Subject: Ooh, shiny.
Author:
Posted on: 2010-09-03 05:51:00 UTC
Having seen the movie since the previous discussion and now, I definitely appreciate what you've written a good bit more. It's rather good - provides a lot more context than the original, even if it has yet to diverge very much.
Fixed the typos. To be honest... I've said it enough already, but the main difference here is basically contraindicating Cameron's official description of Earth, which some have pegged as the apocalypse scenario from the environmentalism of the 1970s (Cameron's Generation). If there's fusion, where does the air pollution come from? As the population increases and exploitation space expands, Earths value shifts from land and resources to the amount of food it can produce and the quality of life for it's inhabitants.
Amazing world but a lousy script. Casting I didn't have many gripes with, though if you beg to differ, proffer up.
Yeah, hard to tell if it's the actor or the director or the writer's fault sometimes.
I'll give it a look. I'm pretty neutral about the original movie, and think it could have been done better, so pretty much any good interpetation is fine by me.
Having seen the movie since the previous discussion and now, I definitely appreciate what you've written a good bit more. It's rather good - provides a lot more context than the original, even if it has yet to diverge very much.