching the movie would help and by that I don't mean sitting on your computer while your downloaded video is running as you surf the web. Whatever man... I'm done with the guy... keep posting your "impressive" knowledge about film, fauna and flora, maybe insult me a little here and there... you're pointless. thats right cause your opinion is always correct and anyone that disagrees with you feel the urge to insult and pretend you know everything by claiming i know nothing. diddo i have tried not responding to you but you too have nothing better to do but continue to harass me instead of discuss and debate.
eugimon Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 What? If there's a lot of crap in the air that things can eat, then no, I don't think it's far fetched at all that similar structures and behaviours would emerge. Convergent evolution, similar solutions given similar circumstances and problems. And I have no idea about the gas giants. I know we've found more than a few and that they tend to be closer to their suns than our gas giants are in relation to our sun but given that the humans on Pandora can walk around without environmental suits, the planet would have to be at a point that's similar in relationship to where earth is to our sun. So given that, why couldn't flora develop on such a world? The moons around Jupiter are frozen balls of gas and liquid because of their distance from the sun, not because they orbit a gas giant. The gas giant doesn't magically suck all the heat from an orbiting body.
Omegablue Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Firstly, anime52k8 Your “Avatar” is awesome. I like. My background...Im an IT Project Manager. I have 2 degrees one in Political Science, and the other in Psychology. Decided I liked IT got my MSCE. Was a field tech and learned about cabling infrastructure and VOIP and that is what i manage now. Congratulations. I lecture concept design and 3D animation, and have an endless list of graduates established in Ubi-soft, ILM, Blizzard, and etc. So what do I win? The author of the article had to present his credibility, which is commonly done when reviewing this type of subject. Nu, I think you took the whole point of him quoting his background the wrong way. In no way did any of that come off as someone trying to say he was smarter than us therefore saying he could understand the movie better. He was stating from a real scientific standpoint, not story, that most of the movie was plausible and done well from said scientific standpoint. Thank you. Such a pain to have to scroll through miles of quoted replies. You know, instead of quoting Omegablue's entire post, why not just quote the Aintitcoolnews.com link? After all, Omegablue just copied and pasted the entire entry from that website. I also thought the same would have had happened. Hence why I added the link as well. Omegablue as for Pandora not having Oxygen, I think the article(yours?) is mistaken, Pandora has oxygen but due to the lower strength gravity it's not dense enough to sustains the humans. The part where Stephen Lang's character runs out of the control room is another unfathomable stretch but I guess it's meant to show his determination, but you'd think his heartrate would cause him to breathe harder... again, suspension of disbelief. Nope, the article is not mine. I’m too lazy to analyze this kind of clever stuff in that detail. LOL I think he does mention it has oxygen, (?) but also other elements that humans cannot sustain, like density. But yeah, I hear you. Edited January 7, 2010 by Omegablue
EXO Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 thats right cause your opinion is always correct and anyone that disagrees with you feel the urge to insult and pretend you know everything by claiming i know nothing. diddo i have tried not responding to you but you too have nothing better to do but continue to harass me instead of discuss and debate. Lol. What load of crock. It's a case of kettle meet pot. You have nothing better to do but insult people for liking the movie and so when I turn it around I knew you would play victim. But you barely even discuss the movie. You talk more about your "near credentials". And then when you can't think of anything to say you tell me tonswallow my tongue. There's where your maturity stands.
nugundamII Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 What? If there's a lot of crap in the air that things can eat, then no, I don't think it's far fetched at all that similar structures and behaviours would emerge. Convergent evolution, similar solutions given similar circumstances and problems. And I have no idea about the gas giants. I know we've found more than a few and that they tend to be closer to their suns than our gas giants are in relation to our sun but given that the humans on Pandora can walk around without environmental suits, the planet would have to be at a point that's similar in relationship to where earth is to our sun. So given that, why couldn't flora develop on such a world? The moons around Jupiter are frozen balls of gas and liquid because of their distance from the sun, not because they orbit a gas giant. The gas giant doesn't magically suck all the heat from an orbiting body. yes i do believe in convergence but to what degree. I wish you guys watched that special on alien life on alien worlds that brought together specialists from astrophysicists to biologists to understand what I am talking about. On pandora camerons version of life was a bunch of chimeras. A horse butterfly that galloped and grunted like a real horse would. The animal motions mimicked movement of animals here on earth. Convergence on that scale i dont think is possible. I liked the creatures from the movie enemy mine. Even the latest star trek had some original animal life a worm with legs. Not a polar bear with four legs etc etc. The only thing i can credit cameron on is the flora. Excellent work was done in that respect. And I did like the idea that there was a neural network by the trees that would border on intelligent life. the moons around our own Jupiter are volatile due to the gravity of the gas giant. Actually gas giants generate subdural friction within the moons to generate heat. There are gas giants that have been ejected from their solar orbits and are free floating with moons possible to generate heat by friction but i dont think there is even one discovery of a Jupiter in the green zone with moons that would support life. Gas giant moons are in constant flux because of its orbit i think miranda is one example that comes to mind. No pandora would have to be earth like in orbit and the same distance from its parent star in relation to the type of star it is
nugundamII Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Lol. What load of crock. It's a case of kettle meet pot. You have nothing better to do but insult people for liking the movie and so when I turn it around I knew you would play victim. But you barely even discuss the movie. You talk more about your "near credentials". And then when you can't think of anything to say you tell me tonswallow my tongue. There's where your maturity stands. and your still going........your like the energizer bunny. I never insulted anyone for liking the movie. If people like chocolate covered poo so be it. its my freedom to say its chocolate covered poo and people have a right to ask why i think its chocolate covered poo and maybe sometimes you find people can agree. thats not insulting people. But since your insulting me now i will throw some back at you i gave my opinion of the movie and the reasons why i didnt like it. many reasons would you like me to list them for you. Im sure i dont have to because i know your going to waste time looking for some far off thing i commented and misrepresent it so you can feel in some way superior about yourself and then come back and try to argue and harass me some more. i never harassed anybody about the movie. i debate back and forth about their idea of the movie. and why all the farting angst. its a movie with no real moral point to further discussion on rather than the science. you earlier commented on me not liking the movie before i seen it. sure why not thats what trailers are for. same goes for rotf and i gave wolverine a chance even tho the trailers fooled me there it was crap. i never said this movie sucked after i saw it. people are allowed to change their minds. waiting for some smart ass rebuttel....... but i will go back to say what i have always said about the movie. the special affects were good. but not good enough to tie me to the characters which is why i see a film. gimmicks like 3d if you really think about are pretty stupid. if you have to make a conscientious effort to forget about your present surroundings and be in the film an alice in wonderland syndrome than whats the point. glowing lights cool i like glowing lights on my new laptop but does it have substance. then i post links of news articles about the movie and your point was a punch at me not the comments which i share with the people.. i guess by your definition they are all stupid. so we dont like each other np. beauty of freedom. ill refrain from posting on your opinions you back off on harassing me ps and dont get all delusional and think just cause your a mod on a website devoted to macross that you can push your weight around and act like some sort of dictator and think you can comment on peoples viewpoints and perspectives without debating on what those viewpoints are or even expressing some interest to further understand board members one more thing. your supposed act impartial as a mod. if you want to act as moderator you cant actively participate in biased discussion for members would then fear retribution. You want to participate in debate give up your status as a mod Edited January 7, 2010 by nugundamII
bob joe mac Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 and your still going........your like the energizer bunny. I never insulted anyone for liking the movie. If people like chocolate covered poo so be it. its my freedom to say its chocolate covered poo and people have a right to ask why i think its chocolate covered poo and maybe sometimes you find people can agree. thats not insulting people. But since your insulting me now i will throw some back at you i gave my opinion of the movie and the reasons why i didnt like it. many reasons would you like me to list them for you. Im sure i dont have to because i know your going to waste time looking for some far off thing i commented and misrepresent it so you can feel in some way superior about yourself and then come back and try to argue and harass me some more. i never harassed anybody about the movie. i debate back and forth about their idea of the movie. and why all the farting angst. its a movie with no real moral point to further discussion on rather than the science. you earlier commented on me not liking the movie before i seen it. sure why not thats what trailers are for. same goes for rotf and i gave wolverine a chance even tho the trailers fooled me there it was crap. i never said this movie sucked after i saw it. people are allowed to change their minds. waiting for some smart ass rebuttel....... but i will go back to say what i have always said about the movie. the special affects were good. but not good enough to tie me to the characters which is why i see a film. gimmicks like 3d if you really think about are pretty stupid. if you have to make a conscientious effort to forget about your present surroundings and be in the film an alice in wonderland syndrome than whats the point. glowing lights cool i like glowing lights on my new laptop but does it have substance. then i post links of news articles about the movie and your point was a punch at me not the comments which i share with the people.. i guess by your definition they are all stupid. so we dont like each other np. beauty of freedom. ill refrain from posting on your opinions you back off on harassing me ps and dont get all delusional and think just cause your a mod on a website devoted to macross that you can push your weight around and act like some sort of dictator and think you can comment on peoples viewpoints and perspectives without debating on what those viewpoints are or even expressing some interest to further understand board members one more thing. your supposed act impartial as a mod. if you want to act as moderator you cant actively participate in biased discussion for members would then fear retribution. You want to participate in debate give up your status as a mod So now the troll is complaining that others are trolling him? awesome I love the internet.
eugimon Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 yes i do believe in convergence but to what degree. I wish you guys watched that special on alien life on alien worlds that brought together specialists from astrophysicists to biologists to understand what I am talking about. On pandora camerons version of life was a bunch of chimeras. A horse butterfly that galloped and grunted like a real horse would. The animal motions mimicked movement of animals here on earth. Convergence on that scale i dont think is possible. I liked the creatures from the movie enemy mine. Even the latest star trek had some original animal life a worm with legs. Not a polar bear with four legs etc etc. The only thing i can credit cameron on is the flora. Excellent work was done in that respect. And I did like the idea that there was a neural network by the trees that would border on intelligent life. the moons around our own Jupiter are volatile due to the gravity of the gas giant. Actually gas giants generate subdural friction within the moons to generate heat. There are gas giants that have been ejected from their solar orbits and are free floating with moons possible to generate heat by friction but i dont think there is even one discovery of a Jupiter in the green zone with moons that would support life. Gas giant moons are in constant flux because of its orbit i think miranda is one example that comes to mind. No pandora would have to be earth like in orbit and the same distance from its parent star in relation to the type of star it is Have you even seen the movie? The alien life forms on Pandora are quite different from the animals on Earth. There is a concept called biomechanics and economy of motion and energy. While fanciful creatures with crazy joints and what not are cool, they don't make sense from a biological standpoint. Everything costs energy. So given that restraint, the race is for the most using the least, so you tend to find that nature keeps coming to the same solutions. It's why the crazy flying creatures with multiple wings groupings, or crazy crests, etc, aren't as successful or died out, because the design was inefficient. Maybe there has been no gas giant in the habitable zone with an earth like moon. So what? As I understand it, there's been few discoveries of rocky planets in general and certainly none containing any life at all, even outside of our little old planet. This is why it's called science FICTION. And since you are the one who kept bringing up Serenity as an example of sci-fi you like, and while I like it too, it's absurd that you're holding Avatar to such a nitpicky standard when in the Firefly universe, all the habitable worlds seen, dozens of them including habitable asteroids, are all clustered in one solar system.
peter Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Holy $hit, why would you quote that whole block of text for a one-like reply? Pay attention. A thousand apologies your highness, I will pay closer attention next time. Thank you for your supervision. Why are people going over the plausibility of the science behind the movie with a fine-tooth comb? It's science fiction, not science fact. I suppose Clash of the Titans is going to get a lot of bad press because of the impossibility of giant scorpions and witches with snake hair that are so ugly they turn you to stone. Yeah, I know, Clash of the Titans is a fantasy, not sci-fi, but at the end of the day, they're both just movies, stories - fictitious works of art. They're meant to entertain, not meant for you to dissect and analyze until it's no longer fun. Why even bother going to the movies if it has to be as precise as a science text book? If I want to watch a documentary on alien planets, I'll watch one. Avatar is just a movie....a movie that has now taken 12 hours of my life and about $60 of my hard earned money, but that's okay, I was entertained. Edited January 7, 2010 by peter
Duke Togo Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Do you even know what that means? That's just one of those numbers that fanboys love to blurb about... Watch out, Gone with the Wind fanboys are loose!
promethuem5 Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 A thousand apologies your highness, I will pay closer attention next time. Thank you for your supervision. Sorry, it was just an impossible amount of useless text to have to scroll through twice.
EXO Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Watch out, Gone with the Wind fanboys are loose! Another brilliant addition to the discussion... go find more stats and make brilliant observations... I suppose Clash of the Titans is going to get a lot of bad press because of the impossibility of giant scorpions and witches with snake hair that are so ugly they turn you to stone. Yeah, I know, Clash of the Titans is a fantasy, not sci-fi, but at the end of the day, they're both just movies, stories - fictitious works of art. They're meant to entertain, not meant for you to dissect and analyze until it's no longer fun. Why even bother going to the movies if it has to be as precise as a science text book? If I want to watch a documentary on alien planets, I'll watch one. Avatar is just a movie....a movie that has now taken 12 hours of my life and about $60 of my hard earned money, but that's okay, I was entertained. Well it would be impossible for scorpions to get that big without the support of water which explains why crusta... wait a minute... I detect sarcasm...
peter Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Sorry, it was just an impossible amount of useless text to have to scroll through twice. Apology accepted. Exo, can you finish your thing about the giant scorpions, it's so facinating.....haha, kidding. I love movies about giant creatures....giant scorpions, giant spiders, giant women...all cool. While we're on the matter of giant things, what about the giant blue dudes in our favourite anime? Their 60 *ucking feet tall, can shrink in a capsule of bubbly $hit and successfully mate with humanoids from Earth. ......so, what's the problem with a hot 12 foot blue chick with a tail? Edited January 7, 2010 by peter
eugimon Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 I don't see anything wrong with going over the science of a movie, not when the film makers clearly took the time to think about it and present the material as realistically as possible. Besides, while the science may seem tedious to some, it's fun for me.
nugundamII Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 i saw clash of the titans mentioned cant wait i love giant scorpions and chicks with tails and snakes for hair im no good at mythos stuff so no debates from me seriously tho i didnt like the movie i hope that putting cg above everything else in a movie doesnt become a trend and with that not to piss off the sensitive types is that last i will say about avatar
peter Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 i saw clash of the titans mentioned cant wait i love giant scorpions and chicks with tails and snakes for hair im no good at mythos stuff so no debates from me seriously tho i didnt like the movie i hope that putting cg above everything else in a movie doesnt become a trend and with that not to piss off the sensitive types is that last i will say about avatar Yes, hot naked chicks....er, I mean, tall blue chicks with tails....right.... I think CG in movies is only going to increase, and what film makers are hoping to accomplish one day are effects that you can't tell are CG. That's what pioneers like Cameron are working towards. Compared to say, Tron and STIII, the earliest use of CG, there have been leaps and bounds in advancement. The rate it's going, they may be able to make some pretty cool $hit in the next decade or so. Maybe even bring back dead actors, or at least their likenesses. It was cool to see a younger Arnold's face as Terminator again, sure it didn't look perfect, but in about 5 or ten years, we won't be able to tell the difference. And let me get just a bit off topic, but it is my hope that live-action sequences for SDF Macross and DYRL will be made one day....that Pachinko commercial that came out was pretty cool, imagine what they could do if they dumped a lot of time and money into it? Of course, I hope that Hollywood doesn't get their rat-claws and hand it to a jackass like Michael Bay, like they did with Transformers. Macross CG/live action should be made by the fans though, fans who will do the original designs justice.....and if CGI technology keeps on advancing, it might be done, possibly by members of Macrossworld, in about 10 years or so.
EXO Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I think this type of CG will be good for SOME iconic fictitious characters like Superman, where you never have to worry about the actor getting old. Just design the perfect supes and worry about story first. Having a world already created will make it cheaper too, everytime they make a movie. At the same time, you can't use it for James Bond. I think it would work but people wouldnt accept it because the stunts have to feel like he's in mortal danger... just IMHO.
taksraven Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Are we ready for blue alien SEX!!!!!!!!!!!???????? Taksraven
Vepariga Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 this thread seems to have gotten off the rails abit , i think we can summarize it. Some people like it,others love it,others hate it. The scientific nature of a fictional world is fun to argue,but its not worth ripping into people about.
eriku Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) Are we ready for blue alien SEX!!!!!!!!!!!???????? Taksraven Heh, the syncing is exactly how I guessed that the Na'vi 'did it'. Odd that they felt compelled to cut that scene when the Na'vi are running around syncing with everything else. I guess Na'vis having sex with horses, dragons, super-dragons and trees is fine, but with each other? That's just dirty! Edited January 8, 2010 by eriku
EXO Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 No, and this is just a guess, but I think they actually did it... synching is a way of communicating... I mean just because they didn't show blue schlong in a rated PG-13 movie doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Omegablue Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) ... I'm a firm believer that public criticism needs to be supported by constructive solution. Example, if someone knows how to have done the Avatar script and dialog better, than please submit your version to strengthen your case. With the actual film aside, my minor disappointment with the film was the lack of high end collector's merchandise. Aside from the Avatar diary and art book, what else is there that's a decent buy? Edited January 8, 2010 by Omegablue
eugimon Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 ... I'm a firm believer that public criticism needs to be supported by constructive solution. Example, if someone knows how to have done the Avatar script and dialog better, than please submit your version to strengthen your case. With the actual film aside, my minor disappointment with the film was the lack of high end collector's merchandise. Aside from the Avatar diary and art book, what else is there that's a decent buy? here you go http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=4489&sku=300032
electric indigo Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I got the Avatar Cinefex issue today and will work my way though the FX technobabble over the weekend.
Omegablue Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 here you go http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=4489&sku=300032 Price is high! Too much. But, yes a true high end collectible. Very awesomo. Thanx for sharing.
Wanzerfan Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 *Deletes Netflix queue* ass! I'll see your ass and raise you a prick.
eugimon Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I'll see your ass and raise you a prick. wow.. this is way the wrong thread for you to be professing your hots for exo...
Wanzerfan Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) wow.. this is way the wrong thread for you to be professing your hots for exo... I was agreeing with her assessment for the massive spoiler post a few pages back using poker tems (post #398 in this thread, to be exact), that's all. Edited January 8, 2010 by Wanzerfan
Recommended Posts