<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_145247</id>
	<title><em>Avatar</em> Soars Into $1-Billion Territory</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262615580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Suki I writes <i> "<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-boxoffice4-2010jan04,0,4580669.story"> <em>Avatar</em> soars into $1-billion territory</a>. 'Strong foreign ticket sales help make the science-fiction movie the fifth in history to pass the watermark. ... One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office. When <em>Avatar</em> opened, its solid but far from stellar results left 20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off.'"</i>  Given that the big alternatives were <em>Sherlock Holmes</em> or <em>Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</em>, I think the winner was clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suki I writes " Avatar soars into $ 1-billion territory .
'Strong foreign ticket sales help make the science-fiction movie the fifth in history to pass the watermark .
... One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office .
When Avatar opened , its solid but far from stellar results left 20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $ 430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off .
' " Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks , I think the winner was clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suki I writes  " Avatar soars into $1-billion territory.
'Strong foreign ticket sales help make the science-fiction movie the fifth in history to pass the watermark.
... One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office.
When Avatar opened, its solid but far from stellar results left 20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off.
'"  Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644666</id>
	<title>What a stupid movie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262637000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, how did Cameron arrive at the conclusion that a movie about a forum user pic would make for good cinema?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how did Cameron arrive at the conclusion that a movie about a forum user pic would make for good cinema ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how did Cameron arrive at the conclusion that a movie about a forum user pic would make for good cinema?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642934</id>
	<title>Re:Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1262629200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see it again, when I saw it I saw it in 3d not IMAX 3d.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see it again , when I saw it I saw it in 3d not IMAX 3d .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see it again, when I saw it I saw it in 3d not IMAX 3d.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640878</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While elements of the plot were retooled from various old standbys, it was a touching and memorable story with some strong characters.  It will fit into my epic movie memory somewhere well below Ben Hur and well above the Rocky series.</p><p>While the story reeks of "ten things I hate about you", the part that annoyed me the most was the preachy tone of the environmentalism in it.</p><p>That said, both times I've seen it in the theatre, the audience gave it a literal standing ovation, which is somewhat rare in movie theatres with no actual actors to appreciate the applause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While elements of the plot were retooled from various old standbys , it was a touching and memorable story with some strong characters .
It will fit into my epic movie memory somewhere well below Ben Hur and well above the Rocky series.While the story reeks of " ten things I hate about you " , the part that annoyed me the most was the preachy tone of the environmentalism in it.That said , both times I 've seen it in the theatre , the audience gave it a literal standing ovation , which is somewhat rare in movie theatres with no actual actors to appreciate the applause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While elements of the plot were retooled from various old standbys, it was a touching and memorable story with some strong characters.
It will fit into my epic movie memory somewhere well below Ben Hur and well above the Rocky series.While the story reeks of "ten things I hate about you", the part that annoyed me the most was the preachy tone of the environmentalism in it.That said, both times I've seen it in the theatre, the audience gave it a literal standing ovation, which is somewhat rare in movie theatres with no actual actors to appreciate the applause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641370</id>
	<title>Re:Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1262623440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <strong>Spoilers ahead</strong> </p><p>These space cats are sitting on massive valuable resources, and when the mega-corps/military go in to liberate them and teach them the civilised way of life, they fight back with guerilla tactics in the name of religion. Our governments have spent the last decade telling us these indigenous people ARE the evil ones, so what does that mean in the real world? Doesn't sound like a happy ending...</p><p>On a side note, this "Unobtainium" is worth what, 400,000 times more than oil, and we're honestly expected to believe the humans will leave them alone after one beating? My bet is on the next visit they'll nuke the planet from orbit then send robots in to do the mining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoilers ahead These space cats are sitting on massive valuable resources , and when the mega-corps/military go in to liberate them and teach them the civilised way of life , they fight back with guerilla tactics in the name of religion .
Our governments have spent the last decade telling us these indigenous people ARE the evil ones , so what does that mean in the real world ?
Does n't sound like a happy ending...On a side note , this " Unobtainium " is worth what , 400,000 times more than oil , and we 're honestly expected to believe the humans will leave them alone after one beating ?
My bet is on the next visit they 'll nuke the planet from orbit then send robots in to do the mining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Spoilers ahead These space cats are sitting on massive valuable resources, and when the mega-corps/military go in to liberate them and teach them the civilised way of life, they fight back with guerilla tactics in the name of religion.
Our governments have spent the last decade telling us these indigenous people ARE the evil ones, so what does that mean in the real world?
Doesn't sound like a happy ending...On a side note, this "Unobtainium" is worth what, 400,000 times more than oil, and we're honestly expected to believe the humans will leave them alone after one beating?
My bet is on the next visit they'll nuke the planet from orbit then send robots in to do the mining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647988</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait for the DVD/BR.</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1262607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad news: they don't have sex.  They just cuddle, and then she tells him they're married.</p><p>But remember what James Cameron: the Na'vi represent the higher nature of real people, the people we wish we were!  Don't let the behavior of the Na'vi fool you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad news : they do n't have sex .
They just cuddle , and then she tells him they 're married.But remember what James Cameron : the Na'vi represent the higher nature of real people , the people we wish we were !
Do n't let the behavior of the Na'vi fool you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad news: they don't have sex.
They just cuddle, and then she tells him they're married.But remember what James Cameron: the Na'vi represent the higher nature of real people, the people we wish we were!
Don't let the behavior of the Na'vi fool you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643094</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I though I was looking "Pocahontas meets Star Trek"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I though I was looking " Pocahontas meets Star Trek "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I though I was looking "Pocahontas meets Star Trek"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642288</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1262626980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, I haven't seen it either, nor do I plan on it.  Yes, I love Sci-fi / fantasy, but I'm not paying money to see another Phantom Menace - which is pretty much what this looks like.  The first trailer alone did a good job of making sure I'd never see the movie since the original trailer didn't mention one bit about a story.  All of my friends who've seen it talk about "it looks so cool" yet can't really say much about a story to go along with the flashy special effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , I have n't seen it either , nor do I plan on it .
Yes , I love Sci-fi / fantasy , but I 'm not paying money to see another Phantom Menace - which is pretty much what this looks like .
The first trailer alone did a good job of making sure I 'd never see the movie since the original trailer did n't mention one bit about a story .
All of my friends who 've seen it talk about " it looks so cool " yet ca n't really say much about a story to go along with the flashy special effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, I haven't seen it either, nor do I plan on it.
Yes, I love Sci-fi / fantasy, but I'm not paying money to see another Phantom Menace - which is pretty much what this looks like.
The first trailer alone did a good job of making sure I'd never see the movie since the original trailer didn't mention one bit about a story.
All of my friends who've seen it talk about "it looks so cool" yet can't really say much about a story to go along with the flashy special effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642690</id>
	<title>Re:Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a side note, this "Unobtainium" is worth what, 400,000 times more than oil, and we're honestly expected to believe the humans will leave them alone after one beating? My bet is on the next visit they'll nuke the planet from orbit then send robots in to do the mining.</p></div><p>My bet is that in any sort of scenario which attempted to be believable that&rsquo;s exactly what they&rsquo;d have done from the outset.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a side note , this " Unobtainium " is worth what , 400,000 times more than oil , and we 're honestly expected to believe the humans will leave them alone after one beating ?
My bet is on the next visit they 'll nuke the planet from orbit then send robots in to do the mining.My bet is that in any sort of scenario which attempted to be believable that    s exactly what they    d have done from the outset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a side note, this "Unobtainium" is worth what, 400,000 times more than oil, and we're honestly expected to believe the humans will leave them alone after one beating?
My bet is on the next visit they'll nuke the planet from orbit then send robots in to do the mining.My bet is that in any sort of scenario which attempted to be believable that’s exactly what they’d have done from the outset.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642888</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, story vs. spectacle.</p><p>Stories I rent, as they're just as good no matter how you see them.  Spectacles on the other hand, the sold-out imax theater this weekend suggests that I'm not alone in going out of the way to view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , story vs. spectacle.Stories I rent , as they 're just as good no matter how you see them .
Spectacles on the other hand , the sold-out imax theater this weekend suggests that I 'm not alone in going out of the way to view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, story vs. spectacle.Stories I rent, as they're just as good no matter how you see them.
Spectacles on the other hand, the sold-out imax theater this weekend suggests that I'm not alone in going out of the way to view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647646</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1262605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, and I wont.</p><p>More over hyped, and even more over FX'd drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , and I wont.More over hyped , and even more over FX 'd drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, and I wont.More over hyped, and even more over FX'd drivel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642464</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>ShatteredArm</author>
	<datestamp>1262627520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"they spent almost 47 dollars on the script"<br> <br>

They might consider asking for a refund.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" they spent almost 47 dollars on the script " They might consider asking for a refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they spent almost 47 dollars on the script" 

They might consider asking for a refund.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645182</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>superstick58</author>
	<datestamp>1262596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"one bloated FX crap-test" - That statement is pretty strongly worded. This type of language may trigger a defensive response to someone who thinks it was a good movie. If someone stated that my dog was an ugly son of a bitch then I would take offense and respond with a verbal attack of equal or greater magnitude. However, if someone said "I would prefer a larger dog such as a lab over a toy dog like a pug", then the response would be different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" one bloated FX crap-test " - That statement is pretty strongly worded .
This type of language may trigger a defensive response to someone who thinks it was a good movie .
If someone stated that my dog was an ugly son of a bitch then I would take offense and respond with a verbal attack of equal or greater magnitude .
However , if someone said " I would prefer a larger dog such as a lab over a toy dog like a pug " , then the response would be different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"one bloated FX crap-test" - That statement is pretty strongly worded.
This type of language may trigger a defensive response to someone who thinks it was a good movie.
If someone stated that my dog was an ugly son of a bitch then I would take offense and respond with a verbal attack of equal or greater magnitude.
However, if someone said "I would prefer a larger dog such as a lab over a toy dog like a pug", then the response would be different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645526</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262597160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course you a--hole, that's because your a f---ing lamer you ass</p><p>jk<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course you a--hole , that 's because your a f---ing lamer you assjk : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course you a--hole, that's because your a f---ing lamer you assjk :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650474</id>
	<title>What is an avatar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is an avatar?</p><p>An Avatar is a new body and personification that is acquired temporarily to enter into another dimension. For example, Avatar in video games refers to players taking on a digital form to enter a virtual world.</p><p>In the original Sanskrit mythology, it refers to nine human/animal forms that Vishnu took and one that is yet to occur. There's a famous couplet in the Gita about these avatars:</p><p>To protect the innocent<br>To destroy evil doers<br>To establish law and order<br>I emerge in every age</p><p>In some cases, the avatar might even forget their "real" identity and feel that they are just human. A popular branch of Hinduism (Advait) argues that this is the situation with most of us. We are all avatars of God who have lost ourselves in the virtual world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is an avatar ? An Avatar is a new body and personification that is acquired temporarily to enter into another dimension .
For example , Avatar in video games refers to players taking on a digital form to enter a virtual world.In the original Sanskrit mythology , it refers to nine human/animal forms that Vishnu took and one that is yet to occur .
There 's a famous couplet in the Gita about these avatars : To protect the innocentTo destroy evil doersTo establish law and orderI emerge in every ageIn some cases , the avatar might even forget their " real " identity and feel that they are just human .
A popular branch of Hinduism ( Advait ) argues that this is the situation with most of us .
We are all avatars of God who have lost ourselves in the virtual world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is an avatar?An Avatar is a new body and personification that is acquired temporarily to enter into another dimension.
For example, Avatar in video games refers to players taking on a digital form to enter a virtual world.In the original Sanskrit mythology, it refers to nine human/animal forms that Vishnu took and one that is yet to occur.
There's a famous couplet in the Gita about these avatars:To protect the innocentTo destroy evil doersTo establish law and orderI emerge in every ageIn some cases, the avatar might even forget their "real" identity and feel that they are just human.
A popular branch of Hinduism (Advait) argues that this is the situation with most of us.
We are all avatars of God who have lost ourselves in the virtual world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</id>
	<title>And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar.  Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.</p><p>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.  Even if only one of those was<br>really good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar .
Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.Instead of spending $ 430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films .
Even if only one of those wasreally good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar.
Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.
Even if only one of those wasreally good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642488</id>
	<title>Where is the Halo movie?</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1262627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a movie based on the books written by Eric Nylund would be amazing.  The story itself is compelling (it has a lot of the same concepts as Ender's Game) and Nylund tells it well.  Not only that but the franchise comes with a rather large built in audience.  Granted that the CG would be expensive because I think the Chief, once in his suit) should be almost all CG.
<br> <br>
A movie like Avatar makes it clear that a well done "space opera" with a lot of CG can work well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a movie based on the books written by Eric Nylund would be amazing .
The story itself is compelling ( it has a lot of the same concepts as Ender 's Game ) and Nylund tells it well .
Not only that but the franchise comes with a rather large built in audience .
Granted that the CG would be expensive because I think the Chief , once in his suit ) should be almost all CG .
A movie like Avatar makes it clear that a well done " space opera " with a lot of CG can work well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a movie based on the books written by Eric Nylund would be amazing.
The story itself is compelling (it has a lot of the same concepts as Ender's Game) and Nylund tells it well.
Not only that but the franchise comes with a rather large built in audience.
Granted that the CG would be expensive because I think the Chief, once in his suit) should be almost all CG.
A movie like Avatar makes it clear that a well done "space opera" with a lot of CG can work well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648930</id>
	<title>Re:Ignoring the 3D buzzword</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw it at a regular, 2-d theater, and I still thought it was fantastic.    YMMV as far as liking the plot goes; as people have said above, that kind of story has been done before.  Personally, I'm a sucker for that sort of story, so I liked that aspect too.</p><p>I honestly thought going in that most of the scenes with the big blue things were people in makeup and costume.  Wasn't until later that I discovered that wasn't ever the case.  I thought it really was that good.  The high level of detail they applied to the faces of the Na'vi, combined with the fact that they are, after all, not entirely human managed to keep the film entirely out of the uncanny valley for me.</p><p>Bottom line: I would pay to see it again, even on a 2-d screen.</p><p>(FWIW)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw it at a regular , 2-d theater , and I still thought it was fantastic .
YMMV as far as liking the plot goes ; as people have said above , that kind of story has been done before .
Personally , I 'm a sucker for that sort of story , so I liked that aspect too.I honestly thought going in that most of the scenes with the big blue things were people in makeup and costume .
Was n't until later that I discovered that was n't ever the case .
I thought it really was that good .
The high level of detail they applied to the faces of the Na'vi , combined with the fact that they are , after all , not entirely human managed to keep the film entirely out of the uncanny valley for me.Bottom line : I would pay to see it again , even on a 2-d screen .
( FWIW )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw it at a regular, 2-d theater, and I still thought it was fantastic.
YMMV as far as liking the plot goes; as people have said above, that kind of story has been done before.
Personally, I'm a sucker for that sort of story, so I liked that aspect too.I honestly thought going in that most of the scenes with the big blue things were people in makeup and costume.
Wasn't until later that I discovered that wasn't ever the case.
I thought it really was that good.
The high level of detail they applied to the faces of the Na'vi, combined with the fact that they are, after all, not entirely human managed to keep the film entirely out of the uncanny valley for me.Bottom line: I would pay to see it again, even on a 2-d screen.
(FWIW)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643034</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I respect your honesty in being the lowest common denominator incarnate. It's worth pointing out, however, that many of the prettiest films are also actually very good and I suspect you haven't seen anywhere near all of them -- I certainly haven't either. People who feel compelled to make great movies tend to also want to make them look terrific, and so the movies you snub your nose at in reverse snobbery are some of the prettiest movies ever made. Of the current movies, Broken Embraces is supposed to be gorgeous and brilliant, why not go check it out? You start off with your brain shut off, and if it happens to wake up and enjoy it, great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect your honesty in being the lowest common denominator incarnate .
It 's worth pointing out , however , that many of the prettiest films are also actually very good and I suspect you have n't seen anywhere near all of them -- I certainly have n't either .
People who feel compelled to make great movies tend to also want to make them look terrific , and so the movies you snub your nose at in reverse snobbery are some of the prettiest movies ever made .
Of the current movies , Broken Embraces is supposed to be gorgeous and brilliant , why not go check it out ?
You start off with your brain shut off , and if it happens to wake up and enjoy it , great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect your honesty in being the lowest common denominator incarnate.
It's worth pointing out, however, that many of the prettiest films are also actually very good and I suspect you haven't seen anywhere near all of them -- I certainly haven't either.
People who feel compelled to make great movies tend to also want to make them look terrific, and so the movies you snub your nose at in reverse snobbery are some of the prettiest movies ever made.
Of the current movies, Broken Embraces is supposed to be gorgeous and brilliant, why not go check it out?
You start off with your brain shut off, and if it happens to wake up and enjoy it, great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642404</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>DrEasy</author>
	<datestamp>1262627340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think Avatar is an adult movie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think Avatar is an adult movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think Avatar is an adult movie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30649178</id>
	<title>Re:Great movie</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1262612760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, me too. Of course it was science fiction. After all, it's a note-for-note rip-off of Dune, cleverly disguised by using a lush, green world instead of a sandy desert, then gutted to remove any of the bits that actually make Dune an interesting novel: evil corporation stealing, literally, unobtainium from savages who are "in touch" with their environment in ways the evil corporates can't understand. Character from evil corporation changes sides and becomes messiah figure. Character falls in love with savage. Messiah figure leads savages to victory. Heck, they even have ornithopter-like flying machines. Now just throw in a thinking forest composed of the thoughts of the dead, ala Orson Scott Card's "Children of the Mind". Oh, plus some Mechs ala every random anime you've ever seen.</p></div><p>Goddamn it, that is not how Dune went!</p><p>Dune does not have an "evil corporation".  CHOAM only exists on paper as a device for distributing trade profits to the Great Houses.  The villain is a feudal lord, and a fuckton cleverer than any of the gits in Avatar.  Actually, everyone in Dune was cleverer than the saps in Avatar.  The Atreides walked straight into a trap and they were cleverer than everyone in Avatar.</p><p>Paul Atreides never "changed sides".  He always played his own side, and he knew that he was controlling the Fremen to win his fief and later his empire.  Paul was a messiah figure, yes, but only because the Bene Gesserit and his mother genetically engineered and trained him for that role -- making him just a rather ambiguous messiah.  Note that the Mahdi/Lisan al-Gaib was the messiah figure, whereas Kwisatz Haderach meant "male with lots of superpowers and genetic memory", but that they fitted together because the Missionaria Protectiva had deliberately implanted messiah-legends in the Fremen culture to prepare them to accept the Kwisatz Haderach as leader when they bring him.</p><p>The Fremen were not savages.  They had a culture with enough science to manufacture the stillsuits and other Fremkit components themselves, and once the older Dr. Kynes joined them they had the ecological science to slowly terraform their planet.  They lived "in harmony" with the desert as a survival adaptation with eyes towards transforming it into a human-friendly environment.  You can't call them savages just because they seem more like Bedouin than Westerners.</p><p>So then the ambiguous-messiah leads the not-savages to victory by threatening supplies of an essential natural resource (note that Avatar totally missed the "keep the unobtainium flowing" angle).  He thus tragically dooms himself, because winning back his fief and an empire for himself using deliberately-stoked religious fanaticism creates a fanatic cult that the so-called "messiah" can't actually control.  He then loses the Fremen girl he loved so much and cannot stand the thought of what he'd have to do to set humanity back on a healthy course, so he marches into the desert to die and leaves that task to his son.  He doesn't just kick out the "evil imperialists" and somehow obtain a nature-hippie utopia complete with loving wife and noble-savage lifestyle.</p><p>Why yes, I am a Dune fanboy.  What tipped you off?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , me too .
Of course it was science fiction .
After all , it 's a note-for-note rip-off of Dune , cleverly disguised by using a lush , green world instead of a sandy desert , then gutted to remove any of the bits that actually make Dune an interesting novel : evil corporation stealing , literally , unobtainium from savages who are " in touch " with their environment in ways the evil corporates ca n't understand .
Character from evil corporation changes sides and becomes messiah figure .
Character falls in love with savage .
Messiah figure leads savages to victory .
Heck , they even have ornithopter-like flying machines .
Now just throw in a thinking forest composed of the thoughts of the dead , ala Orson Scott Card 's " Children of the Mind " .
Oh , plus some Mechs ala every random anime you 've ever seen.Goddamn it , that is not how Dune went ! Dune does not have an " evil corporation " .
CHOAM only exists on paper as a device for distributing trade profits to the Great Houses .
The villain is a feudal lord , and a fuckton cleverer than any of the gits in Avatar .
Actually , everyone in Dune was cleverer than the saps in Avatar .
The Atreides walked straight into a trap and they were cleverer than everyone in Avatar.Paul Atreides never " changed sides " .
He always played his own side , and he knew that he was controlling the Fremen to win his fief and later his empire .
Paul was a messiah figure , yes , but only because the Bene Gesserit and his mother genetically engineered and trained him for that role -- making him just a rather ambiguous messiah .
Note that the Mahdi/Lisan al-Gaib was the messiah figure , whereas Kwisatz Haderach meant " male with lots of superpowers and genetic memory " , but that they fitted together because the Missionaria Protectiva had deliberately implanted messiah-legends in the Fremen culture to prepare them to accept the Kwisatz Haderach as leader when they bring him.The Fremen were not savages .
They had a culture with enough science to manufacture the stillsuits and other Fremkit components themselves , and once the older Dr. Kynes joined them they had the ecological science to slowly terraform their planet .
They lived " in harmony " with the desert as a survival adaptation with eyes towards transforming it into a human-friendly environment .
You ca n't call them savages just because they seem more like Bedouin than Westerners.So then the ambiguous-messiah leads the not-savages to victory by threatening supplies of an essential natural resource ( note that Avatar totally missed the " keep the unobtainium flowing " angle ) .
He thus tragically dooms himself , because winning back his fief and an empire for himself using deliberately-stoked religious fanaticism creates a fanatic cult that the so-called " messiah " ca n't actually control .
He then loses the Fremen girl he loved so much and can not stand the thought of what he 'd have to do to set humanity back on a healthy course , so he marches into the desert to die and leaves that task to his son .
He does n't just kick out the " evil imperialists " and somehow obtain a nature-hippie utopia complete with loving wife and noble-savage lifestyle.Why yes , I am a Dune fanboy .
What tipped you off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, me too.
Of course it was science fiction.
After all, it's a note-for-note rip-off of Dune, cleverly disguised by using a lush, green world instead of a sandy desert, then gutted to remove any of the bits that actually make Dune an interesting novel: evil corporation stealing, literally, unobtainium from savages who are "in touch" with their environment in ways the evil corporates can't understand.
Character from evil corporation changes sides and becomes messiah figure.
Character falls in love with savage.
Messiah figure leads savages to victory.
Heck, they even have ornithopter-like flying machines.
Now just throw in a thinking forest composed of the thoughts of the dead, ala Orson Scott Card's "Children of the Mind".
Oh, plus some Mechs ala every random anime you've ever seen.Goddamn it, that is not how Dune went!Dune does not have an "evil corporation".
CHOAM only exists on paper as a device for distributing trade profits to the Great Houses.
The villain is a feudal lord, and a fuckton cleverer than any of the gits in Avatar.
Actually, everyone in Dune was cleverer than the saps in Avatar.
The Atreides walked straight into a trap and they were cleverer than everyone in Avatar.Paul Atreides never "changed sides".
He always played his own side, and he knew that he was controlling the Fremen to win his fief and later his empire.
Paul was a messiah figure, yes, but only because the Bene Gesserit and his mother genetically engineered and trained him for that role -- making him just a rather ambiguous messiah.
Note that the Mahdi/Lisan al-Gaib was the messiah figure, whereas Kwisatz Haderach meant "male with lots of superpowers and genetic memory", but that they fitted together because the Missionaria Protectiva had deliberately implanted messiah-legends in the Fremen culture to prepare them to accept the Kwisatz Haderach as leader when they bring him.The Fremen were not savages.
They had a culture with enough science to manufacture the stillsuits and other Fremkit components themselves, and once the older Dr. Kynes joined them they had the ecological science to slowly terraform their planet.
They lived "in harmony" with the desert as a survival adaptation with eyes towards transforming it into a human-friendly environment.
You can't call them savages just because they seem more like Bedouin than Westerners.So then the ambiguous-messiah leads the not-savages to victory by threatening supplies of an essential natural resource (note that Avatar totally missed the "keep the unobtainium flowing" angle).
He thus tragically dooms himself, because winning back his fief and an empire for himself using deliberately-stoked religious fanaticism creates a fanatic cult that the so-called "messiah" can't actually control.
He then loses the Fremen girl he loved so much and cannot stand the thought of what he'd have to do to set humanity back on a healthy course, so he marches into the desert to die and leaves that task to his son.
He doesn't just kick out the "evil imperialists" and somehow obtain a nature-hippie utopia complete with loving wife and noble-savage lifestyle.Why yes, I am a Dune fanboy.
What tipped you off?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641496</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1262623920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just a special effects movie.</p><p>There is no point in seeing this film outside of the theater.</p><p>Dances with Wolvatars is not even remotely as good as Dances with Wolves which did the same story much better and with better acting.</p><p>This is a "B" movie with mostly "B" actors and 100 million dollars of special effects.</p><p>I paid the tariff to see it and recommend seeing it as a new experience like you would see a ride film at disney.</p><p>Actually, the first 2/3 is not bad, and then it gets really, really dumb and has a tacked on holly wood ending instead of whatever the real ending was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a special effects movie.There is no point in seeing this film outside of the theater.Dances with Wolvatars is not even remotely as good as Dances with Wolves which did the same story much better and with better acting.This is a " B " movie with mostly " B " actors and 100 million dollars of special effects.I paid the tariff to see it and recommend seeing it as a new experience like you would see a ride film at disney.Actually , the first 2/3 is not bad , and then it gets really , really dumb and has a tacked on holly wood ending instead of whatever the real ending was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a special effects movie.There is no point in seeing this film outside of the theater.Dances with Wolvatars is not even remotely as good as Dances with Wolves which did the same story much better and with better acting.This is a "B" movie with mostly "B" actors and 100 million dollars of special effects.I paid the tariff to see it and recommend seeing it as a new experience like you would see a ride film at disney.Actually, the first 2/3 is not bad, and then it gets really, really dumb and has a tacked on holly wood ending instead of whatever the real ending was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645682</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tl:dr - Saint is politically opposed to the message, so the movie sucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tl : dr - Saint is politically opposed to the message , so the movie sucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl:dr - Saint is politically opposed to the message, so the movie sucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641482</id>
	<title>Re:Risky = success!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ironically, apart from the massive SFX budget, this is pretty much a rehash of several movies from the last 20-30 years and is so bland, it's the least risky movie I've seen in years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , apart from the massive SFX budget , this is pretty much a rehash of several movies from the last 20-30 years and is so bland , it 's the least risky movie I 've seen in years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, apart from the massive SFX budget, this is pretty much a rehash of several movies from the last 20-30 years and is so bland, it's the least risky movie I've seen in years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640552</id>
	<title>another blockbuster for everyone with big visuals</title>
	<author>marcuz</author>
	<datestamp>1262620140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i saw it yesterday and was really dissapointed. next time please try less military parade and more of a storyline. it could be sooo good and they just fcked it up. what a pitty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>i saw it yesterday and was really dissapointed .
next time please try less military parade and more of a storyline .
it could be sooo good and they just fcked it up .
what a pitty : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i saw it yesterday and was really dissapointed.
next time please try less military parade and more of a storyline.
it could be sooo good and they just fcked it up.
what a pitty :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640882</id>
	<title>Made to sell 3d Tech</title>
	<author>KDEnut</author>
	<datestamp>1262621580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I keep having to remind myself that this movie wasn't made so much to sell tickets so much as to re-sell 3D to the masses.<br> <br>  Most consumers had written off most 3D flicks to cheesy horror flicks where the ax is getting thrown right at you.<br> <br> Notice in this movie the astounding lack of "COMING AT YOU!" 3D moments, and more use of the visuals to help set the mood &amp; stage for what was going on in the movie (ie: busy control room, falling ashes, etc).<br> <br> Coincedently this is exactly what I preach to my friends &amp; family about when I said that if the MPAA wants to continue to exist, they'll find a way to fill the theater seats.  This innovation will help for the next 5 years or so until the consumer market saturates with 3D glasses &amp; Tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep having to remind myself that this movie was n't made so much to sell tickets so much as to re-sell 3D to the masses .
Most consumers had written off most 3D flicks to cheesy horror flicks where the ax is getting thrown right at you .
Notice in this movie the astounding lack of " COMING AT YOU !
" 3D moments , and more use of the visuals to help set the mood &amp; stage for what was going on in the movie ( ie : busy control room , falling ashes , etc ) .
Coincedently this is exactly what I preach to my friends &amp; family about when I said that if the MPAA wants to continue to exist , they 'll find a way to fill the theater seats .
This innovation will help for the next 5 years or so until the consumer market saturates with 3D glasses &amp; Tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep having to remind myself that this movie wasn't made so much to sell tickets so much as to re-sell 3D to the masses.
Most consumers had written off most 3D flicks to cheesy horror flicks where the ax is getting thrown right at you.
Notice in this movie the astounding lack of "COMING AT YOU!
" 3D moments, and more use of the visuals to help set the mood &amp; stage for what was going on in the movie (ie: busy control room, falling ashes, etc).
Coincedently this is exactly what I preach to my friends &amp; family about when I said that if the MPAA wants to continue to exist, they'll find a way to fill the theater seats.
This innovation will help for the next 5 years or so until the consumer market saturates with 3D glasses &amp; Tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643068</id>
	<title>Re:Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've actually thought how would the experience would be if I weren't sober. So I went to the movie with my friend both drunk, and unfortunately my friend was drunker. He puked in the cinema, and I couldn't watch the whole movie, but still first an hour with 3d glasses was great experience for me. And it was also great memory for me since my friend puked in the cinema. I'm still laughing at the guy next to him once I remind that event.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually thought how would the experience would be if I were n't sober .
So I went to the movie with my friend both drunk , and unfortunately my friend was drunker .
He puked in the cinema , and I could n't watch the whole movie , but still first an hour with 3d glasses was great experience for me .
And it was also great memory for me since my friend puked in the cinema .
I 'm still laughing at the guy next to him once I remind that event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually thought how would the experience would be if I weren't sober.
So I went to the movie with my friend both drunk, and unfortunately my friend was drunker.
He puked in the cinema, and I couldn't watch the whole movie, but still first an hour with 3d glasses was great experience for me.
And it was also great memory for me since my friend puked in the cinema.
I'm still laughing at the guy next to him once I remind that event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641174</id>
	<title>i would never go see a movie by the other cameron</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262622720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is, kirk cameron:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk\_Cameron" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk\_Cameron</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>mainly because i'm not really interested in his evangelical christianity</p><p>but what i wouldn't do is go see his movie, knowing what i was getting into, and then once outside the movie, complain about being preached at with political messages. well, what the hell did i expect?</p><p>you knew what you were getting into. its disingenuous of you to complain about the environmental message of the movie, when you could have sniffed it out from the context of the movie 20 miles away</p><p>james cameron very much intended to provoke a pro-environmentalist agenda with his movie. and? so fucking what? how do you suppose that james cameron could get out of bed in the morning during filming and editing, be passionate and motivated about the movie he was making, and at the same time, be castrated of one of the main reasons he wanted to make the movie in the first place by removing the message he wants to convey? its his movie right?</p><p>if james cameron is going to make a movie, he is going to make the movie he wants to make. if you tell him to make a movie watered down of any message important to him, i would expect him to simply not make the movie, if he has any passions or principles about him. meanwhile, if you don't like his politics, simply don't watch his damn movie. but don't expect that removing the motivation from the artist to create his work, that the artist will still want to make his work</p><p>look: i don't like kirk cameron's evangelical beliefs. but i don't believe i can snap my fingers and kirk cameron will still be motivated to make movies devoid of any of his passions or principles. instead, i simply won't watch kirk cameron's movies</p><p>you can't have james cameron's artistic output without james cameron's passions and principles. deal with it. and if you can't deal with it, don't watch his movies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is , kirk cameron : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk \ _Cameron [ wikipedia.org ] mainly because i 'm not really interested in his evangelical christianitybut what i would n't do is go see his movie , knowing what i was getting into , and then once outside the movie , complain about being preached at with political messages .
well , what the hell did i expect ? you knew what you were getting into .
its disingenuous of you to complain about the environmental message of the movie , when you could have sniffed it out from the context of the movie 20 miles awayjames cameron very much intended to provoke a pro-environmentalist agenda with his movie .
and ? so fucking what ?
how do you suppose that james cameron could get out of bed in the morning during filming and editing , be passionate and motivated about the movie he was making , and at the same time , be castrated of one of the main reasons he wanted to make the movie in the first place by removing the message he wants to convey ?
its his movie right ? if james cameron is going to make a movie , he is going to make the movie he wants to make .
if you tell him to make a movie watered down of any message important to him , i would expect him to simply not make the movie , if he has any passions or principles about him .
meanwhile , if you do n't like his politics , simply do n't watch his damn movie .
but do n't expect that removing the motivation from the artist to create his work , that the artist will still want to make his worklook : i do n't like kirk cameron 's evangelical beliefs .
but i do n't believe i can snap my fingers and kirk cameron will still be motivated to make movies devoid of any of his passions or principles .
instead , i simply wo n't watch kirk cameron 's moviesyou ca n't have james cameron 's artistic output without james cameron 's passions and principles .
deal with it .
and if you ca n't deal with it , do n't watch his movies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is, kirk cameron:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk\_Cameron [wikipedia.org]mainly because i'm not really interested in his evangelical christianitybut what i wouldn't do is go see his movie, knowing what i was getting into, and then once outside the movie, complain about being preached at with political messages.
well, what the hell did i expect?you knew what you were getting into.
its disingenuous of you to complain about the environmental message of the movie, when you could have sniffed it out from the context of the movie 20 miles awayjames cameron very much intended to provoke a pro-environmentalist agenda with his movie.
and? so fucking what?
how do you suppose that james cameron could get out of bed in the morning during filming and editing, be passionate and motivated about the movie he was making, and at the same time, be castrated of one of the main reasons he wanted to make the movie in the first place by removing the message he wants to convey?
its his movie right?if james cameron is going to make a movie, he is going to make the movie he wants to make.
if you tell him to make a movie watered down of any message important to him, i would expect him to simply not make the movie, if he has any passions or principles about him.
meanwhile, if you don't like his politics, simply don't watch his damn movie.
but don't expect that removing the motivation from the artist to create his work, that the artist will still want to make his worklook: i don't like kirk cameron's evangelical beliefs.
but i don't believe i can snap my fingers and kirk cameron will still be motivated to make movies devoid of any of his passions or principles.
instead, i simply won't watch kirk cameron's moviesyou can't have james cameron's artistic output without james cameron's passions and principles.
deal with it.
and if you can't deal with it, don't watch his movies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466</id>
	<title>Can't wait for the DVD/BR.</title>
	<author>lwap0</author>
	<datestamp>1262619720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD. I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story, and most of it didn't make the cut to get into the movie, since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long. I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland.

Ah, who am I kidding? I wanna see more bad-ass CGI explosions. Screw the plot, bring on the blue alien sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see a director 's cut when this goes to DVD .
I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story , and most of it did n't make the cut to get into the movie , since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long .
I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland .
Ah , who am I kidding ?
I wan na see more bad-ass CGI explosions .
Screw the plot , bring on the blue alien sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD.
I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story, and most of it didn't make the cut to get into the movie, since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long.
I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland.
Ah, who am I kidding?
I wanna see more bad-ass CGI explosions.
Screw the plot, bring on the blue alien sex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645622</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1262597460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have a TV capable of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real\_D\_3D#Technology" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">circularly polarizing light clockwise and counterclockwise</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have a TV capable of circularly polarizing light clockwise and counterclockwise [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have a TV capable of circularly polarizing light clockwise and counterclockwise [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</id>
	<title>Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one.  The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.  From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver, this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies.  Were this story presented as a book, without James Cameron's name, it would have been rejected outright.</p><p>The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry, which made the movie worth watching.  They were outstanding.</p><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.  If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.  I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one .
The story line , apart from the apparently necessary political message , is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories .
From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver , this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies .
Were this story presented as a book , without James Cameron 's name , it would have been rejected outright.The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry , which made the movie worth watching .
They were outstanding.Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one.
The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.
From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver, this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies.
Were this story presented as a book, without James Cameron's name, it would have been rejected outright.The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry, which made the movie worth watching.
They were outstanding.Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646198</id>
	<title>Re:Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1262599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1313/" title="southparkstudios.com">Dances With Smurfs</a> [southparkstudios.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , Dances With Smurfs [ southparkstudios.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, Dances With Smurfs [southparkstudios.com]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640666</id>
	<title>Forgot One Alternative...</title>
	<author>GlennC</author>
	<datestamp>1262620620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that was to just not go to the movies.  This was the option I chose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that was to just not go to the movies .
This was the option I chose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that was to just not go to the movies.
This was the option I chose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640820</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Tony Hoyle</author>
	<datestamp>1262621340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No you're not alone.  The story was too generic to carry the movie.. it's all about the graphics.</p><p>Tie that quality of rendering to a decent story then you've got a winner - possibly next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No you 're not alone .
The story was too generic to carry the movie.. it 's all about the graphics.Tie that quality of rendering to a decent story then you 've got a winner - possibly next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you're not alone.
The story was too generic to carry the movie.. it's all about the graphics.Tie that quality of rendering to a decent story then you've got a winner - possibly next year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641778</id>
	<title>Re:Overhyped, but well-timed</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1262625000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After seeing Avatar, I found it looked a lot like one of the islands in Myst III With all the bright colors and dynamic plant life.</p><p>Part of the low gravity things can be explained (at least in the Na'vi) by them being ten feet tall and still being able to walk.  On Earth they would have to have some pretty strong bones to be able to stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After seeing Avatar , I found it looked a lot like one of the islands in Myst III With all the bright colors and dynamic plant life.Part of the low gravity things can be explained ( at least in the Na'vi ) by them being ten feet tall and still being able to walk .
On Earth they would have to have some pretty strong bones to be able to stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After seeing Avatar, I found it looked a lot like one of the islands in Myst III With all the bright colors and dynamic plant life.Part of the low gravity things can be explained (at least in the Na'vi) by them being ten feet tall and still being able to walk.
On Earth they would have to have some pretty strong bones to be able to stand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641708</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just watch zooms of Madelbrot then?<br>(see http://www.google.com/images?q=mandelbrot<br>or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEw8xpb1aRA )<br>Wouldn't that be nice on a 50 foot screen for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just watch zooms of Madelbrot then ?
( see http : //www.google.com/images ? q = mandelbrotor http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = gEw8xpb1aRA ) Would n't that be nice on a 50 foot screen for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just watch zooms of Madelbrot then?
(see http://www.google.com/images?q=mandelbrotor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEw8xpb1aRA )Wouldn't that be nice on a 50 foot screen for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640730</id>
	<title>Why did stern pinball trun down make a game based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did stern pinball trun down make a game based on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did stern pinball trun down make a game based on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did stern pinball trun down make a game based on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641430</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1262623680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I wanted to see it too, but my wife made me watch Alvin and the Chipmunks instead...
</i>
<br>
<br>
Probably should dump her, not because she made you see it, but because she wanted to see it herself in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to see it too , but my wife made me watch Alvin and the Chipmunks instead.. . Probably should dump her , not because she made you see it , but because she wanted to see it herself in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to see it too, but my wife made me watch Alvin and the Chipmunks instead...



Probably should dump her, not because she made you see it, but because she wanted to see it herself in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643578</id>
	<title>Jaded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Slashdot crowd is way too jaded. I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. I thought the CG was amazing and groundbreaking, the use of 3D was subtle and deep, the plot was extremely relevant to what's going on in Nigeria and to Iraq - and, of course, to our treatment of Native Americans. I also thought the alien chick was hot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Slashdot crowd is way too jaded .
I enjoyed the movie thoroughly .
I thought the CG was amazing and groundbreaking , the use of 3D was subtle and deep , the plot was extremely relevant to what 's going on in Nigeria and to Iraq - and , of course , to our treatment of Native Americans .
I also thought the alien chick was hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Slashdot crowd is way too jaded.
I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.
I thought the CG was amazing and groundbreaking, the use of 3D was subtle and deep, the plot was extremely relevant to what's going on in Nigeria and to Iraq - and, of course, to our treatment of Native Americans.
I also thought the alien chick was hot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644344</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262635500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true. Additionally, there are not any new points of conflict in the human experience either that haven't already been hashed out over hundreds of generations of humans: we live, we love, we hate, we fight, we endure, etc.  These conflicts span generations and there are not any new ways to resolve them, yet we still write films and stories that revolve around them.  In fact, we could probably reduce every story into existence into "good vs evil."  Why bother making any new films and stories then?  As someone pointed out earlier, what makes a story good is it's delivery and describing an experience that you can relate to.</p><p>Though, I still don't understand romance films.  How many ways can you make a story about a rich, single, handsome playboy who "changes" for the regular hometown gal.  I guess they never want to talk about the marriage seven years later in romance stories...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true .
Additionally , there are not any new points of conflict in the human experience either that have n't already been hashed out over hundreds of generations of humans : we live , we love , we hate , we fight , we endure , etc .
These conflicts span generations and there are not any new ways to resolve them , yet we still write films and stories that revolve around them .
In fact , we could probably reduce every story into existence into " good vs evil .
" Why bother making any new films and stories then ?
As someone pointed out earlier , what makes a story good is it 's delivery and describing an experience that you can relate to.Though , I still do n't understand romance films .
How many ways can you make a story about a rich , single , handsome playboy who " changes " for the regular hometown gal .
I guess they never want to talk about the marriage seven years later in romance stories.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true.
Additionally, there are not any new points of conflict in the human experience either that haven't already been hashed out over hundreds of generations of humans: we live, we love, we hate, we fight, we endure, etc.
These conflicts span generations and there are not any new ways to resolve them, yet we still write films and stories that revolve around them.
In fact, we could probably reduce every story into existence into "good vs evil.
"  Why bother making any new films and stories then?
As someone pointed out earlier, what makes a story good is it's delivery and describing an experience that you can relate to.Though, I still don't understand romance films.
How many ways can you make a story about a rich, single, handsome playboy who "changes" for the regular hometown gal.
I guess they never want to talk about the marriage seven years later in romance stories...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30657116</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1262715660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Iron Giant</i>! Brad Bird, FTW!</p><p>Can't recommend the book, though. It is really weird (in a bad way) and I'm not surprised they went a totally different direction.</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iron Giant !
Brad Bird , FTW ! Ca n't recommend the book , though .
It is really weird ( in a bad way ) and I 'm not surprised they went a totally different direction.-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iron Giant!
Brad Bird, FTW!Can't recommend the book, though.
It is really weird (in a bad way) and I'm not surprised they went a totally different direction.-l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644118</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262634480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Sherlock Holmes an interesting take on the Holmes story line. It's even worse Hollywood drivel than Avatar. "Hey, let's take a 19th-century novel and turn it into an action movie." That's the entire concept. No fidelity to Holmes, which was about the power of reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Sherlock Holmes an interesting take on the Holmes story line .
It 's even worse Hollywood drivel than Avatar .
" Hey , let 's take a 19th-century novel and turn it into an action movie .
" That 's the entire concept .
No fidelity to Holmes , which was about the power of reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Sherlock Holmes an interesting take on the Holmes story line.
It's even worse Hollywood drivel than Avatar.
"Hey, let's take a 19th-century novel and turn it into an action movie.
" That's the entire concept.
No fidelity to Holmes, which was about the power of reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643242</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1262630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, personally, might not want to read it - but for those of us who appreciate our science fiction without truly extensive suspension of disbelief (such as such as would be required for suspension of rocks in the sky) there's a whole lot of background information that explains much of the science, technology, and culture found in the movie.</p><p>Hopefully this isn't too much of a spoiler, but "unobtanium" is a natural, room-temperature superconductor. You remember the little chunk we're shown at the beginning? It's floating over a magnet. Take the same principle, but with chunks of mountain containing *lots* of unobtanium and a very strong magnetic field projected out of the ground, and you get flying mountains (perhaps with a little help from Pandora's low gravity). Oh, and regarding the name, I think that's a pretty good term for a material with properties like that. Science has been searching for such a thing for a long time, and it makes all sorts of interesting things possible (the term "unobtanium" has been used by scientists and engineers to describe a material currently unknown to science but which would have useful specific properties).</p><p>As far as the plot goes, yeah it's not the most original. On the other hand, the setting and backstory take an old story and give it quite a bit of new life, in my opinion. Beyond that, I thought the acting was good, the characters were brilliant, the message was not overly subtle yet I strongly agree with it, and the science as actually pretty good - they really did their homework on a lot of topics. Add in superlative special effects and the best 3D experience I've ever seen, and it's a movie I've seen twice already and will gladly see again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , personally , might not want to read it - but for those of us who appreciate our science fiction without truly extensive suspension of disbelief ( such as such as would be required for suspension of rocks in the sky ) there 's a whole lot of background information that explains much of the science , technology , and culture found in the movie.Hopefully this is n't too much of a spoiler , but " unobtanium " is a natural , room-temperature superconductor .
You remember the little chunk we 're shown at the beginning ?
It 's floating over a magnet .
Take the same principle , but with chunks of mountain containing * lots * of unobtanium and a very strong magnetic field projected out of the ground , and you get flying mountains ( perhaps with a little help from Pandora 's low gravity ) .
Oh , and regarding the name , I think that 's a pretty good term for a material with properties like that .
Science has been searching for such a thing for a long time , and it makes all sorts of interesting things possible ( the term " unobtanium " has been used by scientists and engineers to describe a material currently unknown to science but which would have useful specific properties ) .As far as the plot goes , yeah it 's not the most original .
On the other hand , the setting and backstory take an old story and give it quite a bit of new life , in my opinion .
Beyond that , I thought the acting was good , the characters were brilliant , the message was not overly subtle yet I strongly agree with it , and the science as actually pretty good - they really did their homework on a lot of topics .
Add in superlative special effects and the best 3D experience I 've ever seen , and it 's a movie I 've seen twice already and will gladly see again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, personally, might not want to read it - but for those of us who appreciate our science fiction without truly extensive suspension of disbelief (such as such as would be required for suspension of rocks in the sky) there's a whole lot of background information that explains much of the science, technology, and culture found in the movie.Hopefully this isn't too much of a spoiler, but "unobtanium" is a natural, room-temperature superconductor.
You remember the little chunk we're shown at the beginning?
It's floating over a magnet.
Take the same principle, but with chunks of mountain containing *lots* of unobtanium and a very strong magnetic field projected out of the ground, and you get flying mountains (perhaps with a little help from Pandora's low gravity).
Oh, and regarding the name, I think that's a pretty good term for a material with properties like that.
Science has been searching for such a thing for a long time, and it makes all sorts of interesting things possible (the term "unobtanium" has been used by scientists and engineers to describe a material currently unknown to science but which would have useful specific properties).As far as the plot goes, yeah it's not the most original.
On the other hand, the setting and backstory take an old story and give it quite a bit of new life, in my opinion.
Beyond that, I thought the acting was good, the characters were brilliant, the message was not overly subtle yet I strongly agree with it, and the science as actually pretty good - they really did their homework on a lot of topics.
Add in superlative special effects and the best 3D experience I've ever seen, and it's a movie I've seen twice already and will gladly see again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641030</id>
	<title>Don't Let Avatar Influence Your Statements So Much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.</p></div><p>Because movies are a valid and welcomed medium for getting these messages across.  I think you're letting Avatar influence your blanket statement above.  I've seen this go horribly wrong two ways.  You can belabor a belief or political idea in a movie to a point where nobody will be able to stomach it and you can also use such a tired message that most people are sick of hearing it.  I haven't seen Avatar mostly because I feared the Fern Gully message so many other posters have mentioned.  While the political message is valid, I'm sick of hearing it.  Not because I don't care but because I read enough of it in the news.  <br> <br>

This isn't true of all people, some people are going to love Avatar.  And for a younger viewer it might be new to them.  Fine.  In Hollywood, the price for unoriginality is very very small.  Too small in my opinion but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... okay, I don't have to watch this movie.  A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.  Or even to tell a similar message about mankind's follies with a more complicated story like District 9 did.  But he's James Cameron and the monetary risk was huge so of course we got some Grade F gruel that has been slammed into our gullets fifty times or more.  This plot was sure to be labeled 'acceptable' by the public committee on what people will swallow.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div><p>Please, I implore you, watch Brazil or Dr. Strangelove.  Listen to Bob Dylan or Pete Seeger.  Now tell me that those movies and songs wouldn't be the same without those messages.  There's an example of people using an artistic medium to get a message across that -- while not always original -- was not tired and was done tastefully.  That message actually comprised much of what made them who they are.  There's an appropriate way to do it but the artist always risks losing people by baking in a message that is contrary to what some people believe.  James Cameron lost very few viewers with his message because it was a safe one.  But if it had been more original it would have been brilliant and more timeless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.Because movies are a valid and welcomed medium for getting these messages across .
I think you 're letting Avatar influence your blanket statement above .
I 've seen this go horribly wrong two ways .
You can belabor a belief or political idea in a movie to a point where nobody will be able to stomach it and you can also use such a tired message that most people are sick of hearing it .
I have n't seen Avatar mostly because I feared the Fern Gully message so many other posters have mentioned .
While the political message is valid , I 'm sick of hearing it .
Not because I do n't care but because I read enough of it in the news .
This is n't true of all people , some people are going to love Avatar .
And for a younger viewer it might be new to them .
Fine. In Hollywood , the price for unoriginality is very very small .
Too small in my opinion but ... okay , I do n't have to watch this movie .
A shame that Cameron did n't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars .
Or even to tell a similar message about mankind 's follies with a more complicated story like District 9 did .
But he 's James Cameron and the monetary risk was huge so of course we got some Grade F gruel that has been slammed into our gullets fifty times or more .
This plot was sure to be labeled 'acceptable ' by the public committee on what people will swallow.If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Please , I implore you , watch Brazil or Dr. Strangelove. Listen to Bob Dylan or Pete Seeger .
Now tell me that those movies and songs would n't be the same without those messages .
There 's an example of people using an artistic medium to get a message across that -- while not always original -- was not tired and was done tastefully .
That message actually comprised much of what made them who they are .
There 's an appropriate way to do it but the artist always risks losing people by baking in a message that is contrary to what some people believe .
James Cameron lost very few viewers with his message because it was a safe one .
But if it had been more original it would have been brilliant and more timeless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.Because movies are a valid and welcomed medium for getting these messages across.
I think you're letting Avatar influence your blanket statement above.
I've seen this go horribly wrong two ways.
You can belabor a belief or political idea in a movie to a point where nobody will be able to stomach it and you can also use such a tired message that most people are sick of hearing it.
I haven't seen Avatar mostly because I feared the Fern Gully message so many other posters have mentioned.
While the political message is valid, I'm sick of hearing it.
Not because I don't care but because I read enough of it in the news.
This isn't true of all people, some people are going to love Avatar.
And for a younger viewer it might be new to them.
Fine.  In Hollywood, the price for unoriginality is very very small.
Too small in my opinion but ... okay, I don't have to watch this movie.
A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.
Or even to tell a similar message about mankind's follies with a more complicated story like District 9 did.
But he's James Cameron and the monetary risk was huge so of course we got some Grade F gruel that has been slammed into our gullets fifty times or more.
This plot was sure to be labeled 'acceptable' by the public committee on what people will swallow.If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Please, I implore you, watch Brazil or Dr. Strangelove.  Listen to Bob Dylan or Pete Seeger.
Now tell me that those movies and songs wouldn't be the same without those messages.
There's an example of people using an artistic medium to get a message across that -- while not always original -- was not tired and was done tastefully.
That message actually comprised much of what made them who they are.
There's an appropriate way to do it but the artist always risks losing people by baking in a message that is contrary to what some people believe.
James Cameron lost very few viewers with his message because it was a safe one.
But if it had been more original it would have been brilliant and more timeless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641224</id>
	<title>does this include....?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262622900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this figure really accurate, because, although it grossed almost 1 billion dollars, and cost 400 million to MAKE, there also needs to be a pair of 3d glasses, of which are not the cheap regular kind but a more expensive kind to be handed out at all cinemas for the viewers. The lenses must cost a pretty penny, are they recyclable, or reused, (hygiene) and whether or not they are, was that cost added to the 450 million, or is it the cinema that must pay for the glasses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this figure really accurate , because , although it grossed almost 1 billion dollars , and cost 400 million to MAKE , there also needs to be a pair of 3d glasses , of which are not the cheap regular kind but a more expensive kind to be handed out at all cinemas for the viewers .
The lenses must cost a pretty penny , are they recyclable , or reused , ( hygiene ) and whether or not they are , was that cost added to the 450 million , or is it the cinema that must pay for the glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this figure really accurate, because, although it grossed almost 1 billion dollars, and cost 400 million to MAKE, there also needs to be a pair of 3d glasses, of which are not the cheap regular kind but a more expensive kind to be handed out at all cinemas for the viewers.
The lenses must cost a pretty penny, are they recyclable, or reused, (hygiene) and whether or not they are, was that cost added to the 450 million, or is it the cinema that must pay for the glasses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640980</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what I saw when that walking suit of armour appears repeatedly in the movie?  A Hollywood blockbuster that doesn't glorify violence.</p><p>That suit is the epitome of good action movies.  The villain at the end of the movie is the hero of so many 80's movies all wrapped up into one hollow marine, and he's reviled rather than regaled.</p><p>I'm not sure which movie you saw, but I saw a fun touching love story with some really nice action sequences mixed in.</p><p>If you only watch movies for their literary value, please discover books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what I saw when that walking suit of armour appears repeatedly in the movie ?
A Hollywood blockbuster that does n't glorify violence.That suit is the epitome of good action movies .
The villain at the end of the movie is the hero of so many 80 's movies all wrapped up into one hollow marine , and he 's reviled rather than regaled.I 'm not sure which movie you saw , but I saw a fun touching love story with some really nice action sequences mixed in.If you only watch movies for their literary value , please discover books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what I saw when that walking suit of armour appears repeatedly in the movie?
A Hollywood blockbuster that doesn't glorify violence.That suit is the epitome of good action movies.
The villain at the end of the movie is the hero of so many 80's movies all wrapped up into one hollow marine, and he's reviled rather than regaled.I'm not sure which movie you saw, but I saw a fun touching love story with some really nice action sequences mixed in.If you only watch movies for their literary value, please discover books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262621460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why are adults so critical of kids movies? Of course they're simple and stupid</i></p><p>Because they don't have to be. Up was an amazing movie.  Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was very good. That's proof enough that you can make a kids movie that's not a pile of crap.  So it's plenty fair to criticize a kids movie that is a pile of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are adults so critical of kids movies ?
Of course they 're simple and stupidBecause they do n't have to be .
Up was an amazing movie .
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was very good .
That 's proof enough that you can make a kids movie that 's not a pile of crap .
So it 's plenty fair to criticize a kids movie that is a pile of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are adults so critical of kids movies?
Of course they're simple and stupidBecause they don't have to be.
Up was an amazing movie.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was very good.
That's proof enough that you can make a kids movie that's not a pile of crap.
So it's plenty fair to criticize a kids movie that is a pile of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</id>
	<title>Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646282</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1262599980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unobtanium was never meant to be serious. It's been an engineer's metaphor for a substance you wish you had, for at least thirty years that I know of. Not any more, of course: Hollywood has taken it for itself.</p><p>Incidentally, we always spelled it "unobtainium".</p><p>rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unobtanium was never meant to be serious .
It 's been an engineer 's metaphor for a substance you wish you had , for at least thirty years that I know of .
Not any more , of course : Hollywood has taken it for itself.Incidentally , we always spelled it " unobtainium " .rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unobtanium was never meant to be serious.
It's been an engineer's metaphor for a substance you wish you had, for at least thirty years that I know of.
Not any more, of course: Hollywood has taken it for itself.Incidentally, we always spelled it "unobtainium".rj</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641888</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>SoupGuru</author>
	<datestamp>1262625420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's scary that you're almost proud of that fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's scary that you 're almost proud of that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's scary that you're almost proud of that fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646566</id>
	<title>The graphics were great!</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262601060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This film really revolutionized motion picture technology.  Here's hoping that there will eventually be a film using this technology with a plot that hasn't been rehashed to death.
</p><p>
I have come to understand that Cameron <i>had</i> to make the plot generic to appeal to a mass audience and make the big numbers necessary to recoup investment.  By all accounts this has been achieved.  Hopefully as the price comes down, the technology will become accessible to directors willing to take a chance with a story we haven't seen yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This film really revolutionized motion picture technology .
Here 's hoping that there will eventually be a film using this technology with a plot that has n't been rehashed to death .
I have come to understand that Cameron had to make the plot generic to appeal to a mass audience and make the big numbers necessary to recoup investment .
By all accounts this has been achieved .
Hopefully as the price comes down , the technology will become accessible to directors willing to take a chance with a story we have n't seen yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This film really revolutionized motion picture technology.
Here's hoping that there will eventually be a film using this technology with a plot that hasn't been rehashed to death.
I have come to understand that Cameron had to make the plot generic to appeal to a mass audience and make the big numbers necessary to recoup investment.
By all accounts this has been achieved.
Hopefully as the price comes down, the technology will become accessible to directors willing to take a chance with a story we haven't seen yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30664288</id>
	<title>Re:Overhyped, but well-timed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry for the AC post, but I don't have an account, and don't care to just for one post.</p><p>Also....SPOILERS!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and yet I saw no low gravity effects.</p></div><p>Rotorcraft operate with a rotor-surface area far too small for the resulting downwash experienced underneath the blades.</p><p>Avatar-mode Sully leaps 3 times his height to attack the armor suit while wielding the rather large mass of the suit's bladed weapon.</p><p>A humanoid that probably masses somewhere between 2-3 times an average human falls off an aircraft several thousand feet above the jungle.  He not only survives, but the repeated impact with the various layers of the jungle canopy serves to break his fall, rather than shatter his skeleton.</p><p>Flying creatures the size of the largest land mammals on earth can not only glide on non-feathered leathery wings, but gain altitude and even take off without a running start.</p><p>A human in an armor suit jumps out of a crashing aircraft from treetop level (at least 100 feet, but that's just a guess), and lands upright.  He is not smashed into a tomato-sauce-and-bones mess, but merely emits a grunt as if he'd hopped down from a step-ladder.</p><p>The Home Tree.  Think about how tall it was, the resulting mass, and what that would imply about the strength of the cellulose structure if Pandora DIDN'T have low gravity.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion, and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter.</p></div><p>I thought this was odd, too, but I'm a pilot with an aeronautical engineering degree.  Joe Six pack knows how a helicopter should sound.  The aircraft looked and operated like helicopters.  If they sounded like counter-rotating ducted rotorcraft, which probably would sound somewhat like a supersized turbofan, Joe would have been confused.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry for the AC post , but I do n't have an account , and do n't care to just for one post.Also....SPOILERS !
...and yet I saw no low gravity effects.Rotorcraft operate with a rotor-surface area far too small for the resulting downwash experienced underneath the blades.Avatar-mode Sully leaps 3 times his height to attack the armor suit while wielding the rather large mass of the suit 's bladed weapon.A humanoid that probably masses somewhere between 2-3 times an average human falls off an aircraft several thousand feet above the jungle .
He not only survives , but the repeated impact with the various layers of the jungle canopy serves to break his fall , rather than shatter his skeleton.Flying creatures the size of the largest land mammals on earth can not only glide on non-feathered leathery wings , but gain altitude and even take off without a running start.A human in an armor suit jumps out of a crashing aircraft from treetop level ( at least 100 feet , but that 's just a guess ) , and lands upright .
He is not smashed into a tomato-sauce-and-bones mess , but merely emits a grunt as if he 'd hopped down from a step-ladder.The Home Tree .
Think about how tall it was , the resulting mass , and what that would imply about the strength of the cellulose structure if Pandora DID N'T have low gravity.All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion , and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter.I thought this was odd , too , but I 'm a pilot with an aeronautical engineering degree .
Joe Six pack knows how a helicopter should sound .
The aircraft looked and operated like helicopters .
If they sounded like counter-rotating ducted rotorcraft , which probably would sound somewhat like a supersized turbofan , Joe would have been confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry for the AC post, but I don't have an account, and don't care to just for one post.Also....SPOILERS!
...and yet I saw no low gravity effects.Rotorcraft operate with a rotor-surface area far too small for the resulting downwash experienced underneath the blades.Avatar-mode Sully leaps 3 times his height to attack the armor suit while wielding the rather large mass of the suit's bladed weapon.A humanoid that probably masses somewhere between 2-3 times an average human falls off an aircraft several thousand feet above the jungle.
He not only survives, but the repeated impact with the various layers of the jungle canopy serves to break his fall, rather than shatter his skeleton.Flying creatures the size of the largest land mammals on earth can not only glide on non-feathered leathery wings, but gain altitude and even take off without a running start.A human in an armor suit jumps out of a crashing aircraft from treetop level (at least 100 feet, but that's just a guess), and lands upright.
He is not smashed into a tomato-sauce-and-bones mess, but merely emits a grunt as if he'd hopped down from a step-ladder.The Home Tree.
Think about how tall it was, the resulting mass, and what that would imply about the strength of the cellulose structure if Pandora DIDN'T have low gravity.All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion, and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter.I thought this was odd, too, but I'm a pilot with an aeronautical engineering degree.
Joe Six pack knows how a helicopter should sound.
The aircraft looked and operated like helicopters.
If they sounded like counter-rotating ducted rotorcraft, which probably would sound somewhat like a supersized turbofan, Joe would have been confused.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640764</id>
	<title>Avatar?</title>
	<author>Jkasd</author>
	<datestamp>1262621040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yeah, I saw it... with MY GIRLFRIEND!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , I saw it... with MY GIRLFRIEND !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, I saw it... with MY GIRLFRIEND!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647056</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it has to be said...</p><p>Titanic - the other 1 billion move.</p><p>Did you think the ship was NOT going to sink?</p><p>Of course stories are retold. And sometimes the story can be epic in scale. he was going for proof of concept of the technology and a fairly nice movie.</p><p>Original? Enough for the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it has to be said...Titanic - the other 1 billion move.Did you think the ship was NOT going to sink ? Of course stories are retold .
And sometimes the story can be epic in scale .
he was going for proof of concept of the technology and a fairly nice movie.Original ?
Enough for the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it has to be said...Titanic - the other 1 billion move.Did you think the ship was NOT going to sink?Of course stories are retold.
And sometimes the story can be epic in scale.
he was going for proof of concept of the technology and a fairly nice movie.Original?
Enough for the masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651052</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Let Avatar Influence Your Statements So M</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1262625000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars."</p><p>Excuse me, Star Wars was an original story??? There's a mash up of stolen ideas, if I ever saw one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A shame that Cameron did n't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars .
" Excuse me , Star Wars was an original story ? ? ?
There 's a mash up of stolen ideas , if I ever saw one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.
"Excuse me, Star Wars was an original story???
There's a mash up of stolen ideas, if I ever saw one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651404</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1262628360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up was the first Pixar Movie i did not enjoy (have not and never will see Cars).</p><p>That said, it is still 100x better than a lot of crap for kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up was the first Pixar Movie i did not enjoy ( have not and never will see Cars ) .That said , it is still 100x better than a lot of crap for kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up was the first Pixar Movie i did not enjoy (have not and never will see Cars).That said, it is still 100x better than a lot of crap for kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641544</id>
	<title>And the winner is:</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1262624160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear."</p><p>Sure is....</p><p>Sherlock Holmes would squeak by Alvin... just barely.</p><p>This movie is a dud, and one I am sick and tired of hearing about!</p><p>Don't care that its from Cameron, didn't care about those 3 idiotic ring movies and books and don't care about this.</p><p>Only thing its soaring towards is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null</p><p>And just because all the sheep are flocking to it doesn't mean they are right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks , I think the winner was clear .
" Sure is....Sherlock Holmes would squeak by Alvin... just barely.This movie is a dud , and one I am sick and tired of hearing about ! Do n't care that its from Cameron , did n't care about those 3 idiotic ring movies and books and do n't care about this.Only thing its soaring towards is /dev/nullAnd just because all the sheep are flocking to it does n't mean they are right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear.
"Sure is....Sherlock Holmes would squeak by Alvin... just barely.This movie is a dud, and one I am sick and tired of hearing about!Don't care that its from Cameron, didn't care about those 3 idiotic ring movies and books and don't care about this.Only thing its soaring towards is /dev/nullAnd just because all the sheep are flocking to it doesn't mean they are right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644882</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262638080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually, the flying rocks are explained, which begs another question for the whole storyline of the movie. See, the flying rocks are full of the "unobtanium" which in the flux force field changes it's density or something and hence floats, so the question is: "why couldn't the evil corporation just haul off one of the floating mountains of "unobtanium" instead of nuking the big tree to try to get the unobtaium thats underneath it?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually , the flying rocks are explained , which begs another question for the whole storyline of the movie .
See , the flying rocks are full of the " unobtanium " which in the flux force field changes it 's density or something and hence floats , so the question is : " why could n't the evil corporation just haul off one of the floating mountains of " unobtanium " instead of nuking the big tree to try to get the unobtaium thats underneath it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually, the flying rocks are explained, which begs another question for the whole storyline of the movie.
See, the flying rocks are full of the "unobtanium" which in the flux force field changes it's density or something and hence floats, so the question is: "why couldn't the evil corporation just haul off one of the floating mountains of "unobtanium" instead of nuking the big tree to try to get the unobtaium thats underneath it?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641040</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>GigaHurtsMyRobot</author>
	<datestamp>1262622180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The eye candy is worth double the ticket price, in my opinion (and you'll get popcorn and soda, so you'll pay double anyways)... There's never been a more amazing presentation of 3D technology... don't miss it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The eye candy is worth double the ticket price , in my opinion ( and you 'll get popcorn and soda , so you 'll pay double anyways ) ... There 's never been a more amazing presentation of 3D technology... do n't miss it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The eye candy is worth double the ticket price, in my opinion (and you'll get popcorn and soda, so you'll pay double anyways)... There's never been a more amazing presentation of 3D technology... don't miss it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30653014</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.  I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div><p>Just because you don't notice the political slant of a movie, it doesn't mean it isn't there. It's more likely invisible to you because you agree with it.</p><p>Or maybe your point was that you watch very few movies?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Just because you do n't notice the political slant of a movie , it does n't mean it is n't there .
It 's more likely invisible to you because you agree with it.Or maybe your point was that you watch very few movies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Just because you don't notice the political slant of a movie, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
It's more likely invisible to you because you agree with it.Or maybe your point was that you watch very few movies?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645940</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Caraig</author>
	<datestamp>1262598600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read somewhere that there are only ten basic plots in Western literature.  (I could be wrong about that number.)</p><p>Offhand, I'd say that they've all be done again... and again... and again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere that there are only ten basic plots in Western literature .
( I could be wrong about that number .
) Offhand , I 'd say that they 've all be done again... and again... and again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere that there are only ten basic plots in Western literature.
(I could be wrong about that number.
)Offhand, I'd say that they've all be done again... and again... and again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640510</id>
	<title>Avatar is Dances With Wolves + Pocahontas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The movie sucked giant Na'vi tail. Avoid it. The 3D gives migraines and it is a horrible story. This is what Cameron spent 500million dollars on!!? What a waste.</p><p>Sherlock Holmes however was far more entertaining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie sucked giant Na'vi tail .
Avoid it .
The 3D gives migraines and it is a horrible story .
This is what Cameron spent 500million dollars on ! ! ?
What a waste.Sherlock Holmes however was far more entertaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie sucked giant Na'vi tail.
Avoid it.
The 3D gives migraines and it is a horrible story.
This is what Cameron spent 500million dollars on!!?
What a waste.Sherlock Holmes however was far more entertaining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641488</id>
	<title>Fastest movie ever to reach $1billion ... meh</title>
	<author>MasterPatricko</author>
	<datestamp>1262623920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was a great visual spectacle, however a terrible film story-wise and not really worth 2h40 mins of my time. <br> <br>

It reminds me of when IMAX first arrived - they would show 40min visual spectacles with no story, just to show off the technology. Avatar should have been one of those rather than attempting to pad it out.<br> <br>

On the other hand, I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes. I thought Downey was excellent and it reflected the spirit of Conan Doyle's books far better than the old man Holmes ever did. I'm not really sure why the critics (and the summary) seem to be enjoying bashing it so much. While it may never have had a chance of beating Avatar in the box office it is still the more worthwhile film in my opinion. <br> <br>

It is very likely that the top two (not inflation-adjusted) box office films of all time will be James Cameron's films now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sad stuff <br>

"Ahead of it are Titanic ($1.8bn; &pound;1.1bn), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1.12bn; &pound;695m) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1.07bn; &pound;664m).
The huge box office takings are partly down to the higher cost of tickets for 3D performances" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm] <br>

and Avatar has the next few months with no major releases to keep raking in the money. My cinema was charging double the "normal" ticket price for the IMAX 3D showings.
I'd be interested to compare based on actual viewer numbers rather than box office takings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was a great visual spectacle , however a terrible film story-wise and not really worth 2h40 mins of my time .
It reminds me of when IMAX first arrived - they would show 40min visual spectacles with no story , just to show off the technology .
Avatar should have been one of those rather than attempting to pad it out .
On the other hand , I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes .
I thought Downey was excellent and it reflected the spirit of Conan Doyle 's books far better than the old man Holmes ever did .
I 'm not really sure why the critics ( and the summary ) seem to be enjoying bashing it so much .
While it may never have had a chance of beating Avatar in the box office it is still the more worthwhile film in my opinion .
It is very likely that the top two ( not inflation-adjusted ) box office films of all time will be James Cameron 's films now ... sad stuff " Ahead of it are Titanic ( $ 1.8bn ;   1.1bn ) , The Lord of the Rings : The Return of the King ( $ 1.12bn ;   695m ) and Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Man 's Chest ( $ 1.07bn ;   664m ) .
The huge box office takings are partly down to the higher cost of tickets for 3D performances " [ http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm ] and Avatar has the next few months with no major releases to keep raking in the money .
My cinema was charging double the " normal " ticket price for the IMAX 3D showings .
I 'd be interested to compare based on actual viewer numbers rather than box office takings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was a great visual spectacle, however a terrible film story-wise and not really worth 2h40 mins of my time.
It reminds me of when IMAX first arrived - they would show 40min visual spectacles with no story, just to show off the technology.
Avatar should have been one of those rather than attempting to pad it out.
On the other hand, I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes.
I thought Downey was excellent and it reflected the spirit of Conan Doyle's books far better than the old man Holmes ever did.
I'm not really sure why the critics (and the summary) seem to be enjoying bashing it so much.
While it may never have had a chance of beating Avatar in the box office it is still the more worthwhile film in my opinion.
It is very likely that the top two (not inflation-adjusted) box office films of all time will be James Cameron's films now ... sad stuff 

"Ahead of it are Titanic ($1.8bn; £1.1bn), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1.12bn; £695m) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1.07bn; £664m).
The huge box office takings are partly down to the higher cost of tickets for 3D performances" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm] 

and Avatar has the next few months with no major releases to keep raking in the money.
My cinema was charging double the "normal" ticket price for the IMAX 3D showings.
I'd be interested to compare based on actual viewer numbers rather than box office takings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641156</id>
	<title>Ignoring the 3D buzzword</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1262622660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ignoring the 3D buzzword, as my eyes are buggered in such a way that I can barely be considered to have 3D vision normally so tricks to improve the apparent depth of film visuals don't tend to work for me at all, is it still impressive enough as switch-your-brain-off-and-eat-the-eye-candy type fantasy goes? Or are people just flocking to see it primarily for the 3D gimmick?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the 3D buzzword , as my eyes are buggered in such a way that I can barely be considered to have 3D vision normally so tricks to improve the apparent depth of film visuals do n't tend to work for me at all , is it still impressive enough as switch-your-brain-off-and-eat-the-eye-candy type fantasy goes ?
Or are people just flocking to see it primarily for the 3D gimmick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the 3D buzzword, as my eyes are buggered in such a way that I can barely be considered to have 3D vision normally so tricks to improve the apparent depth of film visuals don't tend to work for me at all, is it still impressive enough as switch-your-brain-off-and-eat-the-eye-candy type fantasy goes?
Or are people just flocking to see it primarily for the 3D gimmick?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548</id>
	<title>Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "plot." Pretty much the same: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " plot .
" Pretty much the same : http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "plot.
" Pretty much the same: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647408</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>pky666</author>
	<datestamp>1262604660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wear glasses, and these new 3-D glasses are like the big Terminator-like "Solar Shield" sunglasses wrap around and over regular glasses.  They are not uncomfortable, and no longer have the colour distortion of the red/green ones of yore.  Also, Cameron was very careful to have the majority of the 3-D effects go deeper into the screen as opposed to "jumping out" of the screen at you (as is the case for most 3-D slasher flicks).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wear glasses , and these new 3-D glasses are like the big Terminator-like " Solar Shield " sunglasses wrap around and over regular glasses .
They are not uncomfortable , and no longer have the colour distortion of the red/green ones of yore .
Also , Cameron was very careful to have the majority of the 3-D effects go deeper into the screen as opposed to " jumping out " of the screen at you ( as is the case for most 3-D slasher flicks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wear glasses, and these new 3-D glasses are like the big Terminator-like "Solar Shield" sunglasses wrap around and over regular glasses.
They are not uncomfortable, and no longer have the colour distortion of the red/green ones of yore.
Also, Cameron was very careful to have the majority of the 3-D effects go deeper into the screen as opposed to "jumping out" of the screen at you (as is the case for most 3-D slasher flicks).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641380</id>
	<title>Re:3D?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1262623500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the science behind the 3D, but the end result did look amazing and I forgot I was even wearing the glasses after a couple of minutes.  From the very first scene where people were waking up in zero-G in a mile-long star ship interior, I was wowed.</p><p>It wasn't like any of the carnival 3D flicks I've seen before, and I didn't have any eye-strain.  (I know what you mean about crappy 3D; but for some reason this didn't hurt my head.)  Anyway, since it doesn't cost any more to see it in 3D than in 2D, I'd definitely opt for the gee-whiz version if you're going to watch it.</p><p>The film, like everything Cameron has done, was formula to the bone.  The criticisms against Avatar are founded largely I think on the fact that unlike his previous fare, this one wasn't quite as tight.  There were a couple of logical, "Huh?" moments for me, primarily because tree people with sticks  v.s. space people with machine guns really only has one ending.  But by and large it was still well worth $10.  Given that the last three films I saw in theaters included, "Star Trek", "Indy 4" and "X-Files", James Cameron's latest offers by far the most entertaining and least awful Fantasy/Sci-Fi.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the science behind the 3D , but the end result did look amazing and I forgot I was even wearing the glasses after a couple of minutes .
From the very first scene where people were waking up in zero-G in a mile-long star ship interior , I was wowed.It was n't like any of the carnival 3D flicks I 've seen before , and I did n't have any eye-strain .
( I know what you mean about crappy 3D ; but for some reason this did n't hurt my head .
) Anyway , since it does n't cost any more to see it in 3D than in 2D , I 'd definitely opt for the gee-whiz version if you 're going to watch it.The film , like everything Cameron has done , was formula to the bone .
The criticisms against Avatar are founded largely I think on the fact that unlike his previous fare , this one was n't quite as tight .
There were a couple of logical , " Huh ?
" moments for me , primarily because tree people with sticks v.s .
space people with machine guns really only has one ending .
But by and large it was still well worth $ 10 .
Given that the last three films I saw in theaters included , " Star Trek " , " Indy 4 " and " X-Files " , James Cameron 's latest offers by far the most entertaining and least awful Fantasy/Sci-Fi.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the science behind the 3D, but the end result did look amazing and I forgot I was even wearing the glasses after a couple of minutes.
From the very first scene where people were waking up in zero-G in a mile-long star ship interior, I was wowed.It wasn't like any of the carnival 3D flicks I've seen before, and I didn't have any eye-strain.
(I know what you mean about crappy 3D; but for some reason this didn't hurt my head.
)  Anyway, since it doesn't cost any more to see it in 3D than in 2D, I'd definitely opt for the gee-whiz version if you're going to watch it.The film, like everything Cameron has done, was formula to the bone.
The criticisms against Avatar are founded largely I think on the fact that unlike his previous fare, this one wasn't quite as tight.
There were a couple of logical, "Huh?
" moments for me, primarily because tree people with sticks  v.s.
space people with machine guns really only has one ending.
But by and large it was still well worth $10.
Given that the last three films I saw in theaters included, "Star Trek", "Indy 4" and "X-Files", James Cameron's latest offers by far the most entertaining and least awful Fantasy/Sci-Fi.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642714</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>e4g4</author>
	<datestamp>1262628360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I read - (not interested in digging that far in my browser history, so find your own links), unobtainium has been used to describe materials that were ideal for a given purpose but were otherwise unobtainable, because of their expense, or occasionally because they were fictional, theoretically ideal substances.  Titanium apparently earned this name during the Cold War, due to the fact that the Soviets had a stranglehold on its supply.  <br> <br>After reading about this my annoyance at such a stupid name quickly dissolved, as it seems perfectly reasonable that such a remarkable substance (a room temperature superconductor) would earn such a moniker; it is, after all, only available on a moon that orbits a planet that is light years away from Earth, at least as far as the story is concerned. It is not unreasonable to presume that the "real" name for the substance was not nearly so catchy, and thus the people responsible for gathering said substance stuck with the nickname that it rightfully earned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read - ( not interested in digging that far in my browser history , so find your own links ) , unobtainium has been used to describe materials that were ideal for a given purpose but were otherwise unobtainable , because of their expense , or occasionally because they were fictional , theoretically ideal substances .
Titanium apparently earned this name during the Cold War , due to the fact that the Soviets had a stranglehold on its supply .
After reading about this my annoyance at such a stupid name quickly dissolved , as it seems perfectly reasonable that such a remarkable substance ( a room temperature superconductor ) would earn such a moniker ; it is , after all , only available on a moon that orbits a planet that is light years away from Earth , at least as far as the story is concerned .
It is not unreasonable to presume that the " real " name for the substance was not nearly so catchy , and thus the people responsible for gathering said substance stuck with the nickname that it rightfully earned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read - (not interested in digging that far in my browser history, so find your own links), unobtainium has been used to describe materials that were ideal for a given purpose but were otherwise unobtainable, because of their expense, or occasionally because they were fictional, theoretically ideal substances.
Titanium apparently earned this name during the Cold War, due to the fact that the Soviets had a stranglehold on its supply.
After reading about this my annoyance at such a stupid name quickly dissolved, as it seems perfectly reasonable that such a remarkable substance (a room temperature superconductor) would earn such a moniker; it is, after all, only available on a moon that orbits a planet that is light years away from Earth, at least as far as the story is concerned.
It is not unreasonable to presume that the "real" name for the substance was not nearly so catchy, and thus the people responsible for gathering said substance stuck with the nickname that it rightfully earned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646088</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1262599260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you only watch movies for their literary value, please discover books.</p></div></blockquote><p>One can rightly revile any attempt at art for not being entertaining, sufficiently original, or functional (in its use of pathos, e.g.).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you only watch movies for their literary value , please discover books.One can rightly revile any attempt at art for not being entertaining , sufficiently original , or functional ( in its use of pathos , e.g .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you only watch movies for their literary value, please discover books.One can rightly revile any attempt at art for not being entertaining, sufficiently original, or functional (in its use of pathos, e.g.
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645582</id>
	<title>Re:Overhyped, but well-timed</title>
	<author>swframe</author>
	<datestamp>1262597340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't like the way the blue girl's boobs were rendered.
The details were pretty poor.
<br>
Her boob had something in front of them, like a necklace, but it
didn't move as it should. It didn't swing forward when she
leaned forward, it didn't blow in the wind when she was flying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't like the way the blue girl 's boobs were rendered .
The details were pretty poor .
Her boob had something in front of them , like a necklace , but it did n't move as it should .
It did n't swing forward when she leaned forward , it did n't blow in the wind when she was flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't like the way the blue girl's boobs were rendered.
The details were pretty poor.
Her boob had something in front of them, like a necklace, but it
didn't move as it should.
It didn't swing forward when she
leaned forward, it didn't blow in the wind when she was flying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643444</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1262631660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.</p><p>Personally, I'm waiting for the sequel to Debbie Does Dallas in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... 44DD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we 'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.Personally , I 'm waiting for the sequel to Debbie Does Dallas in .... 44DD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.Personally, I'm waiting for the sequel to Debbie Does Dallas in .... 44DD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641640</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1262624520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Cameron spent years working on this movie as well, but he actually came up with the story in a very short period of time (which is probably what causes the problems with the shallowness of some of the sci-fi). It's just that he felt the CGI technology wasn't up to scratch at the time (1997, I believe). So he waited until computers and animation tech evolved enough to be able to create his masterpiece.</p><p>Oh and Star Wars was not particularly profound either. I was a big Star Wars fan in my highschool years, but if you look at the big picture, it's just another popcorn flick too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Cameron spent years working on this movie as well , but he actually came up with the story in a very short period of time ( which is probably what causes the problems with the shallowness of some of the sci-fi ) .
It 's just that he felt the CGI technology was n't up to scratch at the time ( 1997 , I believe ) .
So he waited until computers and animation tech evolved enough to be able to create his masterpiece.Oh and Star Wars was not particularly profound either .
I was a big Star Wars fan in my highschool years , but if you look at the big picture , it 's just another popcorn flick too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Cameron spent years working on this movie as well, but he actually came up with the story in a very short period of time (which is probably what causes the problems with the shallowness of some of the sci-fi).
It's just that he felt the CGI technology wasn't up to scratch at the time (1997, I believe).
So he waited until computers and animation tech evolved enough to be able to create his masterpiece.Oh and Star Wars was not particularly profound either.
I was a big Star Wars fan in my highschool years, but if you look at the big picture, it's just another popcorn flick too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642792</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>penguinchris</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your post, but I have to point out - Star Wars and Jurassic Park are your examples? Both showcased next-generation special effects, yes, but those *are* the rare cases that are still enjoyable to watch, even though the effects are dated now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your post , but I have to point out - Star Wars and Jurassic Park are your examples ?
Both showcased next-generation special effects , yes , but those * are * the rare cases that are still enjoyable to watch , even though the effects are dated now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your post, but I have to point out - Star Wars and Jurassic Park are your examples?
Both showcased next-generation special effects, yes, but those *are* the rare cases that are still enjoyable to watch, even though the effects are dated now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646938</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1262602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"People don't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics."</p><p>I tend to agree with Cameron's message here. But the film left me with the impression that Cameron considers those who disagree with him to be lacking in intelligence, and I think that's counterproductive. Despite this and the lack of originality in the story, I enjoyed the film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" People do n't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics .
" I tend to agree with Cameron 's message here .
But the film left me with the impression that Cameron considers those who disagree with him to be lacking in intelligence , and I think that 's counterproductive .
Despite this and the lack of originality in the story , I enjoyed the film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"People don't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics.
"I tend to agree with Cameron's message here.
But the film left me with the impression that Cameron considers those who disagree with him to be lacking in intelligence, and I think that's counterproductive.
Despite this and the lack of originality in the story, I enjoyed the film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1262620440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll have to gird my loins to go see it. One of the biggest reasons is unobtanium!?<br>Really, though, the story sounds terrible, and I am not entirely convinced the eye candy is worth $10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll have to gird my loins to go see it .
One of the biggest reasons is unobtanium !
? Really , though , the story sounds terrible , and I am not entirely convinced the eye candy is worth $ 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll have to gird my loins to go see it.
One of the biggest reasons is unobtanium!
?Really, though, the story sounds terrible, and I am not entirely convinced the eye candy is worth $10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641678</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1262624640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only what we got WAS Star Wars like.  I hate to break the news to you but Star Wars was completely unoriginal.  I like how people act like Star Wars or even worse yet The Dark Knight were entirely original where as Avatar is a complete rehash.</p><p>Yeah...the 6th movie in a 75 year old comic book franchise is original!  Star Wars was based off Greek Mythology, King Arthur, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, LOTR and Dune.  Lucas even admitted he was inspired by the classic hero FORMULA from the The Hero with a Thousand Faces book.</p><p>Avatar is every bit like Star Wars and the sequels will flesh it out every bit as much as the Star Wars sequels.</p><p>Think about it...Star Wars was about rescuing a princess from a space castle...you gonna tell me that wasn't predictable?  It was The Empire Strikes Back that really expanded the story and took it new and unpredictable directions.</p><p>The rosey tinted glasses of nostalgia always make things look better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only what we got WAS Star Wars like .
I hate to break the news to you but Star Wars was completely unoriginal .
I like how people act like Star Wars or even worse yet The Dark Knight were entirely original where as Avatar is a complete rehash.Yeah...the 6th movie in a 75 year old comic book franchise is original !
Star Wars was based off Greek Mythology , King Arthur , Flash Gordon , Buck Rogers , LOTR and Dune .
Lucas even admitted he was inspired by the classic hero FORMULA from the The Hero with a Thousand Faces book.Avatar is every bit like Star Wars and the sequels will flesh it out every bit as much as the Star Wars sequels.Think about it...Star Wars was about rescuing a princess from a space castle...you gon na tell me that was n't predictable ?
It was The Empire Strikes Back that really expanded the story and took it new and unpredictable directions.The rosey tinted glasses of nostalgia always make things look better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only what we got WAS Star Wars like.
I hate to break the news to you but Star Wars was completely unoriginal.
I like how people act like Star Wars or even worse yet The Dark Knight were entirely original where as Avatar is a complete rehash.Yeah...the 6th movie in a 75 year old comic book franchise is original!
Star Wars was based off Greek Mythology, King Arthur, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, LOTR and Dune.
Lucas even admitted he was inspired by the classic hero FORMULA from the The Hero with a Thousand Faces book.Avatar is every bit like Star Wars and the sequels will flesh it out every bit as much as the Star Wars sequels.Think about it...Star Wars was about rescuing a princess from a space castle...you gonna tell me that wasn't predictable?
It was The Empire Strikes Back that really expanded the story and took it new and unpredictable directions.The rosey tinted glasses of nostalgia always make things look better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I win, bitches.</p><p>Exterminate those blue fuckers so we can take their oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I win , bitches.Exterminate those blue fuckers so we can take their oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I win, bitches.Exterminate those blue fuckers so we can take their oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643908</id>
	<title>Re:But what does Cameron have up his sleeve?</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1262633460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, what's next? Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell?</p></div></blockquote><p>I figure that one will be done by Wes Craven.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what 's next ?
Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell ? I figure that one will be done by Wes Craven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what's next?
Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell?I figure that one will be done by Wes Craven.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641330</id>
	<title>Clear?</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1262623260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear."</p><p>What the heck - Sherlock Holmes was infinitely better. Avatar was nice and all but nowhere near as entertaining, IMO. That comment is damned near trolling! *shakes fist* And get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks , I think the winner was clear .
" What the heck - Sherlock Holmes was infinitely better .
Avatar was nice and all but nowhere near as entertaining , IMO .
That comment is damned near trolling !
* shakes fist * And get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear.
"What the heck - Sherlock Holmes was infinitely better.
Avatar was nice and all but nowhere near as entertaining, IMO.
That comment is damned near trolling!
*shakes fist* And get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722</id>
	<title>Great movie</title>
	<author>oh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262620800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just came home from seeing Avatar in 3D and I must say it rivals Watchmen in sheer visual splendor. The story is a bit predictable, but I didnt really think about that until afterwards because I was so immersed in this beautiful world Cameron has created. It could have used a better soundtrack but then it would have been a completely different movie. Definetly worth the money, and well worth seeing again on the big screen.</p><p> I disagree with the "not science fiction" thing, the fact that they didnt combobulate the parallell deflectors and set phasers to stun but instead treated technology as an everyday occurence makes it more believable. The idea of the planet as a network is neat as well, one can imagine the whole thing as a Post-Singularity society, with a sentient network of biological entities as the collective  conciousness of the planet. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just came home from seeing Avatar in 3D and I must say it rivals Watchmen in sheer visual splendor .
The story is a bit predictable , but I didnt really think about that until afterwards because I was so immersed in this beautiful world Cameron has created .
It could have used a better soundtrack but then it would have been a completely different movie .
Definetly worth the money , and well worth seeing again on the big screen .
I disagree with the " not science fiction " thing , the fact that they didnt combobulate the parallell deflectors and set phasers to stun but instead treated technology as an everyday occurence makes it more believable .
The idea of the planet as a network is neat as well , one can imagine the whole thing as a Post-Singularity society , with a sentient network of biological entities as the collective conciousness of the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just came home from seeing Avatar in 3D and I must say it rivals Watchmen in sheer visual splendor.
The story is a bit predictable, but I didnt really think about that until afterwards because I was so immersed in this beautiful world Cameron has created.
It could have used a better soundtrack but then it would have been a completely different movie.
Definetly worth the money, and well worth seeing again on the big screen.
I disagree with the "not science fiction" thing, the fact that they didnt combobulate the parallell deflectors and set phasers to stun but instead treated technology as an everyday occurence makes it more believable.
The idea of the planet as a network is neat as well, one can imagine the whole thing as a Post-Singularity society, with a sentient network of biological entities as the collective  conciousness of the planet. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641206</id>
	<title>Re:Great movie</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1262622840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The story is a bit predictable</i></p><p>A *bit* predictable?  Seriously?  Dude, within 15 minutes, if you hadn't figured out the basic plotting for the entire movie, you either weren't paying attention or you're too dumb to breath.</p><p><i>I disagree with the "not science fiction" thing</i></p><p>Yeah, me too.  Of course it was science fiction.  After all, it's a note-for-note rip-off of Dune, cleverly disguised by using a lush, green world instead of a sandy desert, then gutted to remove any of the bits that actually make Dune an interesting novel: evil corporation stealing, literally, unobtainium from savages who are "in touch" with their environment in ways the evil corporates can't understand.  Character from evil corporation changes sides and becomes messiah figure.  Character falls in love with savage.  Messiah figure leads savages to victory.  Heck, they even have ornithopter-like flying machines.  Now just throw in a thinking forest composed of the thoughts of the dead, ala Orson Scott Card's "Children of the Mind".  Oh, plus some Mechs ala every random anime you've ever seen.</p><p>No, it's absolutely science fiction.  Horribly derivative, unoriginal science fiction.  But, hey, at least he picked a good book to rip off, amiright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story is a bit predictableA * bit * predictable ?
Seriously ? Dude , within 15 minutes , if you had n't figured out the basic plotting for the entire movie , you either were n't paying attention or you 're too dumb to breath.I disagree with the " not science fiction " thingYeah , me too .
Of course it was science fiction .
After all , it 's a note-for-note rip-off of Dune , cleverly disguised by using a lush , green world instead of a sandy desert , then gutted to remove any of the bits that actually make Dune an interesting novel : evil corporation stealing , literally , unobtainium from savages who are " in touch " with their environment in ways the evil corporates ca n't understand .
Character from evil corporation changes sides and becomes messiah figure .
Character falls in love with savage .
Messiah figure leads savages to victory .
Heck , they even have ornithopter-like flying machines .
Now just throw in a thinking forest composed of the thoughts of the dead , ala Orson Scott Card 's " Children of the Mind " .
Oh , plus some Mechs ala every random anime you 've ever seen.No , it 's absolutely science fiction .
Horribly derivative , unoriginal science fiction .
But , hey , at least he picked a good book to rip off , amiright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story is a bit predictableA *bit* predictable?
Seriously?  Dude, within 15 minutes, if you hadn't figured out the basic plotting for the entire movie, you either weren't paying attention or you're too dumb to breath.I disagree with the "not science fiction" thingYeah, me too.
Of course it was science fiction.
After all, it's a note-for-note rip-off of Dune, cleverly disguised by using a lush, green world instead of a sandy desert, then gutted to remove any of the bits that actually make Dune an interesting novel: evil corporation stealing, literally, unobtainium from savages who are "in touch" with their environment in ways the evil corporates can't understand.
Character from evil corporation changes sides and becomes messiah figure.
Character falls in love with savage.
Messiah figure leads savages to victory.
Heck, they even have ornithopter-like flying machines.
Now just throw in a thinking forest composed of the thoughts of the dead, ala Orson Scott Card's "Children of the Mind".
Oh, plus some Mechs ala every random anime you've ever seen.No, it's absolutely science fiction.
Horribly derivative, unoriginal science fiction.
But, hey, at least he picked a good book to rip off, amiright?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641584</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you but I was reminded of  Pocahontas with blue people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you but I was reminded of Pocahontas with blue people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you but I was reminded of  Pocahontas with blue people</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641160</id>
	<title>Extremely high ticket prices equal big bucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't have been too hard to reach $1-Billion worldwide when the ticket prices were over $15 each, I imagine in places like NYC they were closer to $30. I didn't bother to waste money on tickets, I'll just buy a Bluray copy for less than the price of 2 tickets in a few months or rent it off Netflix for essentially free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't have been too hard to reach $ 1-Billion worldwide when the ticket prices were over $ 15 each , I imagine in places like NYC they were closer to $ 30 .
I did n't bother to waste money on tickets , I 'll just buy a Bluray copy for less than the price of 2 tickets in a few months or rent it off Netflix for essentially free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't have been too hard to reach $1-Billion worldwide when the ticket prices were over $15 each, I imagine in places like NYC they were closer to $30.
I didn't bother to waste money on tickets, I'll just buy a Bluray copy for less than the price of 2 tickets in a few months or rent it off Netflix for essentially free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644442</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>ImpShial</author>
	<datestamp>1262636040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story, but that's me.</p></div><p>How dare you take that inflammatory attitude with him! You and your negative vibes!!<br> <br>You're lucky I can't mod you right now cuz I'd give you a solid +1 insightful!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story , but that 's me.How dare you take that inflammatory attitude with him !
You and your negative vibes ! !
You 're lucky I ca n't mod you right now cuz I 'd give you a solid + 1 insightful !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story, but that's me.How dare you take that inflammatory attitude with him!
You and your negative vibes!!
You're lucky I can't mod you right now cuz I'd give you a solid +1 insightful!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642494</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar.</p><p>So let me get this straight: Sherlock Holmes, which is based upon a character invented in the 19th century and whose plot sounds a great deal like the second Nicholas Meyer Holmes novel, and the Chimpmunks, which is based upon a 1950s Christmas recording of a guy sped up to make him sound funny via a 1970s cartoon series, are both more original than Avatar? I mean, yes, Avatar is formulaic, but at least the PLANET was original.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar.So let me get this straight : Sherlock Holmes , which is based upon a character invented in the 19th century and whose plot sounds a great deal like the second Nicholas Meyer Holmes novel , and the Chimpmunks , which is based upon a 1950s Christmas recording of a guy sped up to make him sound funny via a 1970s cartoon series , are both more original than Avatar ?
I mean , yes , Avatar is formulaic , but at least the PLANET was original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar.So let me get this straight: Sherlock Holmes, which is based upon a character invented in the 19th century and whose plot sounds a great deal like the second Nicholas Meyer Holmes novel, and the Chimpmunks, which is based upon a 1950s Christmas recording of a guy sped up to make him sound funny via a 1970s cartoon series, are both more original than Avatar?
I mean, yes, Avatar is formulaic, but at least the PLANET was original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645408</id>
	<title>windfall profits?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one billion minus 430 million equals a windfall profit.  If an oil company made this type of profit, the public would be screaming for a Windfall Profit Tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one billion minus 430 million equals a windfall profit .
If an oil company made this type of profit , the public would be screaming for a Windfall Profit Tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one billion minus 430 million equals a windfall profit.
If an oil company made this type of profit, the public would be screaming for a Windfall Profit Tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022</id>
	<title>Overhyped, but well-timed</title>
	<author>ThreeGigs</author>
	<datestamp>1262622120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scenery was cool, but not all that impressive. If you've ever played the Myst series of games, you'll know that striking visuals and landscapes like that have been done before. In fact, my first reaction on seeing Pandora was that it looked just like something I'd expect to see in Riven, and that's nearly a decade old.</p><p>The graphics were...ok. Sorry,  but I really expected better. The cgi rendered reflections in the soldiers' face masks was a nice detail touch, but it made them look artificial. No stray strands of hair, 'flat' skin (just texture, not topographically modeled), and odd lighting effects looked unnatural.</p><p>The physics weren't all that great either. Turn your hand around quickly and you'll notice it 'jiggles' for a moment after you stop it. Not in the movie.. flesh didn't behave as I expected. Watch closely in the background when they are climbing up to choose their flying mounts, you'll notice their movements look like insects. We're introduced to scarface while he's lifting weights so he can keep in shape in the 'low gravity', and yet I saw no low gravity effects.</p><p>The sounds were the killer though. Whoever did the sound effects needs to be fired (upon). All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion, and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter. That, to me was the most distracting element, especially because there were so many scenes with flying craft.</p><p>It was good, yes. But not great. It was't realistic enough for me to believe... I kept getting jarred back to reality by the incongruities. You notice something isn't quite right, and maybe you can't put you finger on it, but it still nags at the back of your mind to remind you it's fake. And all of that could be forgiven if the story were compelling enough, but I've read too many similar 'persecuted aliens' stories to be impressed. It was, at least, worth the price of admission, which is something I find is all too rare these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scenery was cool , but not all that impressive .
If you 've ever played the Myst series of games , you 'll know that striking visuals and landscapes like that have been done before .
In fact , my first reaction on seeing Pandora was that it looked just like something I 'd expect to see in Riven , and that 's nearly a decade old.The graphics were...ok. Sorry , but I really expected better .
The cgi rendered reflections in the soldiers ' face masks was a nice detail touch , but it made them look artificial .
No stray strands of hair , 'flat ' skin ( just texture , not topographically modeled ) , and odd lighting effects looked unnatural.The physics were n't all that great either .
Turn your hand around quickly and you 'll notice it 'jiggles ' for a moment after you stop it .
Not in the movie.. flesh did n't behave as I expected .
Watch closely in the background when they are climbing up to choose their flying mounts , you 'll notice their movements look like insects .
We 're introduced to scarface while he 's lifting weights so he can keep in shape in the 'low gravity ' , and yet I saw no low gravity effects.The sounds were the killer though .
Whoever did the sound effects needs to be fired ( upon ) .
All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion , and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter .
That , to me was the most distracting element , especially because there were so many scenes with flying craft.It was good , yes .
But not great .
It was't realistic enough for me to believe... I kept getting jarred back to reality by the incongruities .
You notice something is n't quite right , and maybe you ca n't put you finger on it , but it still nags at the back of your mind to remind you it 's fake .
And all of that could be forgiven if the story were compelling enough , but I 've read too many similar 'persecuted aliens ' stories to be impressed .
It was , at least , worth the price of admission , which is something I find is all too rare these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scenery was cool, but not all that impressive.
If you've ever played the Myst series of games, you'll know that striking visuals and landscapes like that have been done before.
In fact, my first reaction on seeing Pandora was that it looked just like something I'd expect to see in Riven, and that's nearly a decade old.The graphics were...ok. Sorry,  but I really expected better.
The cgi rendered reflections in the soldiers' face masks was a nice detail touch, but it made them look artificial.
No stray strands of hair, 'flat' skin (just texture, not topographically modeled), and odd lighting effects looked unnatural.The physics weren't all that great either.
Turn your hand around quickly and you'll notice it 'jiggles' for a moment after you stop it.
Not in the movie.. flesh didn't behave as I expected.
Watch closely in the background when they are climbing up to choose their flying mounts, you'll notice their movements look like insects.
We're introduced to scarface while he's lifting weights so he can keep in shape in the 'low gravity', and yet I saw no low gravity effects.The sounds were the killer though.
Whoever did the sound effects needs to be fired (upon).
All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion, and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter.
That, to me was the most distracting element, especially because there were so many scenes with flying craft.It was good, yes.
But not great.
It was't realistic enough for me to believe... I kept getting jarred back to reality by the incongruities.
You notice something isn't quite right, and maybe you can't put you finger on it, but it still nags at the back of your mind to remind you it's fake.
And all of that could be forgiven if the story were compelling enough, but I've read too many similar 'persecuted aliens' stories to be impressed.
It was, at least, worth the price of admission, which is something I find is all too rare these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643396</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>toxygen01</author>
	<datestamp>1262631420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually flying rocks were explained in script (and it was also drafted in the movie) that they are full of unobtanium which (as we could see) levitate under some circumstances. The commander of base mentioned in the movie that they can't make bulldozers dig the flying mountains...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually flying rocks were explained in script ( and it was also drafted in the movie ) that they are full of unobtanium which ( as we could see ) levitate under some circumstances .
The commander of base mentioned in the movie that they ca n't make bulldozers dig the flying mountains.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually flying rocks were explained in script (and it was also drafted in the movie) that they are full of unobtanium which (as we could see) levitate under some circumstances.
The commander of base mentioned in the movie that they can't make bulldozers dig the flying mountains...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645158</id>
	<title>No, the blue things look fake.</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1262595960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really really fake.</p><p>And so, my brain spends more time rejecting what I'm seeing than I'm comfortable with and I can't watch it.</p><p>And before anyone chimes in with "they didn't look fake to me", lots of people can't taste subtle nuances in flavor or hear specific differences in tone or pitch.  That doesn't mean they don't exist.</p><p>The people look fake, and I can't watch without cringing.  Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really really fake.And so , my brain spends more time rejecting what I 'm seeing than I 'm comfortable with and I ca n't watch it.And before anyone chimes in with " they did n't look fake to me " , lots of people ca n't taste subtle nuances in flavor or hear specific differences in tone or pitch .
That does n't mean they do n't exist.The people look fake , and I ca n't watch without cringing .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really really fake.And so, my brain spends more time rejecting what I'm seeing than I'm comfortable with and I can't watch it.And before anyone chimes in with "they didn't look fake to me", lots of people can't taste subtle nuances in flavor or hear specific differences in tone or pitch.
That doesn't mean they don't exist.The people look fake, and I can't watch without cringing.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640650</id>
	<title>Risky = success!</title>
	<author>LS1 Brains</author>
	<datestamp>1262620560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quoted: "One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office."
<br> <br>
Gee, I wonder if that's because people are getting more and more nauseous over the regurgitated offal force fed to us by the movie industry for the past two decades?
<br> <br>
Dear movie industry,
<br>Stop remaking 20-30 year old movies.  Thank you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoted : " One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office .
" Gee , I wonder if that 's because people are getting more and more nauseous over the regurgitated offal force fed to us by the movie industry for the past two decades ?
Dear movie industry , Stop remaking 20-30 year old movies .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoted: "One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office.
"
 
Gee, I wonder if that's because people are getting more and more nauseous over the regurgitated offal force fed to us by the movie industry for the past two decades?
Dear movie industry,
Stop remaking 20-30 year old movies.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644634</id>
	<title>Back to the 1970s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262636760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't heard anyone else say this, so maybe it's just me, but this movie had an uncanny retro quality about it that reminded me of the 1970s, when all the "hippie" crap spilled over into mainstream culture. You have peace-loving noble free-living primitives who are "one with nature", worship trees that are mystically connected to the rest of the Cosmos, and engage in ceremonies that involve hand-holding in big circles around said trees. You have mechanistic Western civilization, represented by the usual cynical Evil Corporation that is shafting the natives because their Sacred Tree is somehow located above a huge deposit of Unobtainium (yes, they actually called it that in the movie). And with inexorable Hollywood logic, the good natives win, aided by the few humans who see the spiritual superiority of the blue people.</p><p>
I don't know what kind of reaction the director was trying to elicit from his audience. I kept having to repress the urge to get up and shout "group hug!" (In my most insincere manner, of course.) I found the story to be hackneyed, predictable, and embarrassingly naive. I don't see how adults could have put together such a mass of treacle. Somebody called <em>Avatar</em> "Dances with Smurfs"&mdash;but that's being unkind to the Kevin Costner movie, which I actually liked when I first saw it (despite disagreeing with its politics).</p><p>
But wait, <em>Avatar</em> was about the technology, wasn't it? I remember hearing that the blue people were all computer generated. And there were indeed lots of well-done special effects (unless the producers located a venue where mountains and boulders actually float). The 3D was very good&mdash;I kept trying to move over to get out of the way of people who were walking out of the screen toward me. So yes, if you want to pay to see a good display of digital cinema technology, by all means go see the movie in 3D. Just don't go with the idea that you're going to see a good movie.</p><p>
I have to add something here about the way the technology was used in <em>Avatar</em>. I think I've probably made clear that I didn't think much of the story; however, I also thought that the movie failed in a surprising way, considering the tech-hype: it was singularly lacking in visual appeal. Let me be plain: it was <em>ugly</em>. Consider the "blues": I have never seen a plainer-looking collection of individuals in a movie. The blue people of both sexes were not only completely lacking in attractiveness (and in the case of female blue persons, sex appeal), they looked positively unhealthy. Perhaps it's impossible to make white teeth look good when they are set in cyanotic gums...but they all looked like they were in sore need of orthodontistry. I understand what a lot of trouble it was to record all those actors going through the motions, then substitute CG animations for the actors...but I kept thinking, <em>Why did they bother?&mdash;why not just use real actors with some blue makeup?</em>. OK, it would have been hard to make real actors look like they are jumping onto the backs of CGA lizards. And I suppose it would have been even harder to find a bunch of female actors so sparsely endowed that their nipples are always covered by artfully draped hair, or holy tree fibers or whatever. Heck, maybe they don't have nipples...maybe they aren't mammals. Ah, I knew I could bring this review down to issues that are of central importance to my audience...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't heard anyone else say this , so maybe it 's just me , but this movie had an uncanny retro quality about it that reminded me of the 1970s , when all the " hippie " crap spilled over into mainstream culture .
You have peace-loving noble free-living primitives who are " one with nature " , worship trees that are mystically connected to the rest of the Cosmos , and engage in ceremonies that involve hand-holding in big circles around said trees .
You have mechanistic Western civilization , represented by the usual cynical Evil Corporation that is shafting the natives because their Sacred Tree is somehow located above a huge deposit of Unobtainium ( yes , they actually called it that in the movie ) .
And with inexorable Hollywood logic , the good natives win , aided by the few humans who see the spiritual superiority of the blue people .
I do n't know what kind of reaction the director was trying to elicit from his audience .
I kept having to repress the urge to get up and shout " group hug !
" ( In my most insincere manner , of course .
) I found the story to be hackneyed , predictable , and embarrassingly naive .
I do n't see how adults could have put together such a mass of treacle .
Somebody called Avatar " Dances with Smurfs "    but that 's being unkind to the Kevin Costner movie , which I actually liked when I first saw it ( despite disagreeing with its politics ) .
But wait , Avatar was about the technology , was n't it ?
I remember hearing that the blue people were all computer generated .
And there were indeed lots of well-done special effects ( unless the producers located a venue where mountains and boulders actually float ) .
The 3D was very good    I kept trying to move over to get out of the way of people who were walking out of the screen toward me .
So yes , if you want to pay to see a good display of digital cinema technology , by all means go see the movie in 3D .
Just do n't go with the idea that you 're going to see a good movie .
I have to add something here about the way the technology was used in Avatar .
I think I 've probably made clear that I did n't think much of the story ; however , I also thought that the movie failed in a surprising way , considering the tech-hype : it was singularly lacking in visual appeal .
Let me be plain : it was ugly .
Consider the " blues " : I have never seen a plainer-looking collection of individuals in a movie .
The blue people of both sexes were not only completely lacking in attractiveness ( and in the case of female blue persons , sex appeal ) , they looked positively unhealthy .
Perhaps it 's impossible to make white teeth look good when they are set in cyanotic gums...but they all looked like they were in sore need of orthodontistry .
I understand what a lot of trouble it was to record all those actors going through the motions , then substitute CG animations for the actors...but I kept thinking , Why did they bother ?    why not just use real actors with some blue makeup ? .
OK , it would have been hard to make real actors look like they are jumping onto the backs of CGA lizards .
And I suppose it would have been even harder to find a bunch of female actors so sparsely endowed that their nipples are always covered by artfully draped hair , or holy tree fibers or whatever .
Heck , maybe they do n't have nipples...maybe they are n't mammals .
Ah , I knew I could bring this review down to issues that are of central importance to my audience.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't heard anyone else say this, so maybe it's just me, but this movie had an uncanny retro quality about it that reminded me of the 1970s, when all the "hippie" crap spilled over into mainstream culture.
You have peace-loving noble free-living primitives who are "one with nature", worship trees that are mystically connected to the rest of the Cosmos, and engage in ceremonies that involve hand-holding in big circles around said trees.
You have mechanistic Western civilization, represented by the usual cynical Evil Corporation that is shafting the natives because their Sacred Tree is somehow located above a huge deposit of Unobtainium (yes, they actually called it that in the movie).
And with inexorable Hollywood logic, the good natives win, aided by the few humans who see the spiritual superiority of the blue people.
I don't know what kind of reaction the director was trying to elicit from his audience.
I kept having to repress the urge to get up and shout "group hug!
" (In my most insincere manner, of course.
) I found the story to be hackneyed, predictable, and embarrassingly naive.
I don't see how adults could have put together such a mass of treacle.
Somebody called Avatar "Dances with Smurfs"—but that's being unkind to the Kevin Costner movie, which I actually liked when I first saw it (despite disagreeing with its politics).
But wait, Avatar was about the technology, wasn't it?
I remember hearing that the blue people were all computer generated.
And there were indeed lots of well-done special effects (unless the producers located a venue where mountains and boulders actually float).
The 3D was very good—I kept trying to move over to get out of the way of people who were walking out of the screen toward me.
So yes, if you want to pay to see a good display of digital cinema technology, by all means go see the movie in 3D.
Just don't go with the idea that you're going to see a good movie.
I have to add something here about the way the technology was used in Avatar.
I think I've probably made clear that I didn't think much of the story; however, I also thought that the movie failed in a surprising way, considering the tech-hype: it was singularly lacking in visual appeal.
Let me be plain: it was ugly.
Consider the "blues": I have never seen a plainer-looking collection of individuals in a movie.
The blue people of both sexes were not only completely lacking in attractiveness (and in the case of female blue persons, sex appeal), they looked positively unhealthy.
Perhaps it's impossible to make white teeth look good when they are set in cyanotic gums...but they all looked like they were in sore need of orthodontistry.
I understand what a lot of trouble it was to record all those actors going through the motions, then substitute CG animations for the actors...but I kept thinking, Why did they bother?—why not just use real actors with some blue makeup?.
OK, it would have been hard to make real actors look like they are jumping onto the backs of CGA lizards.
And I suppose it would have been even harder to find a bunch of female actors so sparsely endowed that their nipples are always covered by artfully draped hair, or holy tree fibers or whatever.
Heck, maybe they don't have nipples...maybe they aren't mammals.
Ah, I knew I could bring this review down to issues that are of central importance to my audience...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642064</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1262626080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Instead of spending $430million</i></p><p>I don't think it's much of a reach to say that 50\% of that money was simply cash shuffling sideways within the company, and that anyone believing "<i>20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off</i>" are complete chumps.  They may have been uncertain if their overinflating internal numbers was going to "show" a profit or not, but there was simply <b>no chance</b> that they were going to <i>actually lose money</i> on it.</p><p>Nowadays with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org">Hollywood Accounting</a> [wikipedia.org], any movie that actually "shows" a profit made an <i>absolute killing</i>.</p><p>That being said, I really enjoyed the movie, and will be buying the bluray. (once thank you, not the initial release, the remaster, the director's cut, and the collector's edition..)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 430millionI do n't think it 's much of a reach to say that 50 \ % of that money was simply cash shuffling sideways within the company , and that anyone believing " 20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $ 430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off " are complete chumps .
They may have been uncertain if their overinflating internal numbers was going to " show " a profit or not , but there was simply no chance that they were going to actually lose money on it.Nowadays with Hollywood Accounting [ wikipedia.org ] , any movie that actually " shows " a profit made an absolute killing.That being said , I really enjoyed the movie , and will be buying the bluray .
( once thank you , not the initial release , the remaster , the director 's cut , and the collector 's edition.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $430millionI don't think it's much of a reach to say that 50\% of that money was simply cash shuffling sideways within the company, and that anyone believing "20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off" are complete chumps.
They may have been uncertain if their overinflating internal numbers was going to "show" a profit or not, but there was simply no chance that they were going to actually lose money on it.Nowadays with Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org], any movie that actually "shows" a profit made an absolute killing.That being said, I really enjoyed the movie, and will be buying the bluray.
(once thank you, not the initial release, the remaster, the director's cut, and the collector's edition..)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643078</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1262629860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an impressive tech demo. But there is no point in renting it (unless your one of the lucky handful of people with a 3D TV). Without the technical flash, it's just a bland retelling of Dances With Wolves.</p><p>Fox should be glad they're making money now, because this movie is going to tank when it hits home video. No one in their right mind if going to pay for a 2D DVD or blu-ray of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an impressive tech demo .
But there is no point in renting it ( unless your one of the lucky handful of people with a 3D TV ) .
Without the technical flash , it 's just a bland retelling of Dances With Wolves.Fox should be glad they 're making money now , because this movie is going to tank when it hits home video .
No one in their right mind if going to pay for a 2D DVD or blu-ray of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an impressive tech demo.
But there is no point in renting it (unless your one of the lucky handful of people with a 3D TV).
Without the technical flash, it's just a bland retelling of Dances With Wolves.Fox should be glad they're making money now, because this movie is going to tank when it hits home video.
No one in their right mind if going to pay for a 2D DVD or blu-ray of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645154</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1262595960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "good" aliens must look human for us to identify with them</p><p>Identify with them? Hell, I want to have sex with them.</p><p>Cameron was very careful to keep the sex-appeal in his aliens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " good " aliens must look human for us to identify with themIdentify with them ?
Hell , I want to have sex with them.Cameron was very careful to keep the sex-appeal in his aliens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "good" aliens must look human for us to identify with themIdentify with them?
Hell, I want to have sex with them.Cameron was very careful to keep the sex-appeal in his aliens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640462</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1262619720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did'nt see it, and don't intend to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did'nt see it , and do n't intend to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did'nt see it, and don't intend to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643324</id>
	<title>Re:Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1262621760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.</i></p><p>I've heard this criticism of the plot many times from many people - but in this day and age, with so many movies having been released, when was the last movie that wasn't basically a rehash of something that came before it?  Seriously, I can't think of anything genuinely novel (at least from Hollywood) for years.  Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story line , apart from the apparently necessary political message , is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.I 've heard this criticism of the plot many times from many people - but in this day and age , with so many movies having been released , when was the last movie that was n't basically a rehash of something that came before it ?
Seriously , I ca n't think of anything genuinely novel ( at least from Hollywood ) for years .
Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.I've heard this criticism of the plot many times from many people - but in this day and age, with so many movies having been released, when was the last movie that wasn't basically a rehash of something that came before it?
Seriously, I can't think of anything genuinely novel (at least from Hollywood) for years.
Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642750</id>
	<title>Its the last 30yrs of Sci/Fi Fantasy novels!</title>
	<author>vxir</author>
	<datestamp>1262628480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of posters say unoriginal movies are lame but seriously given the budget what did you expect?!  If you want originality go read a book.  But what I think is amazing is how it packed in so many ideas from modern sci/fi and fantasy in a single movie with a coherent plotline.</p><p>Dragonriders of Pern (need I say more)<br>Phaze/Proton world of Piers Anthony -- In the inevitable sequel we'll find that "unobtanium" is what makes Pandora's biology cool...<br>Orson Scott Card (Speaker for the Dead, specifically containing conscious trees, and particularly all the issues around human/alien relations)<br>Piers Anthony's Cluster series "Thousandstar" and "Viscous Circle" (Pushing your consciousness into another living creature)<br>Issues around technology disparities between intelligent aliens (in Orson Scott Card and so many others)<br>Dune spice mining<br>The Gaia hypothesis  (in too many novels to count).<br>The mechwarrior suits.</p><p>If only it had a computer network spontaneously generate consiousness it would have EVERYTHING!  I guess they wanted to leave room for a sequel!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of posters say unoriginal movies are lame but seriously given the budget what did you expect ? !
If you want originality go read a book .
But what I think is amazing is how it packed in so many ideas from modern sci/fi and fantasy in a single movie with a coherent plotline.Dragonriders of Pern ( need I say more ) Phaze/Proton world of Piers Anthony -- In the inevitable sequel we 'll find that " unobtanium " is what makes Pandora 's biology cool...Orson Scott Card ( Speaker for the Dead , specifically containing conscious trees , and particularly all the issues around human/alien relations ) Piers Anthony 's Cluster series " Thousandstar " and " Viscous Circle " ( Pushing your consciousness into another living creature ) Issues around technology disparities between intelligent aliens ( in Orson Scott Card and so many others ) Dune spice miningThe Gaia hypothesis ( in too many novels to count ) .The mechwarrior suits.If only it had a computer network spontaneously generate consiousness it would have EVERYTHING !
I guess they wanted to leave room for a sequel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of posters say unoriginal movies are lame but seriously given the budget what did you expect?!
If you want originality go read a book.
But what I think is amazing is how it packed in so many ideas from modern sci/fi and fantasy in a single movie with a coherent plotline.Dragonriders of Pern (need I say more)Phaze/Proton world of Piers Anthony -- In the inevitable sequel we'll find that "unobtanium" is what makes Pandora's biology cool...Orson Scott Card (Speaker for the Dead, specifically containing conscious trees, and particularly all the issues around human/alien relations)Piers Anthony's Cluster series "Thousandstar" and "Viscous Circle" (Pushing your consciousness into another living creature)Issues around technology disparities between intelligent aliens (in Orson Scott Card and so many others)Dune spice miningThe Gaia hypothesis  (in too many novels to count).The mechwarrior suits.If only it had a computer network spontaneously generate consiousness it would have EVERYTHING!
I guess they wanted to leave room for a sequel!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641760</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>xirusmom</author>
	<datestamp>1262624940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phineas and Ferb proves that you can make it clever enough for both kids and adults. It is brilliant and sometimes I watch it even without my 3 year old. I guess it is the perfect geek cartoon, with all the necessary references.
<br> <br>
All in all, Disney/Pixar movies are usually clever enough that I won't get bored watching. And after having to see Cars about a 100 times, that says a lot. But it is so rich in details, that every time (well, maybe in the first 10 times) you will find something you haven't noticed before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phineas and Ferb proves that you can make it clever enough for both kids and adults .
It is brilliant and sometimes I watch it even without my 3 year old .
I guess it is the perfect geek cartoon , with all the necessary references .
All in all , Disney/Pixar movies are usually clever enough that I wo n't get bored watching .
And after having to see Cars about a 100 times , that says a lot .
But it is so rich in details , that every time ( well , maybe in the first 10 times ) you will find something you have n't noticed before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phineas and Ferb proves that you can make it clever enough for both kids and adults.
It is brilliant and sometimes I watch it even without my 3 year old.
I guess it is the perfect geek cartoon, with all the necessary references.
All in all, Disney/Pixar movies are usually clever enough that I won't get bored watching.
And after having to see Cars about a 100 times, that says a lot.
But it is so rich in details, that every time (well, maybe in the first 10 times) you will find something you haven't noticed before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643004</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262629560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most estimates put Avatar at around $250 million to make, about the same as the last Harry Potter and cheaper than the last Spiderman or Pirates of the Caribbean.  Regular films these days (except romantic comedies) cost $100 million +, so you aren't going to make ten of them for $250 million.  Sherlock Holmes, for example, cost about $90 million.</p><p>People watch old stories retold.  They don't watch novel stories as much.  We like our archetypes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most estimates put Avatar at around $ 250 million to make , about the same as the last Harry Potter and cheaper than the last Spiderman or Pirates of the Caribbean .
Regular films these days ( except romantic comedies ) cost $ 100 million + , so you are n't going to make ten of them for $ 250 million .
Sherlock Holmes , for example , cost about $ 90 million.People watch old stories retold .
They do n't watch novel stories as much .
We like our archetypes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most estimates put Avatar at around $250 million to make, about the same as the last Harry Potter and cheaper than the last Spiderman or Pirates of the Caribbean.
Regular films these days (except romantic comedies) cost $100 million +, so you aren't going to make ten of them for $250 million.
Sherlock Holmes, for example, cost about $90 million.People watch old stories retold.
They don't watch novel stories as much.
We like our archetypes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645060</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>loafula</author>
	<datestamp>1262595600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ST0P ACCUS1NG REPL1E5 0F BE1NG ANGRY!!!! please</htmltext>
<tokenext>ST0P ACCUS1NG REPL1E5 0F BE1NG ANGRY ! ! ! !
please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ST0P ACCUS1NG REPL1E5 0F BE1NG ANGRY!!!!
please</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651144</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>gnapster</author>
	<datestamp>1262626020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that the way it is done uses polarized light, which requires two simultaneous projections.  It could not be done with a standard display.  I recently watched a 3D version of Journey to the Center of the Earth, on Blu-Ray, which still used red/green 3D technology.  That is straightforward for consumer theater equipment, but the kind of 3D images that you saw with Avatar on the big screen is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the way it is done uses polarized light , which requires two simultaneous projections .
It could not be done with a standard display .
I recently watched a 3D version of Journey to the Center of the Earth , on Blu-Ray , which still used red/green 3D technology .
That is straightforward for consumer theater equipment , but the kind of 3D images that you saw with Avatar on the big screen is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the way it is done uses polarized light, which requires two simultaneous projections.
It could not be done with a standard display.
I recently watched a 3D version of Journey to the Center of the Earth, on Blu-Ray, which still used red/green 3D technology.
That is straightforward for consumer theater equipment, but the kind of 3D images that you saw with Avatar on the big screen is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642706</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>penguinchris</author>
	<datestamp>1262628360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heartily agree. There are great kids movies from the past, and there are still some getting made (like your examples, though I didn't see Meatballs - well, I did see Meatballs, but that's not a kids movie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Problem is that film studios realized it's easier to pump out cheap crap, because kids are dumb and will want to watch it anyway because it's got talking dogs (or whatever). These are not films that kids are going to watch multiple times growing up, and then watch again when they're adults and still enjoy it (and enjoy it on a wholly new level mostly invisible to kids with the really good ones).</p><p>However, there's selection bias - we don't remember all the crappy kids movies from the past. I can think of a couple from when I was growing up, and would probably recognize the names of a lot of them if I saw a list, but I don't <i>really</i> remember them, and would certainly not watch them again (or let my future kids watch them, for that matter). Nostalgia naturally filters out the crap. But - kids movies are very noticeable these days, usually because they're so bad. I don't really know if the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies are bad (I did watch the cartoon as a kid...) but I can tell they're not classics. They're mediocre garbage that kids will beg their parents to take them too.</p><p>However the previous guy does have a point - what kids enjoy and what adults enjoy are very different. I'm not sure it's always necessary for a kids film to be enjoyable by adults to be great. However, the truly great ones (that adults think are great) kids also usually like the most, so it's a fair bet that if it's actually good, adults will enjoy it too.</p><p>Finally - the interesting thing about Pixar films is that I don't think most people think of them as kids films anymore (at least I don't). Some of the earlier ones are (and I don't really like their earlier ones anyway), but Up, Wall-E, and even Ratatouille aren't kids films - they're just great films that happen to also appeal to kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heartily agree .
There are great kids movies from the past , and there are still some getting made ( like your examples , though I did n't see Meatballs - well , I did see Meatballs , but that 's not a kids movie ; ) Problem is that film studios realized it 's easier to pump out cheap crap , because kids are dumb and will want to watch it anyway because it 's got talking dogs ( or whatever ) .
These are not films that kids are going to watch multiple times growing up , and then watch again when they 're adults and still enjoy it ( and enjoy it on a wholly new level mostly invisible to kids with the really good ones ) .However , there 's selection bias - we do n't remember all the crappy kids movies from the past .
I can think of a couple from when I was growing up , and would probably recognize the names of a lot of them if I saw a list , but I do n't really remember them , and would certainly not watch them again ( or let my future kids watch them , for that matter ) .
Nostalgia naturally filters out the crap .
But - kids movies are very noticeable these days , usually because they 're so bad .
I do n't really know if the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies are bad ( I did watch the cartoon as a kid... ) but I can tell they 're not classics .
They 're mediocre garbage that kids will beg their parents to take them too.However the previous guy does have a point - what kids enjoy and what adults enjoy are very different .
I 'm not sure it 's always necessary for a kids film to be enjoyable by adults to be great .
However , the truly great ones ( that adults think are great ) kids also usually like the most , so it 's a fair bet that if it 's actually good , adults will enjoy it too.Finally - the interesting thing about Pixar films is that I do n't think most people think of them as kids films anymore ( at least I do n't ) .
Some of the earlier ones are ( and I do n't really like their earlier ones anyway ) , but Up , Wall-E , and even Ratatouille are n't kids films - they 're just great films that happen to also appeal to kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heartily agree.
There are great kids movies from the past, and there are still some getting made (like your examples, though I didn't see Meatballs - well, I did see Meatballs, but that's not a kids movie ;)Problem is that film studios realized it's easier to pump out cheap crap, because kids are dumb and will want to watch it anyway because it's got talking dogs (or whatever).
These are not films that kids are going to watch multiple times growing up, and then watch again when they're adults and still enjoy it (and enjoy it on a wholly new level mostly invisible to kids with the really good ones).However, there's selection bias - we don't remember all the crappy kids movies from the past.
I can think of a couple from when I was growing up, and would probably recognize the names of a lot of them if I saw a list, but I don't really remember them, and would certainly not watch them again (or let my future kids watch them, for that matter).
Nostalgia naturally filters out the crap.
But - kids movies are very noticeable these days, usually because they're so bad.
I don't really know if the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies are bad (I did watch the cartoon as a kid...) but I can tell they're not classics.
They're mediocre garbage that kids will beg their parents to take them too.However the previous guy does have a point - what kids enjoy and what adults enjoy are very different.
I'm not sure it's always necessary for a kids film to be enjoyable by adults to be great.
However, the truly great ones (that adults think are great) kids also usually like the most, so it's a fair bet that if it's actually good, adults will enjoy it too.Finally - the interesting thing about Pixar films is that I don't think most people think of them as kids films anymore (at least I don't).
Some of the earlier ones are (and I don't really like their earlier ones anyway), but Up, Wall-E, and even Ratatouille aren't kids films - they're just great films that happen to also appeal to kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30664198</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1262703120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Semi-correct.  Though technically it can still be named Unobtainium, it wouldn't seem right linguistically (root word unobtainable, but it actually is obtainable).  It would become Unaffordium instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Semi-correct .
Though technically it can still be named Unobtainium , it would n't seem right linguistically ( root word unobtainable , but it actually is obtainable ) .
It would become Unaffordium instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Semi-correct.
Though technically it can still be named Unobtainium, it wouldn't seem right linguistically (root word unobtainable, but it actually is obtainable).
It would become Unaffordium instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650624</id>
	<title>Re:Clear?</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1262621760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Saw Avatar a week ago. Though it looked cool but the story was tired and boring. Sherlock Holmes, while far from perfect didn't just rely on FX to tell a story and was much more fun. Lets not even talk about the acting comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Saw Avatar a week ago .
Though it looked cool but the story was tired and boring .
Sherlock Holmes , while far from perfect did n't just rely on FX to tell a story and was much more fun .
Lets not even talk about the acting comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Saw Avatar a week ago.
Though it looked cool but the story was tired and boring.
Sherlock Holmes, while far from perfect didn't just rely on FX to tell a story and was much more fun.
Lets not even talk about the acting comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640392</id>
	<title>Me First!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Top Post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Top Post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Top Post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644180</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262634720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems pretty clear that you are enjoying the Avatar is a pointless liberal tract kool-aid with everyone else on the Internet.</p><p>God forbid people use movies for any purpose other than entertainment. Movies aren't art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems pretty clear that you are enjoying the Avatar is a pointless liberal tract kool-aid with everyone else on the Internet.God forbid people use movies for any purpose other than entertainment .
Movies are n't art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems pretty clear that you are enjoying the Avatar is a pointless liberal tract kool-aid with everyone else on the Internet.God forbid people use movies for any purpose other than entertainment.
Movies aren't art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646746</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1262601900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Avatar is a sci-fi movie. Guy Ritchie movie is chick-flick.
<br> <br>Can you pass me whatever you are smoking?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar is a sci-fi movie .
Guy Ritchie movie is chick-flick .
Can you pass me whatever you are smoking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar is a sci-fi movie.
Guy Ritchie movie is chick-flick.
Can you pass me whatever you are smoking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640788</id>
	<title>Nope haven't seen it either</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1262621160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything I've heard makes it sound like it's to film what Donkey Kong Country was to video games. (DKC was graphically impressive for the SNES but the game underneath all of that was meh. I don't think anybody would have cared for the game if it looked like say Super Mario World and played the same as DKC. I hear the same is true of Avatar.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything I 've heard makes it sound like it 's to film what Donkey Kong Country was to video games .
( DKC was graphically impressive for the SNES but the game underneath all of that was meh .
I do n't think anybody would have cared for the game if it looked like say Super Mario World and played the same as DKC .
I hear the same is true of Avatar .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything I've heard makes it sound like it's to film what Donkey Kong Country was to video games.
(DKC was graphically impressive for the SNES but the game underneath all of that was meh.
I don't think anybody would have cared for the game if it looked like say Super Mario World and played the same as DKC.
I hear the same is true of Avatar.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644678</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262637000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many comments about Avatar, being samey? FYI, the characters and situations, can be informatviely described as Archetypal.</p><p>Read C.G.Jung, but never read him as literature. It goes deeper and is personal.</p><p>Joesph Campbell, wrote "The Hero with a 1000 faces," had read Jung. Joe did not write for Lucas, but is standard reading for "script writers." Hence, Joe was happy to comment about Lucas (while still alive), in "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth (1988)."</p><p>Sad to see so much nihilism on these posts, but there it goes. So much "intellectual energy," not to say ranting, that completely misunderstands the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many comments about Avatar , being samey ?
FYI , the characters and situations , can be informatviely described as Archetypal.Read C.G.Jung , but never read him as literature .
It goes deeper and is personal.Joesph Campbell , wrote " The Hero with a 1000 faces , " had read Jung .
Joe did not write for Lucas , but is standard reading for " script writers .
" Hence , Joe was happy to comment about Lucas ( while still alive ) , in " Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth ( 1988 ) .
" Sad to see so much nihilism on these posts , but there it goes .
So much " intellectual energy , " not to say ranting , that completely misunderstands the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many comments about Avatar, being samey?
FYI, the characters and situations, can be informatviely described as Archetypal.Read C.G.Jung, but never read him as literature.
It goes deeper and is personal.Joesph Campbell, wrote "The Hero with a 1000 faces," had read Jung.
Joe did not write for Lucas, but is standard reading for "script writers.
" Hence, Joe was happy to comment about Lucas (while still alive), in "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth (1988).
"Sad to see so much nihilism on these posts, but there it goes.
So much "intellectual energy," not to say ranting, that completely misunderstands the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644100</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1262634420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Funny true story. StarWars is not original.</p><p>Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space. He hired as a consultant the man who wrote "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history: and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly (and repeates it in Empire)</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars. But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.</p></div><p>The "consultant who wrote The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph\_Campbell" title="wikipedia.org">Joseph Campbell</a> [wikipedia.org] - not some unknown numpty. He is quite well respected as an authority on the subject</p><p>Yes, Star Wars is not original - in the sense that no story is ever original, so it includes pretty much every movie ever made - because it follows principles that more or less define how a story can seem epic and meaningful to humans universally. This is of course true of just about every other story ever told that you can recall the details of, since Campbell has analyzed <b>how</b> we tell stories as humans.</p><p>However, in reference to movies the word <b>Unoriginal</b> is usually reserved for instances where a movie plot - or elements thereof - have been copied more or less transparently from some other movie or story. This is not the case with Star Wars. Point to the plot elements that have been derived from any one particular source, particularly another movie. Its been borrowed from every story ever told effectively. Yes, he borrowed some window-dressing stuff like imitating WWII combat chatter and film footage, but that's not really plot elements to speak of, its special effects and cinematics. It could have been filmed differently and it wouldn't have changed the story noticeably.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny true story .
StarWars is not original.Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie , he just put it in space .
He hired as a consultant the man who wrote " the Hero with a Thousand Faces " , about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history : and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly ( and repeates it in Empire ) Do n't get me wrong : I * love * Star Wars .
But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.The " consultant who wrote The Hero with a Thousand Faces " was Joseph Campbell [ wikipedia.org ] - not some unknown numpty .
He is quite well respected as an authority on the subjectYes , Star Wars is not original - in the sense that no story is ever original , so it includes pretty much every movie ever made - because it follows principles that more or less define how a story can seem epic and meaningful to humans universally .
This is of course true of just about every other story ever told that you can recall the details of , since Campbell has analyzed how we tell stories as humans.However , in reference to movies the word Unoriginal is usually reserved for instances where a movie plot - or elements thereof - have been copied more or less transparently from some other movie or story .
This is not the case with Star Wars .
Point to the plot elements that have been derived from any one particular source , particularly another movie .
Its been borrowed from every story ever told effectively .
Yes , he borrowed some window-dressing stuff like imitating WWII combat chatter and film footage , but that 's not really plot elements to speak of , its special effects and cinematics .
It could have been filmed differently and it would n't have changed the story noticeably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Funny true story.
StarWars is not original.Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space.
He hired as a consultant the man who wrote "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history: and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly (and repeates it in Empire)Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars.
But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.The "consultant who wrote The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was Joseph Campbell [wikipedia.org] - not some unknown numpty.
He is quite well respected as an authority on the subjectYes, Star Wars is not original - in the sense that no story is ever original, so it includes pretty much every movie ever made - because it follows principles that more or less define how a story can seem epic and meaningful to humans universally.
This is of course true of just about every other story ever told that you can recall the details of, since Campbell has analyzed how we tell stories as humans.However, in reference to movies the word Unoriginal is usually reserved for instances where a movie plot - or elements thereof - have been copied more or less transparently from some other movie or story.
This is not the case with Star Wars.
Point to the plot elements that have been derived from any one particular source, particularly another movie.
Its been borrowed from every story ever told effectively.
Yes, he borrowed some window-dressing stuff like imitating WWII combat chatter and film footage, but that's not really plot elements to speak of, its special effects and cinematics.
It could have been filmed differently and it wouldn't have changed the story noticeably.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642466</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1262627520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated. Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.</p><p>The blue people won.  (Whoops, spoiler alert!  Haha just kidding, you already knew that anyway.)  I think this movie shows their biased viewpoint.  James Cameron, quit trying to rewrite history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated .
Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.The blue people won .
( Whoops , spoiler alert !
Haha just kidding , you already knew that anyway .
) I think this movie shows their biased viewpoint .
James Cameron , quit trying to rewrite history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated.
Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.The blue people won.
(Whoops, spoiler alert!
Haha just kidding, you already knew that anyway.
)  I think this movie shows their biased viewpoint.
James Cameron, quit trying to rewrite history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647800</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Any literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and haven't been for centuries.</p><p>And it's a poor teacher who can do nothing but regurgitate an ancient Greek conceit. There are plenty of stories that don't follow the same old themes. (And even Shakespeare 'broke rules' in some of his plays. Hamlet comes to mind. There are parts that vaguely resemble older works, but other parts alien to older works). Adherents to the no-new-stories thing have to use very twisted arguments to try to force some of the new stuff into the old mold - which should be a pretty clear indication that the old theory is wrong. Though if all you watch are the repeated clone movies, then maybe that's part of why you believe nothing is new...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Any literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and have n't been for centuries.And it 's a poor teacher who can do nothing but regurgitate an ancient Greek conceit .
There are plenty of stories that do n't follow the same old themes .
( And even Shakespeare 'broke rules ' in some of his plays .
Hamlet comes to mind .
There are parts that vaguely resemble older works , but other parts alien to older works ) .
Adherents to the no-new-stories thing have to use very twisted arguments to try to force some of the new stuff into the old mold - which should be a pretty clear indication that the old theory is wrong .
Though if all you watch are the repeated clone movies , then maybe that 's part of why you believe nothing is new.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Any literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and haven't been for centuries.And it's a poor teacher who can do nothing but regurgitate an ancient Greek conceit.
There are plenty of stories that don't follow the same old themes.
(And even Shakespeare 'broke rules' in some of his plays.
Hamlet comes to mind.
There are parts that vaguely resemble older works, but other parts alien to older works).
Adherents to the no-new-stories thing have to use very twisted arguments to try to force some of the new stuff into the old mold - which should be a pretty clear indication that the old theory is wrong.
Though if all you watch are the repeated clone movies, then maybe that's part of why you believe nothing is new...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650398</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262619900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because they don't have to be. Up was an amazing movie.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

I could barely even sit through the trailers they were so cringeworthy. Up? you have a point about being able to make kids movies appeal to all adult audiences but using Up as an example kills your credibility. Toy Story would have been a far better example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they do n't have to be .
Up was an amazing movie .
I could barely even sit through the trailers they were so cringeworthy .
Up ? you have a point about being able to make kids movies appeal to all adult audiences but using Up as an example kills your credibility .
Toy Story would have been a far better example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they don't have to be.
Up was an amazing movie.
I could barely even sit through the trailers they were so cringeworthy.
Up? you have a point about being able to make kids movies appeal to all adult audiences but using Up as an example kills your credibility.
Toy Story would have been a far better example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648050</id>
	<title>Oh dear goodness.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262607600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard a sight of relief when all the silliness was finished. And this was inner London, not a leafy rich suburb.</p><p>Finally objective proof that European audiences are more discerning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard a sight of relief when all the silliness was finished .
And this was inner London , not a leafy rich suburb.Finally objective proof that European audiences are more discerning : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard a sight of relief when all the silliness was finished.
And this was inner London, not a leafy rich suburb.Finally objective proof that European audiences are more discerning :-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643368</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films</i> </p><p>If they did that, I wouldn't have seen any of them, and many other people wouldn't have.  I honestly don't give a shit about plot.  Show me pretty colors in 3D on a 50 foot screen and I'm in. Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.</p></div><p>Do you use books as dominoes? Wipe your arse with canvas?</p><p>If pretty colours are what you seek then film is doing you a disservice; acid, ketamine, or shrooms will blow your mind, man!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films If they did that , I would n't have seen any of them , and many other people would n't have .
I honestly do n't give a shit about plot .
Show me pretty colors in 3D on a 50 foot screen and I 'm in .
Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.Do you use books as dominoes ?
Wipe your arse with canvas ? If pretty colours are what you seek then film is doing you a disservice ; acid , ketamine , or shrooms will blow your mind , man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films If they did that, I wouldn't have seen any of them, and many other people wouldn't have.
I honestly don't give a shit about plot.
Show me pretty colors in 3D on a 50 foot screen and I'm in.
Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.Do you use books as dominoes?
Wipe your arse with canvas?If pretty colours are what you seek then film is doing you a disservice; acid, ketamine, or shrooms will blow your mind, man!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645528</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262597160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, so basically it taught us to hate those that server in our military? Just another hollow marine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , so basically it taught us to hate those that server in our military ?
Just another hollow marine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, so basically it taught us to hate those that server in our military?
Just another hollow marine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643354</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait for the DVD/BR.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1262631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one that was waiting for them to link their hair/usb ports together when they started having sex?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that was waiting for them to link their hair/usb ports together when they started having sex ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that was waiting for them to link their hair/usb ports together when they started having sex?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410</id>
	<title>Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1262619480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction? Not much. Science Fantasy is more like it.
<br> <br>Just a few things threw me off. I loved most of the movie. And for a while I believed the blue people were spiritual in the same way humans were.. in ritual and what not...<br> <br>But instead it turned out to be a magical spiritual world, and a collective thought borg of trees and animals.. and those that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. died? <br> <br>A fantastic adventure, but really just lost me as a caring viewer. I prefer things to be more rational.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just saw it last weekend , and I got ta say.. Science Fiction ?
Not much .
Science Fantasy is more like it .
Just a few things threw me off .
I loved most of the movie .
And for a while I believed the blue people were spiritual in the same way humans were.. in ritual and what not... But instead it turned out to be a magical spiritual world , and a collective thought borg of trees and animals.. and those that .. died ? A fantastic adventure , but really just lost me as a caring viewer .
I prefer things to be more rational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction?
Not much.
Science Fantasy is more like it.
Just a few things threw me off.
I loved most of the movie.
And for a while I believed the blue people were spiritual in the same way humans were.. in ritual and what not... But instead it turned out to be a magical spiritual world, and a collective thought borg of trees and animals.. and those that .. died?  A fantastic adventure, but really just lost me as a caring viewer.
I prefer things to be more rational.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651980</id>
	<title>Questions..</title>
	<author>Wescotte</author>
	<datestamp>1262634780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What (if any) are the differences between imax 3D and a normal theater w/ 3D showing Avatar? Is it just a larger screen? Is there different tech?</p><p>
I saw it in 3D (non imax) and was forced to sit a few seats off center in the second row. Normally I can't stand to watch a film where I literally have to move my head to follow the action on the screen but with Avatar I absolutely loved it. It just felt like it added another layer of immersion to the film.</p><p>
So, with this 3D tech does it matter where you sit? If I'm closer to the screen will objects appear closer to me? What were your experiences based on where you sat? Is there a sweet spot for 3D?
</p><p>
Last, what is preventing them from creating a DVD/Bluray and letting you achieve this type of 3D at home on your current CRT/LCD/Plasma? I assume it's not as simple as pop the disc in and wear the same type of 3D glasses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ( if any ) are the differences between imax 3D and a normal theater w/ 3D showing Avatar ?
Is it just a larger screen ?
Is there different tech ?
I saw it in 3D ( non imax ) and was forced to sit a few seats off center in the second row .
Normally I ca n't stand to watch a film where I literally have to move my head to follow the action on the screen but with Avatar I absolutely loved it .
It just felt like it added another layer of immersion to the film .
So , with this 3D tech does it matter where you sit ?
If I 'm closer to the screen will objects appear closer to me ?
What were your experiences based on where you sat ?
Is there a sweet spot for 3D ?
Last , what is preventing them from creating a DVD/Bluray and letting you achieve this type of 3D at home on your current CRT/LCD/Plasma ?
I assume it 's not as simple as pop the disc in and wear the same type of 3D glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What (if any) are the differences between imax 3D and a normal theater w/ 3D showing Avatar?
Is it just a larger screen?
Is there different tech?
I saw it in 3D (non imax) and was forced to sit a few seats off center in the second row.
Normally I can't stand to watch a film where I literally have to move my head to follow the action on the screen but with Avatar I absolutely loved it.
It just felt like it added another layer of immersion to the film.
So, with this 3D tech does it matter where you sit?
If I'm closer to the screen will objects appear closer to me?
What were your experiences based on where you sat?
Is there a sweet spot for 3D?
Last, what is preventing them from creating a DVD/Bluray and letting you achieve this type of 3D at home on your current CRT/LCD/Plasma?
I assume it's not as simple as pop the disc in and wear the same type of 3D glasses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641800</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1262625060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey I liked Avatar, but honestly, the story line is derivative as you say. When I heard someone on the radio call it "Dances With Wolves in Space" I had to chuckle.

As for the 3D technology in Avatar, I call that true progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey I liked Avatar , but honestly , the story line is derivative as you say .
When I heard someone on the radio call it " Dances With Wolves in Space " I had to chuckle .
As for the 3D technology in Avatar , I call that true progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey I liked Avatar, but honestly, the story line is derivative as you say.
When I heard someone on the radio call it "Dances With Wolves in Space" I had to chuckle.
As for the 3D technology in Avatar, I call that true progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640534</id>
	<title>Another nail</title>
	<author>Voulnet</author>
	<datestamp>1262620080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another nail in the "Piracy kills our industry!" coffin.

But honestly, even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another nail in the " Piracy kills our industry !
" coffin .
But honestly , even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another nail in the "Piracy kills our industry!
" coffin.
But honestly, even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644424</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262635920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"blue smurfs"???</p><p>Are there orange smurfs that we are not aware of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" blue smurfs " ? ?
? Are there orange smurfs that we are not aware of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"blue smurfs"??
?Are there orange smurfs that we are not aware of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643614</id>
	<title>Let me guess...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1262632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen.</p></div><p>You saw the 2D version, with your wife and kids and you forgot your glasses at home?<br>So you slept through the movie instead of watching.</p><p>Ergo, aliens are both "too stiff" and "too smooth" for you, while you have never noticed the details on the skin and under it (muscles, tendons, blood vessels...).<br>Do yourself a favor and go see it in 3D, preferably in IMAX - alone. Pay attention to details this time and don't forget your glasses.</p><p>Also... Not all creatures ON EARTH have facial hair. Why would aliens have to have any?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The aliens are still too stiff , their faces are too uniform , their movements are too smooth - they need pores , facial hair , creases , loose skin , etc - but it is still the best I 've seen.You saw the 2D version , with your wife and kids and you forgot your glasses at home ? So you slept through the movie instead of watching.Ergo , aliens are both " too stiff " and " too smooth " for you , while you have never noticed the details on the skin and under it ( muscles , tendons , blood vessels... ) .Do yourself a favor and go see it in 3D , preferably in IMAX - alone .
Pay attention to details this time and do n't forget your glasses.Also... Not all creatures ON EARTH have facial hair .
Why would aliens have to have any ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen.You saw the 2D version, with your wife and kids and you forgot your glasses at home?So you slept through the movie instead of watching.Ergo, aliens are both "too stiff" and "too smooth" for you, while you have never noticed the details on the skin and under it (muscles, tendons, blood vessels...).Do yourself a favor and go see it in 3D, preferably in IMAX - alone.
Pay attention to details this time and don't forget your glasses.Also... Not all creatures ON EARTH have facial hair.
Why would aliens have to have any?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644846</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262637960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to know who modded you insightful...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to know who modded you insightful.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to know who modded you insightful...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641722</id>
	<title>I can't help but think</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1262624760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that somewhere out there, Debbie Gibson and Lorenzo Llamas are sitting around lamenting the fact that Cameron and Company CGI'd 3/4ths of the cast while they're stuck doing "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that somewhere out there , Debbie Gibson and Lorenzo Llamas are sitting around lamenting the fact that Cameron and Company CGI 'd 3/4ths of the cast while they 're stuck doing " Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that somewhere out there, Debbie Gibson and Lorenzo Llamas are sitting around lamenting the fact that Cameron and Company CGI'd 3/4ths of the cast while they're stuck doing "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642540</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>Hoover,L Ron</author>
	<datestamp>1262627760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...Because they don't have to be. Up was an amazing movie.</p></div><p>Sorry but UP (IMHO) was the most overrated film I saw this year. Predictable plot, really BAD 3D (it was like looking at an aquarium) and they pretty much stuck with the CG animated formula. That's what I disliked the most about this movie, they took no creative chances.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Because they do n't have to be .
Up was an amazing movie.Sorry but UP ( IMHO ) was the most overrated film I saw this year .
Predictable plot , really BAD 3D ( it was like looking at an aquarium ) and they pretty much stuck with the CG animated formula .
That 's what I disliked the most about this movie , they took no creative chances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Because they don't have to be.
Up was an amazing movie.Sorry but UP (IMHO) was the most overrated film I saw this year.
Predictable plot, really BAD 3D (it was like looking at an aquarium) and they pretty much stuck with the CG animated formula.
That's what I disliked the most about this movie, they took no creative chances.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640968</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1262621880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>stab</htmltext>
<tokenext>stab</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stab</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</id>
	<title>Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1262619900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are adults so critical of kids movies?  Of course they're simple and stupid, but such movies were not made for you.  Unless you are under the age of 8.  Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks was a movie for young kids... and to even analogize it with an adult movie such as the Avatar is moronic.</p><p>A more analogous slam would have been The Blind Side.  I can't for the life of me figure out why people consistently pay to see Sandra Bullock movies.  Sure, she's hot.  But her movies are also consistently crap.  Look at her list of movies <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra\_Bullock#Filmography" title="wikipedia.org">here</a> [wikipedia.org].  There's not even one worth watching.  But yet they always make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are adults so critical of kids movies ?
Of course they 're simple and stupid , but such movies were not made for you .
Unless you are under the age of 8 .
Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks was a movie for young kids... and to even analogize it with an adult movie such as the Avatar is moronic.A more analogous slam would have been The Blind Side .
I ca n't for the life of me figure out why people consistently pay to see Sandra Bullock movies .
Sure , she 's hot .
But her movies are also consistently crap .
Look at her list of movies here [ wikipedia.org ] .
There 's not even one worth watching .
But yet they always make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are adults so critical of kids movies?
Of course they're simple and stupid, but such movies were not made for you.
Unless you are under the age of 8.
Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks was a movie for young kids... and to even analogize it with an adult movie such as the Avatar is moronic.A more analogous slam would have been The Blind Side.
I can't for the life of me figure out why people consistently pay to see Sandra Bullock movies.
Sure, she's hot.
But her movies are also consistently crap.
Look at her list of movies here [wikipedia.org].
There's not even one worth watching.
But yet they always make money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640544</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1262620140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sherlock Holmes wasn't more original than Avatar. Might be something different, yes, but not more original. Chipmunks I haven't seen, and don't intend to either, but from what I've been told, it's worse than the first one, which was awful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherlock Holmes was n't more original than Avatar .
Might be something different , yes , but not more original .
Chipmunks I have n't seen , and do n't intend to either , but from what I 've been told , it 's worse than the first one , which was awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherlock Holmes wasn't more original than Avatar.
Might be something different, yes, but not more original.
Chipmunks I haven't seen, and don't intend to either, but from what I've been told, it's worse than the first one, which was awful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644434</id>
	<title>Re:does this include....?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262635980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Estimates are that the movie cost about $250 million to make, NOT 400 million, and well in line with the other big movies of the last couple of years.  Toss some advertising on that pile.  The glasses are cheap, probably worth about a nickel each.  Plastic polaroid film is not expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Estimates are that the movie cost about $ 250 million to make , NOT 400 million , and well in line with the other big movies of the last couple of years .
Toss some advertising on that pile .
The glasses are cheap , probably worth about a nickel each .
Plastic polaroid film is not expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Estimates are that the movie cost about $250 million to make, NOT 400 million, and well in line with the other big movies of the last couple of years.
Toss some advertising on that pile.
The glasses are cheap, probably worth about a nickel each.
Plastic polaroid film is not expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641028</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262622120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if the plot sucked?  The plot wasn't the point.  I'd have been happy if there were no plot, and just 3 hours of awesome 3d IMAX CG effects. If you want a good story, read a book.  I for one don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if the plot sucked ?
The plot was n't the point .
I 'd have been happy if there were no plot , and just 3 hours of awesome 3d IMAX CG effects .
If you want a good story , read a book .
I for one do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if the plot sucked?
The plot wasn't the point.
I'd have been happy if there were no plot, and just 3 hours of awesome 3d IMAX CG effects.
If you want a good story, read a book.
I for one don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642416</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262627400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it looks dull to me.  But I think Zapm has the best graphics of any scifi game ever, and it looks a lot like nethack.  I'm not the best person to pick the movie every one will like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it looks dull to me .
But I think Zapm has the best graphics of any scifi game ever , and it looks a lot like nethack .
I 'm not the best person to pick the movie every one will like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it looks dull to me.
But I think Zapm has the best graphics of any scifi game ever, and it looks a lot like nethack.
I'm not the best person to pick the movie every one will like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644910</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1262638140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Funny true story. StarWars is not original.</p><p>Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars. But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.</p></div><p>Most really good stories are made from staple ingredients. Those ingredients are the <em>big things</em>: love, betrayal, the conflict between principles and selfishness, growing up, growing old, and dying. Those things are big because they are what matters to people. The art lies in how those ingredients are combined; the highest art lies in combining familiar elements in a new and surprising way. That is the only kind of originality that is possible. That's what the first <em>Star Wars</em> did, and it <em>was</em> original.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny true story .
StarWars is not original.Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie , he just put it in space .
...Do n't get me wrong : I * love * Star Wars .
But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.Most really good stories are made from staple ingredients .
Those ingredients are the big things : love , betrayal , the conflict between principles and selfishness , growing up , growing old , and dying .
Those things are big because they are what matters to people .
The art lies in how those ingredients are combined ; the highest art lies in combining familiar elements in a new and surprising way .
That is the only kind of originality that is possible .
That 's what the first Star Wars did , and it was original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Funny true story.
StarWars is not original.Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space.
...Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars.
But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.Most really good stories are made from staple ingredients.
Those ingredients are the big things: love, betrayal, the conflict between principles and selfishness, growing up, growing old, and dying.
Those things are big because they are what matters to people.
The art lies in how those ingredients are combined; the highest art lies in combining familiar elements in a new and surprising way.
That is the only kind of originality that is possible.
That's what the first Star Wars did, and it was original.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648540</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1262609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.</i></p><p>"The Truman Show" just ripped off JenniCam...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of .
" The Truman Show " just ripped off JenniCam.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.
"The Truman Show" just ripped off JenniCam...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</id>
	<title>3d and tv</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262626080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the way they make these movies 3d is putting in blurry backgrounds and forgrounds and the glasses make them clear - so you get a 3d image.  The theatre screen is just a flat surface.  Given that - what is preventing this movie from being released, in 3d, for your plasma/LCD screen? It would come with 2-4 glasses (the ones at the theatre were of nice construction) and you can get a 3d experience at home.<br> <br>

Anyone, with tech knowledge, can give a laymens answer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the way they make these movies 3d is putting in blurry backgrounds and forgrounds and the glasses make them clear - so you get a 3d image .
The theatre screen is just a flat surface .
Given that - what is preventing this movie from being released , in 3d , for your plasma/LCD screen ?
It would come with 2-4 glasses ( the ones at the theatre were of nice construction ) and you can get a 3d experience at home .
Anyone , with tech knowledge , can give a laymens answer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the way they make these movies 3d is putting in blurry backgrounds and forgrounds and the glasses make them clear - so you get a 3d image.
The theatre screen is just a flat surface.
Given that - what is preventing this movie from being released, in 3d, for your plasma/LCD screen?
It would come with 2-4 glasses (the ones at the theatre were of nice construction) and you can get a 3d experience at home.
Anyone, with tech knowledge, can give a laymens answer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498</id>
	<title>Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same story all over again and yet it succeds.</p><p>Well. It'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing, wouldn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same story all over again and yet it succeds.Well .
It 'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing , would n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same story all over again and yet it succeds.Well.
It'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing, wouldn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640578</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I <a href="http://xkcd.com/684/" title="xkcd.com">wanted to see it with my girlfriend,</a> [xkcd.com] but I don't have one.  Thanks for the reminder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I wanted to see it with my girlfriend , [ xkcd.com ] but I do n't have one .
Thanks for the reminder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I wanted to see it with my girlfriend, [xkcd.com] but I don't have one.
Thanks for the reminder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643148</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1262630160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm honestly baffled by the people who are bothered by the word unobtanium. It was obviously a joke, a nod towards engineers calling currently "impossible" materials "unobtanium" as a shorthand. If they'd called it something like Mithril or any other fictional material, would that somehow be better? If they just randomly spewed technobabble ala Trek, would that be better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm honestly baffled by the people who are bothered by the word unobtanium .
It was obviously a joke , a nod towards engineers calling currently " impossible " materials " unobtanium " as a shorthand .
If they 'd called it something like Mithril or any other fictional material , would that somehow be better ?
If they just randomly spewed technobabble ala Trek , would that be better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm honestly baffled by the people who are bothered by the word unobtanium.
It was obviously a joke, a nod towards engineers calling currently "impossible" materials "unobtanium" as a shorthand.
If they'd called it something like Mithril or any other fictional material, would that somehow be better?
If they just randomly spewed technobabble ala Trek, would that be better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648262</id>
	<title>Childhood != stupidity.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262608740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder children have so low aspirations. Many adults think that the right fare to be offered to them should be "simple and stupid".</p><p>Comments like the PP makes me be all more grateful for my older relatives taking me to see challenging stuff when I was young.</p><p>Also I never insult the intelligence of any children by assuming they are mentally challenged.</p><p>Gosh, to think that there are people out ther thinking is those terms is really depressing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder children have so low aspirations .
Many adults think that the right fare to be offered to them should be " simple and stupid " .Comments like the PP makes me be all more grateful for my older relatives taking me to see challenging stuff when I was young.Also I never insult the intelligence of any children by assuming they are mentally challenged.Gosh , to think that there are people out ther thinking is those terms is really depressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder children have so low aspirations.
Many adults think that the right fare to be offered to them should be "simple and stupid".Comments like the PP makes me be all more grateful for my older relatives taking me to see challenging stuff when I was young.Also I never insult the intelligence of any children by assuming they are mentally challenged.Gosh, to think that there are people out ther thinking is those terms is really depressing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643814</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>sproingie</author>
	<datestamp>1262633100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.</p><p>What about <i>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</i>?</p><p>Funny thing, Jim Carrey is actually pretty good in serious roles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.What about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ? Funny thing , Jim Carrey is actually pretty good in serious roles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Maybe The Truman Show is the last unique storyline I can think of.What about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?Funny thing, Jim Carrey is actually pretty good in serious roles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651520</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>kadey</author>
	<datestamp>1262629440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">cheap wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">buy wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewellery</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewelry</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora jewellery</a> [panjewellery.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora bracelets</a> [panjewellery.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora charms</a> [panjewellery.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow gold [ power4game.com ] cheap wow gold [ power4game.com ] buy wow gold [ power4game.com ] tiffany jewellery [ tiffanys-store.com ] tiffany [ tiffanys-store.com ] tiffany jewelry [ tiffanys-store.com ] pandora jewellery [ panjewellery.com ] pandora bracelets [ panjewellery.com ] pandora charms [ panjewellery.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow gold [power4game.com]
cheap wow gold [power4game.com]
buy wow gold [power4game.com]
tiffany jewellery [tiffanys-store.com]
tiffany [tiffanys-store.com]
tiffany jewelry [tiffanys-store.com]
pandora jewellery [panjewellery.com]
pandora bracelets [panjewellery.com]
pandora charms [panjewellery.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641752</id>
	<title>Re:Great movie</title>
	<author>Luthe\_Faydwire</author>
	<datestamp>1262624880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the "technology" was that it did not make sense.  They jacked into the bodies and controlled them half a world away without even a light speed delay.  If they had progressed to mind transplant or genome modification that would allow the modification of humans it would have made more sense.</p><p>That the bodies were custom to the DNA of the individual but not to the mind was also strange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the " technology " was that it did not make sense .
They jacked into the bodies and controlled them half a world away without even a light speed delay .
If they had progressed to mind transplant or genome modification that would allow the modification of humans it would have made more sense.That the bodies were custom to the DNA of the individual but not to the mind was also strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the "technology" was that it did not make sense.
They jacked into the bodies and controlled them half a world away without even a light speed delay.
If they had progressed to mind transplant or genome modification that would allow the modification of humans it would have made more sense.That the bodies were custom to the DNA of the individual but not to the mind was also strange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643804</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262633040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about "Big Fish" and "The Game"?  I think those might be the only other 2 i can think of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about " Big Fish " and " The Game " ?
I think those might be the only other 2 i can think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about "Big Fish" and "The Game"?
I think those might be the only other 2 i can think of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650606</id>
	<title>Oh The Clich&#233;</title>
	<author>Frigo</author>
	<datestamp>1262621640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hey I'm some kind of military commander guy. Look at my scar, how evil I am, arr arr. Some primitive aliens are sitting on top of a pile of high grade jew gold and refuse to leave, so instead of drugging them up and moving them away, or mining underground without disturbing them, we are going to SHOOT A BIG TREE. Watch us behaving in a unreasonable stereotypical right-wing racist greedy big oil etc etc redneck way and losing to a stereotypical primitive good clean happy healthy spiritual natureloving hippie etc etc space indian tribe."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hey I 'm some kind of military commander guy .
Look at my scar , how evil I am , arr arr .
Some primitive aliens are sitting on top of a pile of high grade jew gold and refuse to leave , so instead of drugging them up and moving them away , or mining underground without disturbing them , we are going to SHOOT A BIG TREE .
Watch us behaving in a unreasonable stereotypical right-wing racist greedy big oil etc etc redneck way and losing to a stereotypical primitive good clean happy healthy spiritual natureloving hippie etc etc space indian tribe .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hey I'm some kind of military commander guy.
Look at my scar, how evil I am, arr arr.
Some primitive aliens are sitting on top of a pile of high grade jew gold and refuse to leave, so instead of drugging them up and moving them away, or mining underground without disturbing them, we are going to SHOOT A BIG TREE.
Watch us behaving in a unreasonable stereotypical right-wing racist greedy big oil etc etc redneck way and losing to a stereotypical primitive good clean happy healthy spiritual natureloving hippie etc etc space indian tribe.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films</i></p><p>If they did that, I wouldn't have seen any of them, and many other people wouldn't have.  I honestly don't give a shit about plot.  Show me pretty colors in 3D on a 50 foot screen and I'm in. Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular filmsIf they did that , I would n't have seen any of them , and many other people would n't have .
I honestly do n't give a shit about plot .
Show me pretty colors in 3D on a 50 foot screen and I 'm in .
Sorry if that offends your film snobbery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular filmsIf they did that, I wouldn't have seen any of them, and many other people wouldn't have.
I honestly don't give a shit about plot.
Show me pretty colors in 3D on a 50 foot screen and I'm in.
Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642448</id>
	<title>Re:Nope haven't seen it either</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1262627460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually if you want to compare to video games I would say that Crysis would be a better example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if you want to compare to video games I would say that Crysis would be a better example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if you want to compare to video games I would say that Crysis would be a better example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1262623680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unobtanium is actually a wry nod to the nasa (and other) engineers who used this term as a substitute for a part of the design that needed a material with impossible characteristics (for example the bottom of the shuttle until they invented a material that was light, unmeltable at 3k C, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unobtanium is actually a wry nod to the nasa ( and other ) engineers who used this term as a substitute for a part of the design that needed a material with impossible characteristics ( for example the bottom of the shuttle until they invented a material that was light , unmeltable at 3k C , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unobtanium is actually a wry nod to the nasa (and other) engineers who used this term as a substitute for a part of the design that needed a material with impossible characteristics (for example the bottom of the shuttle until they invented a material that was light, unmeltable at 3k C, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30748238</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>consonant</author>
	<datestamp>1263375900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better yet, try <a href="http://web.me.com/pascalboogaert/Site/foto3.html" title="me.com">Pocahontas</a> [me.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , try Pocahontas [ me.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, try Pocahontas [me.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641580</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1262624340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just named two movies I have no interest in seeing and when you're selling a niche movie you can spend a small amount of money and succeed.  Sherlock Holmes looks like a chick-flick period piece (shirtless slap fight included for your GF's viewing pleasure) and the Chipmunks is for kids.  I saw Avatar and thoroughly enjoyed it.  I didn't go into the theater expecting James Cameron to give me a handjob, I just wanted to watch a good sci-fi flick and I did.  Sometimes, us sci-fi fans get way to self-righteous about the genre.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just named two movies I have no interest in seeing and when you 're selling a niche movie you can spend a small amount of money and succeed .
Sherlock Holmes looks like a chick-flick period piece ( shirtless slap fight included for your GF 's viewing pleasure ) and the Chipmunks is for kids .
I saw Avatar and thoroughly enjoyed it .
I did n't go into the theater expecting James Cameron to give me a handjob , I just wanted to watch a good sci-fi flick and I did .
Sometimes , us sci-fi fans get way to self-righteous about the genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just named two movies I have no interest in seeing and when you're selling a niche movie you can spend a small amount of money and succeed.
Sherlock Holmes looks like a chick-flick period piece (shirtless slap fight included for your GF's viewing pleasure) and the Chipmunks is for kids.
I saw Avatar and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I didn't go into the theater expecting James Cameron to give me a handjob, I just wanted to watch a good sci-fi flick and I did.
Sometimes, us sci-fi fans get way to self-righteous about the genre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648122</id>
	<title>Re:Another nail</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262608020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pfft.  Two cameras, one polarizing lens over each.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pfft .
Two cameras , one polarizing lens over each .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pfft.
Two cameras, one polarizing lens over each.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642994</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1262629500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you consider that it's a room-temperature superconductor that makes interstellar travel (in the short range by interstellar measures; they're still limited to sub-lightspeed velocities) practical at all, I think "unobtanium" is a damn good name for the stuff. In any case, while it's probable that if the materials science folks ever do discover or develop such material they'll give it a long and inconvenient name which will be shortened to a quick and meaningless acronym, that doesn't mean "unobtanium" is an impossible name for such such a material.</p><p>Besides, for all we know it was just the "common name" for the stuff, and the scientific types did in fact have their own excessively syllabic nomenclature (a.k.a. stupidly long name).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you consider that it 's a room-temperature superconductor that makes interstellar travel ( in the short range by interstellar measures ; they 're still limited to sub-lightspeed velocities ) practical at all , I think " unobtanium " is a damn good name for the stuff .
In any case , while it 's probable that if the materials science folks ever do discover or develop such material they 'll give it a long and inconvenient name which will be shortened to a quick and meaningless acronym , that does n't mean " unobtanium " is an impossible name for such such a material.Besides , for all we know it was just the " common name " for the stuff , and the scientific types did in fact have their own excessively syllabic nomenclature ( a.k.a .
stupidly long name ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you consider that it's a room-temperature superconductor that makes interstellar travel (in the short range by interstellar measures; they're still limited to sub-lightspeed velocities) practical at all, I think "unobtanium" is a damn good name for the stuff.
In any case, while it's probable that if the materials science folks ever do discover or develop such material they'll give it a long and inconvenient name which will be shortened to a quick and meaningless acronym, that doesn't mean "unobtanium" is an impossible name for such such a material.Besides, for all we know it was just the "common name" for the stuff, and the scientific types did in fact have their own excessively syllabic nomenclature (a.k.a.
stupidly long name).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643244</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then we'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.</p></div><p>And we get proof of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">string/M-theory</a> [wikipedia.org] then...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we 'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.And we get proof of string/M-theory [ wikipedia.org ] then... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.And we get proof of string/M-theory [wikipedia.org] then... :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642980</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1262629440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would have been less cruel if she had slept with your brother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been less cruel if she had slept with your brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been less cruel if she had slept with your brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641124</id>
	<title>It's a hollywood movie we are talking about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. now has an established "let's bash Avatar" theme, along the lines of distrusting government, ridiculing religion, etc.</p><p>Come on, folks - all these "blockbuster" movies recycle old plot lines and have lots of predictable elements.  I don't see anything different about anything else that comes out of Hollywood.  All big-budget movies are intended to be entertaining eye candy.  That's just what Avatar is, and it does a great job of it.  If you want to spend your time on something weighty and intellectual, pick up a book rather than heading to the movie theatre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems / .
now has an established " let 's bash Avatar " theme , along the lines of distrusting government , ridiculing religion , etc.Come on , folks - all these " blockbuster " movies recycle old plot lines and have lots of predictable elements .
I do n't see anything different about anything else that comes out of Hollywood .
All big-budget movies are intended to be entertaining eye candy .
That 's just what Avatar is , and it does a great job of it .
If you want to spend your time on something weighty and intellectual , pick up a book rather than heading to the movie theatre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems /.
now has an established "let's bash Avatar" theme, along the lines of distrusting government, ridiculing religion, etc.Come on, folks - all these "blockbuster" movies recycle old plot lines and have lots of predictable elements.
I don't see anything different about anything else that comes out of Hollywood.
All big-budget movies are intended to be entertaining eye candy.
That's just what Avatar is, and it does a great job of it.
If you want to spend your time on something weighty and intellectual, pick up a book rather than heading to the movie theatre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641110</id>
	<title>Cameron is a good director. There, I said it.</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1262622420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While James Cameron isn't in my top list of directors by a long shot, having seen most (all?) of his movies and now Avatar I have to admit he is a good director. He does the movies he likes and he puts loads of personal effort and risk into them. And he knows how to get the plot, visuals *and* the screenplay right. I said *right* <i>not</i> original or superb. Given, the Avatar plot isn't anything new. Cameron boldfacidly admitted in an interview that it was 'Dances with Wolves' (..Pocahontas/Ferngully/etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) in SF and I, as everyone else, was prepared to see a generic plotline unfold.</p><p>But:<br>I was suprised that the didn't flog a dead horse in terms of stale american cornyness in dialouge. There was a bit to much of that in Abyss and I was surprised that he'd improved on that in leaps and bounds. The play and dialog where simply textbook, no more and no less, but they avoided pressing any issue. It was as if Cameron almost expected one to know the story. And Avatars pacing is excellent, imho. No strange Abyss-like 'Submarine drama turned ET' plot-turns or mood-swings. Just the right amount of action, tension, poetry and subplot you can expect and not to much avantgarde experimenting as not to confuse the target audience, i.e. the masses. The FX are first class and lack the significant botches that disturbed the visual experience in 'Attack of the Clones'. I was prepared for something like that in the 95\% CGI movie that Avatar is, and was glad they didn't screw up.</p><p>Bottom line: Camerons movies are certainly not top-of-the-line in terms of avantgarde and arthouse, but they are allways a sure bet for a few hours of popcorn-movie fun. Which, as I understand, is his intention. And thus makes him a good director, in my book.</p><p>My 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While James Cameron is n't in my top list of directors by a long shot , having seen most ( all ?
) of his movies and now Avatar I have to admit he is a good director .
He does the movies he likes and he puts loads of personal effort and risk into them .
And he knows how to get the plot , visuals * and * the screenplay right .
I said * right * not original or superb .
Given , the Avatar plot is n't anything new .
Cameron boldfacidly admitted in an interview that it was 'Dances with Wolves ' ( ..Pocahontas/Ferngully/etc .
... ) in SF and I , as everyone else , was prepared to see a generic plotline unfold.But : I was suprised that the did n't flog a dead horse in terms of stale american cornyness in dialouge .
There was a bit to much of that in Abyss and I was surprised that he 'd improved on that in leaps and bounds .
The play and dialog where simply textbook , no more and no less , but they avoided pressing any issue .
It was as if Cameron almost expected one to know the story .
And Avatars pacing is excellent , imho .
No strange Abyss-like 'Submarine drama turned ET ' plot-turns or mood-swings .
Just the right amount of action , tension , poetry and subplot you can expect and not to much avantgarde experimenting as not to confuse the target audience , i.e .
the masses .
The FX are first class and lack the significant botches that disturbed the visual experience in 'Attack of the Clones' .
I was prepared for something like that in the 95 \ % CGI movie that Avatar is , and was glad they did n't screw up.Bottom line : Camerons movies are certainly not top-of-the-line in terms of avantgarde and arthouse , but they are allways a sure bet for a few hours of popcorn-movie fun .
Which , as I understand , is his intention .
And thus makes him a good director , in my book.My 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While James Cameron isn't in my top list of directors by a long shot, having seen most (all?
) of his movies and now Avatar I have to admit he is a good director.
He does the movies he likes and he puts loads of personal effort and risk into them.
And he knows how to get the plot, visuals *and* the screenplay right.
I said *right* not original or superb.
Given, the Avatar plot isn't anything new.
Cameron boldfacidly admitted in an interview that it was 'Dances with Wolves' (..Pocahontas/Ferngully/etc.
...) in SF and I, as everyone else, was prepared to see a generic plotline unfold.But:I was suprised that the didn't flog a dead horse in terms of stale american cornyness in dialouge.
There was a bit to much of that in Abyss and I was surprised that he'd improved on that in leaps and bounds.
The play and dialog where simply textbook, no more and no less, but they avoided pressing any issue.
It was as if Cameron almost expected one to know the story.
And Avatars pacing is excellent, imho.
No strange Abyss-like 'Submarine drama turned ET' plot-turns or mood-swings.
Just the right amount of action, tension, poetry and subplot you can expect and not to much avantgarde experimenting as not to confuse the target audience, i.e.
the masses.
The FX are first class and lack the significant botches that disturbed the visual experience in 'Attack of the Clones'.
I was prepared for something like that in the 95\% CGI movie that Avatar is, and was glad they didn't screw up.Bottom line: Camerons movies are certainly not top-of-the-line in terms of avantgarde and arthouse, but they are allways a sure bet for a few hours of popcorn-movie fun.
Which, as I understand, is his intention.
And thus makes him a good director, in my book.My 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646192</id>
	<title>Re:Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing, wouldn't it?</p></div><p>Well, that's just your own opinion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing , would n't it ? Well , that 's just your own opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing, wouldn't it?Well, that's just your own opinion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648146</id>
	<title>Re:Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1262608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that if you filter the message of this film through its all-too-blatant subtext, it is about evil prevailing.  Or at the very least, it's about how people who we normally think of as evil are actually good and should totally prevail.  Goddamn hippie crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that if you filter the message of this film through its all-too-blatant subtext , it is about evil prevailing .
Or at the very least , it 's about how people who we normally think of as evil are actually good and should totally prevail .
Goddamn hippie crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that if you filter the message of this film through its all-too-blatant subtext, it is about evil prevailing.
Or at the very least, it's about how people who we normally think of as evil are actually good and should totally prevail.
Goddamn hippie crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644038</id>
	<title>Re:And the winner is YOU!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that if you didn't read this article you wouldn't be ranting about it right now.</p><p>And just for kicks:</p><p>If the sheep are flocking, then who's the Shepherd?</p><p>Someone who acknowledges that the more technology changes, the more film-making stays the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that if you did n't read this article you would n't be ranting about it right now.And just for kicks : If the sheep are flocking , then who 's the Shepherd ? Someone who acknowledges that the more technology changes , the more film-making stays the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that if you didn't read this article you wouldn't be ranting about it right now.And just for kicks:If the sheep are flocking, then who's the Shepherd?Someone who acknowledges that the more technology changes, the more film-making stays the same?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641056</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1262622240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you aren't. I'll see it on Netflix, maybe.<p>

(Cue the squeals of "But it just isn't the same without big-screen 3D!!!" Well, if it isn't then it's just a special-effects movie, isn't it?</p><p>

In a real movie, what you see onscreen supports the story. There are two classes of movies where the story, such as it is, is just there to justify the visuals: porn and special effects movies.</p><p>

Here's an example of the real kind: Kenneth Branagh's film of <i>Henry V</i>. He delivered the "Unto the breach" speech sitting on an old plug horse that was as tranquilized as the poor Dalmatian who rides the Budweiser wagon. Every couple of lines he would turn the horse around...and in my mind's eye, that horse was a fierce, dancing charger on the point of bolting at the enemy. Real writing and acting provide their own special effects: they turn on pictures in your head.</p><p>

I didn't see <i>Titanic</i>, but over the ensuing year I had every minute of it inflicted on me, piecewise, via TV and it turned out to be just what I expected: a lot of visual bling overlaid on a plot that made effective use of one dramatic device -- adequate foreplay -- but otherwise was semiliterate ("That Picasso fellow will never amount to anything"...eat your heart out, George Bernard Shaw).</p><p>

I'm guessing that under the SFX in this picture lies a knockoff of <i>Dances With Wolves</i>.</p><p>
rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you are n't .
I 'll see it on Netflix , maybe .
( Cue the squeals of " But it just is n't the same without big-screen 3D ! ! !
" Well , if it is n't then it 's just a special-effects movie , is n't it ?
In a real movie , what you see onscreen supports the story .
There are two classes of movies where the story , such as it is , is just there to justify the visuals : porn and special effects movies .
Here 's an example of the real kind : Kenneth Branagh 's film of Henry V. He delivered the " Unto the breach " speech sitting on an old plug horse that was as tranquilized as the poor Dalmatian who rides the Budweiser wagon .
Every couple of lines he would turn the horse around...and in my mind 's eye , that horse was a fierce , dancing charger on the point of bolting at the enemy .
Real writing and acting provide their own special effects : they turn on pictures in your head .
I did n't see Titanic , but over the ensuing year I had every minute of it inflicted on me , piecewise , via TV and it turned out to be just what I expected : a lot of visual bling overlaid on a plot that made effective use of one dramatic device -- adequate foreplay -- but otherwise was semiliterate ( " That Picasso fellow will never amount to anything " ...eat your heart out , George Bernard Shaw ) .
I 'm guessing that under the SFX in this picture lies a knockoff of Dances With Wolves .
rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you aren't.
I'll see it on Netflix, maybe.
(Cue the squeals of "But it just isn't the same without big-screen 3D!!!
" Well, if it isn't then it's just a special-effects movie, isn't it?
In a real movie, what you see onscreen supports the story.
There are two classes of movies where the story, such as it is, is just there to justify the visuals: porn and special effects movies.
Here's an example of the real kind: Kenneth Branagh's film of Henry V. He delivered the "Unto the breach" speech sitting on an old plug horse that was as tranquilized as the poor Dalmatian who rides the Budweiser wagon.
Every couple of lines he would turn the horse around...and in my mind's eye, that horse was a fierce, dancing charger on the point of bolting at the enemy.
Real writing and acting provide their own special effects: they turn on pictures in your head.
I didn't see Titanic, but over the ensuing year I had every minute of it inflicted on me, piecewise, via TV and it turned out to be just what I expected: a lot of visual bling overlaid on a plot that made effective use of one dramatic device -- adequate foreplay -- but otherwise was semiliterate ("That Picasso fellow will never amount to anything"...eat your heart out, George Bernard Shaw).
I'm guessing that under the SFX in this picture lies a knockoff of Dances With Wolves.
rj</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642536</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1262627760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coraline on DVD is 3D and it comes with glasses. Admittedly, it's the older red/green 3D, but it does work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coraline on DVD is 3D and it comes with glasses .
Admittedly , it 's the older red/green 3D , but it does work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coraline on DVD is 3D and it comes with glasses.
Admittedly, it's the older red/green 3D, but it does work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643152</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.</p></div></blockquote><p>Pixar's UP?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.Pixar 's UP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.Pixar's UP?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641546</id>
	<title>The Last Mega-Blockbuster Cameron Movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cameron has taken two major risks and both have paid off. But, when you look at the reports of what people are saying about the film (i.e. being so weak with the story, and just a major fx flick), you have to wonder if this is the end of that kind of approach. Effects will quickly become boring if people don't get a really good story.</p><p>I'm guessing with the tepid initial reception in the US, this will be the last Mega blockbuster that Cameron gets funded.  Now he's known for something that is becoming boring quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cameron has taken two major risks and both have paid off .
But , when you look at the reports of what people are saying about the film ( i.e .
being so weak with the story , and just a major fx flick ) , you have to wonder if this is the end of that kind of approach .
Effects will quickly become boring if people do n't get a really good story.I 'm guessing with the tepid initial reception in the US , this will be the last Mega blockbuster that Cameron gets funded .
Now he 's known for something that is becoming boring quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cameron has taken two major risks and both have paid off.
But, when you look at the reports of what people are saying about the film (i.e.
being so weak with the story, and just a major fx flick), you have to wonder if this is the end of that kind of approach.
Effects will quickly become boring if people don't get a really good story.I'm guessing with the tepid initial reception in the US, this will be the last Mega blockbuster that Cameron gets funded.
Now he's known for something that is becoming boring quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1262625480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saw it in 3D at the Imax.</p></div><p>Just out of curiosity, do you wear glasses? I'm just wondering how the 3D glasses they're using for this movie fit over regular glasses.</p><p>If they haven't improved the "3D glasses over regular glasses" experience, I'll have to stick to the 2D version.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw it in 3D at the Imax.Just out of curiosity , do you wear glasses ?
I 'm just wondering how the 3D glasses they 're using for this movie fit over regular glasses.If they have n't improved the " 3D glasses over regular glasses " experience , I 'll have to stick to the 2D version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw it in 3D at the Imax.Just out of curiosity, do you wear glasses?
I'm just wondering how the 3D glasses they're using for this movie fit over regular glasses.If they haven't improved the "3D glasses over regular glasses" experience, I'll have to stick to the 2D version.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642176</id>
	<title>It's just a SciFi starved population..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, there is not that much good SciFi coming from the studios, so every time there comes \_something\_ resembling a very good movie, it gets excellent ROI. Who would have guessed? Seriously, the interval for stuff you ought to watch in the genre is stretching to half a year by now (last was star trek - spring, now avatar, next is Iron Man 2 - spring again).. if competition would be like 10-7 years ago, this numbers would not be achievable.</p><p>It's actually a sign of very smart marketing, though I don't like that little detail about it: WE ARE ALL SCREWED!</p><p>(sorry, I get a little emotional at times when someone approaches me from behind)..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , there is not that much good SciFi coming from the studios , so every time there comes \ _something \ _ resembling a very good movie , it gets excellent ROI .
Who would have guessed ?
Seriously , the interval for stuff you ought to watch in the genre is stretching to half a year by now ( last was star trek - spring , now avatar , next is Iron Man 2 - spring again ) .. if competition would be like 10-7 years ago , this numbers would not be achievable.It 's actually a sign of very smart marketing , though I do n't like that little detail about it : WE ARE ALL SCREWED !
( sorry , I get a little emotional at times when someone approaches me from behind ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, there is not that much good SciFi coming from the studios, so every time there comes \_something\_ resembling a very good movie, it gets excellent ROI.
Who would have guessed?
Seriously, the interval for stuff you ought to watch in the genre is stretching to half a year by now (last was star trek - spring, now avatar, next is Iron Man 2 - spring again).. if competition would be like 10-7 years ago, this numbers would not be achievable.It's actually a sign of very smart marketing, though I don't like that little detail about it: WE ARE ALL SCREWED!
(sorry, I get a little emotional at times when someone approaches me from behind)..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641980</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>stiller</author>
	<datestamp>1262625780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.</p></div><p>The official budget of the Avatar production was $237 million. Your quoting the absolute highest rumored budget including the complete marketing, which isn't exactly relevant here.<br>Even we assume this is correct. I'm sure any studio would prefer to create 1 movie for $430 million which grosses 1 billion within 3 weeks, than 10 medium grossing movies. The return on investment is faster and the overhead is lower.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.The official budget of the Avatar production was $ 237 million .
Your quoting the absolute highest rumored budget including the complete marketing , which is n't exactly relevant here.Even we assume this is correct .
I 'm sure any studio would prefer to create 1 movie for $ 430 million which grosses 1 billion within 3 weeks , than 10 medium grossing movies .
The return on investment is faster and the overhead is lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.The official budget of the Avatar production was $237 million.
Your quoting the absolute highest rumored budget including the complete marketing, which isn't exactly relevant here.Even we assume this is correct.
I'm sure any studio would prefer to create 1 movie for $430 million which grosses 1 billion within 3 weeks, than 10 medium grossing movies.
The return on investment is faster and the overhead is lower.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642600</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262627940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sherlock Holmes loses little seen in my home via Netflix, on my non-HD television.  Avatar would still be pretty, but I watched seemingly a quarter of the movie with my jaw in my lap.  The visuals are simply breathtaking.  I didn't even see it in 3D (though I am thinking about going back to do so).  Given the fact that one was intended to be a visual spectacle, and one was not, made it very clear which I want to see at home versus which I'll see in a theater.  (The fact that seeing Holms at home is so much cheaper, more pleasant, and convenient isn't my fault.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;))</p><p>I was impressed, frankly. I went in expecting a crappy story and good visuals, and got stunning visuals with a good story. (I'm a hopeless romantic, though, so I like these things.)  If I wanted something that wasn't predictable, I wouldn't have seen Star Wars dozens of times, Harry Potter a dozen times, and the Princess Bride a similar number of times.  Of course I knew it had a love story -- you could tell as soon as the marine saw the alien girl.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  The graphics were just breathtaking (especially the night scenes, and distant vistas of the forest floor).  Even the blue people were done very well: I didn't get a "Jar Jar" feel from them, and they were alien enough that they didn't get mired in the uncanny valley. (I saw FF:Spirits Within, and the people there seemed fake.  In Star Wars, the CGI aliens just seemed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fake.  These somehow moved Right, to me.  I'm sure I can find flaws in it when I see it again.)</p><p><b>--- spoiler ---</b></p><p>I was very interested in how things were going to be resolved -- like how they'd manage to get him to safely participate in the war when he needed to be in a terran equipment pod, uplinking to his Avatar body.  Pretty much as soon as he first ran in his new body, I was wondering how he would escape his human shell for good -- as he said, it was like his real life was in the blue body, and his waking moments in the human body were a dream in a crippled shell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherlock Holmes loses little seen in my home via Netflix , on my non-HD television .
Avatar would still be pretty , but I watched seemingly a quarter of the movie with my jaw in my lap .
The visuals are simply breathtaking .
I did n't even see it in 3D ( though I am thinking about going back to do so ) .
Given the fact that one was intended to be a visual spectacle , and one was not , made it very clear which I want to see at home versus which I 'll see in a theater .
( The fact that seeing Holms at home is so much cheaper , more pleasant , and convenient is n't my fault .
; ) ) I was impressed , frankly .
I went in expecting a crappy story and good visuals , and got stunning visuals with a good story .
( I 'm a hopeless romantic , though , so I like these things .
) If I wanted something that was n't predictable , I would n't have seen Star Wars dozens of times , Harry Potter a dozen times , and the Princess Bride a similar number of times .
Of course I knew it had a love story -- you could tell as soon as the marine saw the alien girl .
; ) The graphics were just breathtaking ( especially the night scenes , and distant vistas of the forest floor ) .
Even the blue people were done very well : I did n't get a " Jar Jar " feel from them , and they were alien enough that they did n't get mired in the uncanny valley .
( I saw FF : Spirits Within , and the people there seemed fake .
In Star Wars , the CGI aliens just seemed ... fake. These somehow moved Right , to me .
I 'm sure I can find flaws in it when I see it again .
) --- spoiler ---I was very interested in how things were going to be resolved -- like how they 'd manage to get him to safely participate in the war when he needed to be in a terran equipment pod , uplinking to his Avatar body .
Pretty much as soon as he first ran in his new body , I was wondering how he would escape his human shell for good -- as he said , it was like his real life was in the blue body , and his waking moments in the human body were a dream in a crippled shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherlock Holmes loses little seen in my home via Netflix, on my non-HD television.
Avatar would still be pretty, but I watched seemingly a quarter of the movie with my jaw in my lap.
The visuals are simply breathtaking.
I didn't even see it in 3D (though I am thinking about going back to do so).
Given the fact that one was intended to be a visual spectacle, and one was not, made it very clear which I want to see at home versus which I'll see in a theater.
(The fact that seeing Holms at home is so much cheaper, more pleasant, and convenient isn't my fault.
;))I was impressed, frankly.
I went in expecting a crappy story and good visuals, and got stunning visuals with a good story.
(I'm a hopeless romantic, though, so I like these things.
)  If I wanted something that wasn't predictable, I wouldn't have seen Star Wars dozens of times, Harry Potter a dozen times, and the Princess Bride a similar number of times.
Of course I knew it had a love story -- you could tell as soon as the marine saw the alien girl.
;)  The graphics were just breathtaking (especially the night scenes, and distant vistas of the forest floor).
Even the blue people were done very well: I didn't get a "Jar Jar" feel from them, and they were alien enough that they didn't get mired in the uncanny valley.
(I saw FF:Spirits Within, and the people there seemed fake.
In Star Wars, the CGI aliens just seemed ... fake.  These somehow moved Right, to me.
I'm sure I can find flaws in it when I see it again.
)--- spoiler ---I was very interested in how things were going to be resolved -- like how they'd manage to get him to safely participate in the war when he needed to be in a terran equipment pod, uplinking to his Avatar body.
Pretty much as soon as he first ran in his new body, I was wondering how he would escape his human shell for good -- as he said, it was like his real life was in the blue body, and his waking moments in the human body were a dream in a crippled shell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640852</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1262621460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one.  The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.  From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver, this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies.  Were this story presented as a book, without James Cameron's name, it would have been rejected outright.</p><p>The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry, which made the movie worth watching.  They were outstanding.</p><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.  If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.  I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div><p>I don't see why everyone is raving about "special effects". Just watch any other movie, and turn up the hue setting on your TV, you'll get the same effect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one .
The story line , apart from the apparently necessary political message , is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories .
From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver , this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies .
Were this story presented as a book , without James Cameron 's name , it would have been rejected outright.The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry , which made the movie worth watching .
They were outstanding.Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.I do n't see why everyone is raving about " special effects " .
Just watch any other movie , and turn up the hue setting on your TV , you 'll get the same effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one.
The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.
From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver, this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies.
Were this story presented as a book, without James Cameron's name, it would have been rejected outright.The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry, which made the movie worth watching.
They were outstanding.Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.I don't see why everyone is raving about "special effects".
Just watch any other movie, and turn up the hue setting on your TV, you'll get the same effect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642622</id>
	<title>Re:Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>ShatteredArm</author>
	<datestamp>1262628060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's funny, I never want to see it again.  In fact, my roommate invited me to go along and watch Avatar with his group.  I decided that staying home and watching <i>Drag Me To Hell</i> for free would be a better use of my time and money.  And it was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny , I never want to see it again .
In fact , my roommate invited me to go along and watch Avatar with his group .
I decided that staying home and watching Drag Me To Hell for free would be a better use of my time and money .
And it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny, I never want to see it again.
In fact, my roommate invited me to go along and watch Avatar with his group.
I decided that staying home and watching Drag Me To Hell for free would be a better use of my time and money.
And it was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641700</id>
	<title>Re:Great movie</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1262624700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who are you talking to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who are you talking to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who are you talking to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645206</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1262596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrumanShowPlot" title="tvtropes.org" rel="nofollow">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrumanShowPlot</a> [tvtropes.org]</p><p>Unique, except for that Twilight Zone Episode, and all those other things on that page that came before it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrumanShowPlot [ tvtropes.org ] Unique , except for that Twilight Zone Episode , and all those other things on that page that came before it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrumanShowPlot [tvtropes.org]Unique, except for that Twilight Zone Episode, and all those other things on that page that came before it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642632</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262628120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention? Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't that like asking whether a porn movie would still get attention if it didn't have any sex?</p><p>Of course it's Who Framed Roger Rabbit in Space (as I heard someone call it).  It's just looks Really Good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a bad movie by any stretch , but without the special effect advancement , would this movie garner any attention ?
Will Avatar 's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told ? Is n't that like asking whether a porn movie would still get attention if it did n't have any sex ? Of course it 's Who Framed Roger Rabbit in Space ( as I heard someone call it ) .
It 's just looks Really Good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention?
Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?Isn't that like asking whether a porn movie would still get attention if it didn't have any sex?Of course it's Who Framed Roger Rabbit in Space (as I heard someone call it).
It's just looks Really Good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</id>
	<title>Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1262621820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been hearing a lot of people making comments that the story in Avatar is not a new story</p><p>Any literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and haven't been for centuries.</p><p>A great work is a great great work by virtue of how well the story is told.<br>( Good writing, good acting, good script, etc )</p><p>Shakespeare is often given as an example.  None of his plots were original but his works are still valued centuries later.</p><p>That being said Avatar is not Shakespeare.  It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park.   Movies like that are rarely enjoyable once you are no longer impressed by the effects......they don't have anything else.</p><p>I don't see the message of the film as a problem.  You can't have a story without a message.  People don't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics.   Doesn't matter if you are a conservative or a liberal. Everybody reacts like that, few are honest about it.</p><p>I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated.  Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.   I believe that embedding messages like Avatar's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people, whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.</p><p>That can only lead to good things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hearing a lot of people making comments that the story in Avatar is not a new storyAny literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and have n't been for centuries.A great work is a great great work by virtue of how well the story is told .
( Good writing , good acting , good script , etc ) Shakespeare is often given as an example .
None of his plots were original but his works are still valued centuries later.That being said Avatar is not Shakespeare .
It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park .
Movies like that are rarely enjoyable once you are no longer impressed by the effects......they do n't have anything else.I do n't see the message of the film as a problem .
You ca n't have a story without a message .
People do n't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics .
Does n't matter if you are a conservative or a liberal .
Everybody reacts like that , few are honest about it.I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated .
Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor .
I believe that embedding messages like Avatar 's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people , whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.That can only lead to good things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hearing a lot of people making comments that the story in Avatar is not a new storyAny literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and haven't been for centuries.A great work is a great great work by virtue of how well the story is told.
( Good writing, good acting, good script, etc )Shakespeare is often given as an example.
None of his plots were original but his works are still valued centuries later.That being said Avatar is not Shakespeare.
It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park.
Movies like that are rarely enjoyable once you are no longer impressed by the effects......they don't have anything else.I don't see the message of the film as a problem.
You can't have a story without a message.
People don't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics.
Doesn't matter if you are a conservative or a liberal.
Everybody reacts like that, few are honest about it.I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated.
Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.
I believe that embedding messages like Avatar's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people, whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.That can only lead to good things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642794</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the flying rocks had to do with large deposits of unobtanium (sp?) which then floated due to interactions between the unob and the sun or moon or something along those lines</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the flying rocks had to do with large deposits of unobtanium ( sp ?
) which then floated due to interactions between the unob and the sun or moon or something along those lines</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the flying rocks had to do with large deposits of unobtanium (sp?
) which then floated due to interactions between the unob and the sun or moon or something along those lines</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645500</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>elsJake</author>
	<datestamp>1262597100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my case the 3D glasses fit over my regular , i think most if not all 3D glasses are built the same these days so you have a pretty good shot at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my case the 3D glasses fit over my regular , i think most if not all 3D glasses are built the same these days so you have a pretty good shot at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my case the 3D glasses fit over my regular , i think most if not all 3D glasses are built the same these days so you have a pretty good shot at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647290</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1262604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. Avatar is a true piece of digital art...not because of the plot, but because if its FX. It's a truly remarkable depiction of an alien world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Avatar is a true piece of digital art...not because of the plot , but because if its FX .
It 's a truly remarkable depiction of an alien world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Avatar is a true piece of digital art...not because of the plot, but because if its FX.
It's a truly remarkable depiction of an alien world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648306</id>
	<title>All art is political</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262608920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640700</id>
	<title>Can they lay off the pirates now?</title>
	<author>Cinnaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262620740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all those returns can they tell their P2P spying contractors to lay off people downloading AVIs from torrent sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all those returns can they tell their P2P spying contractors to lay off people downloading AVIs from torrent sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all those returns can they tell their P2P spying contractors to lay off people downloading AVIs from torrent sites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648012</id>
	<title>This is patently false.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most likely most movies one watches don't cost $43 million.</p><p>If your only criteria to watch movies is how much they cost it is completely understandable you would not care about the plot. But that is nothing to boast about to be frank, unless you think ignorance and bad taste  is a badge of honour to be worn proudly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely most movies one watches do n't cost $ 43 million.If your only criteria to watch movies is how much they cost it is completely understandable you would not care about the plot .
But that is nothing to boast about to be frank , unless you think ignorance and bad taste is a badge of honour to be worn proudly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely most movies one watches don't cost $43 million.If your only criteria to watch movies is how much they cost it is completely understandable you would not care about the plot.
But that is nothing to boast about to be frank, unless you think ignorance and bad taste  is a badge of honour to be worn proudly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642962</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks, which I think is good.</p></div></blockquote><p>They never attempted an explanation but they did sort of imply a local spike of some sort of electrical field.  A strong repulsive magnetic field could, theoretically, repel rocks high in magnetite or other iron-bearing substance.  All you need then is a large plant that likes the minerals in the rock and you get floating rocks anchored by roots.</p><p>Of course this theory is as close to reality as Hollywood's ideas about what a nuclear weapon can do to an asteroid (Armageddon, I'm looking at you), but at its core it does seem to be based on physics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks , which I think is good.They never attempted an explanation but they did sort of imply a local spike of some sort of electrical field .
A strong repulsive magnetic field could , theoretically , repel rocks high in magnetite or other iron-bearing substance .
All you need then is a large plant that likes the minerals in the rock and you get floating rocks anchored by roots.Of course this theory is as close to reality as Hollywood 's ideas about what a nuclear weapon can do to an asteroid ( Armageddon , I 'm looking at you ) , but at its core it does seem to be based on physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks, which I think is good.They never attempted an explanation but they did sort of imply a local spike of some sort of electrical field.
A strong repulsive magnetic field could, theoretically, repel rocks high in magnetite or other iron-bearing substance.
All you need then is a large plant that likes the minerals in the rock and you get floating rocks anchored by roots.Of course this theory is as close to reality as Hollywood's ideas about what a nuclear weapon can do to an asteroid (Armageddon, I'm looking at you), but at its core it does seem to be based on physics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643388</id>
	<title>Princess and the Frog</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1262631360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Princess and the Frog is another movie worth seeing even as an adult. Interesting story, colorful characters, funny jokes, pretty animation, and good music. Maybe not terribly original, deep, or groundbreaking; but a worthwhile kid-friendly film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Princess and the Frog is another movie worth seeing even as an adult .
Interesting story , colorful characters , funny jokes , pretty animation , and good music .
Maybe not terribly original , deep , or groundbreaking ; but a worthwhile kid-friendly film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Princess and the Frog is another movie worth seeing even as an adult.
Interesting story, colorful characters, funny jokes, pretty animation, and good music.
Maybe not terribly original, deep, or groundbreaking; but a worthwhile kid-friendly film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645694</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wear glasses and saw it in Imax 3D as well. They fit just fine. I didn't look at the rack too closely, but it looked like they had two types of 3D glasses, a goggle-type to fit over eyeglasses and a smaller one for everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wear glasses and saw it in Imax 3D as well .
They fit just fine .
I did n't look at the rack too closely , but it looked like they had two types of 3D glasses , a goggle-type to fit over eyeglasses and a smaller one for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wear glasses and saw it in Imax 3D as well.
They fit just fine.
I didn't look at the rack too closely, but it looked like they had two types of 3D glasses, a goggle-type to fit over eyeglasses and a smaller one for everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645996</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1262598840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention? Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?</p></div></blockquote><p>No. Yes.<br>But then again, no one remembers Citizen Kane for its brilliant and well-paced unlayering of Hearst---err, I mean Kane.</p><p>Instead, they remember it for: (1) "Rosebud"; (2) making Orson Welles; and (3) its technical achievements that influenced the subsequent generations of filmmakers (see, e.g., deep focus).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a bad movie by any stretch , but without the special effect advancement , would this movie garner any attention ?
Will Avatar 's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told ? No .
Yes.But then again , no one remembers Citizen Kane for its brilliant and well-paced unlayering of Hearst---err , I mean Kane.Instead , they remember it for : ( 1 ) " Rosebud " ; ( 2 ) making Orson Welles ; and ( 3 ) its technical achievements that influenced the subsequent generations of filmmakers ( see , e.g. , deep focus ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention?
Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?No.
Yes.But then again, no one remembers Citizen Kane for its brilliant and well-paced unlayering of Hearst---err, I mean Kane.Instead, they remember it for: (1) "Rosebud"; (2) making Orson Welles; and (3) its technical achievements that influenced the subsequent generations of filmmakers (see, e.g., deep focus).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642042</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know, a lot of people go to the movies for the sake of going out with friends.  A number of my friends go out a minimum of once a week, often twice, to see... whatever there is to see in theaters.</p><p>Personally, I have better things to do with my money, but a lot of the income movies make are just people going there for the sake of going there.</p><p>At which point, 10 movies may well make significantly more than 1 big movie.  If hollywood would be willing to take a chance, it'd almost be interesting to see what makes more... one half-billion dollar blockbuster, or 10 fifty-thou movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , a lot of people go to the movies for the sake of going out with friends .
A number of my friends go out a minimum of once a week , often twice , to see... whatever there is to see in theaters.Personally , I have better things to do with my money , but a lot of the income movies make are just people going there for the sake of going there.At which point , 10 movies may well make significantly more than 1 big movie .
If hollywood would be willing to take a chance , it 'd almost be interesting to see what makes more... one half-billion dollar blockbuster , or 10 fifty-thou movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, a lot of people go to the movies for the sake of going out with friends.
A number of my friends go out a minimum of once a week, often twice, to see... whatever there is to see in theaters.Personally, I have better things to do with my money, but a lot of the income movies make are just people going there for the sake of going there.At which point, 10 movies may well make significantly more than 1 big movie.
If hollywood would be willing to take a chance, it'd almost be interesting to see what makes more... one half-billion dollar blockbuster, or 10 fifty-thou movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641942</id>
	<title>Re:Great movie</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1262625600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reacted much as you have when I first saw it. And as the dazzle of the visuals has faded, the sheer awfulness of the plot has grown in my mind. Yes, it is science fiction - 1940's science fiction of the sort that gave science fiction a bad name. Combined with bad-guys from the 1980s ("Greed is good") and left over from Vietnam (the helicopters even look like new-tech Hueys). It is a whole heap of very dated tropes repainted with glittering visuals. And the visuals are, indeed, very very pretty. But there will be more films along using this technology. I mourn for the lost opportunity to tell a *good* SF story with the latest tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reacted much as you have when I first saw it .
And as the dazzle of the visuals has faded , the sheer awfulness of the plot has grown in my mind .
Yes , it is science fiction - 1940 's science fiction of the sort that gave science fiction a bad name .
Combined with bad-guys from the 1980s ( " Greed is good " ) and left over from Vietnam ( the helicopters even look like new-tech Hueys ) .
It is a whole heap of very dated tropes repainted with glittering visuals .
And the visuals are , indeed , very very pretty .
But there will be more films along using this technology .
I mourn for the lost opportunity to tell a * good * SF story with the latest tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reacted much as you have when I first saw it.
And as the dazzle of the visuals has faded, the sheer awfulness of the plot has grown in my mind.
Yes, it is science fiction - 1940's science fiction of the sort that gave science fiction a bad name.
Combined with bad-guys from the 1980s ("Greed is good") and left over from Vietnam (the helicopters even look like new-tech Hueys).
It is a whole heap of very dated tropes repainted with glittering visuals.
And the visuals are, indeed, very very pretty.
But there will be more films along using this technology.
I mourn for the lost opportunity to tell a *good* SF story with the latest tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641572</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar will be for the 3D home theater what Twister was for home surround sound.  Every time new 3D home theater technology comes out, Best Buy clerks will tell people that to get their money's worth, they really need to get Avatar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar will be for the 3D home theater what Twister was for home surround sound .
Every time new 3D home theater technology comes out , Best Buy clerks will tell people that to get their money 's worth , they really need to get Avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar will be for the 3D home theater what Twister was for home surround sound.
Every time new 3D home theater technology comes out, Best Buy clerks will tell people that to get their money's worth, they really need to get Avatar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642412</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1262627340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Current LCD/plasma screens cannot polarize the light, which is how those 3d movies work.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D\_film#Polarization\_systems" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Current LCD/plasma screens can not polarize the light , which is how those 3d movies work .
Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current LCD/plasma screens cannot polarize the light, which is how those 3d movies work.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643620</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess this is a result of the existential crisis many geeks are mired in. Some act out the search by entangling their ego with things they like. In varying degrees, they define themselves TO themselves by hobbies or interests and so an attack on those becomes a deeply personal problem. I think this is why debates over Kirk/Picard, music, movies, become heated or are sensitive topics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this is a result of the existential crisis many geeks are mired in .
Some act out the search by entangling their ego with things they like .
In varying degrees , they define themselves TO themselves by hobbies or interests and so an attack on those becomes a deeply personal problem .
I think this is why debates over Kirk/Picard , music , movies , become heated or are sensitive topics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this is a result of the existential crisis many geeks are mired in.
Some act out the search by entangling their ego with things they like.
In varying degrees, they define themselves TO themselves by hobbies or interests and so an attack on those becomes a deeply personal problem.
I think this is why debates over Kirk/Picard, music, movies, become heated or are sensitive topics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642234</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1262626740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div><p> <b>You're missing the entire fucking point of art.</b> Your personal views must be pathetically weak if you can't suffer the "message" of a mainstream blockbuster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts .
You 're missing the entire fucking point of art .
Your personal views must be pathetically weak if you ca n't suffer the " message " of a mainstream blockbuster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
You're missing the entire fucking point of art.
Your personal views must be pathetically weak if you can't suffer the "message" of a mainstream blockbuster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641596</id>
	<title>Reading through this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to think no one has a Sense of Wonder anymore...</p><p>Pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to think no one has a Sense of Wonder anymore...Pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to think no one has a Sense of Wonder anymore...Pity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643998</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>Tom Boz</author>
	<datestamp>1262633940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget Fantastic Mr. Fox!  I think that might have been my favorite movie of 2009, not just my favorite kids' movie, and definitely worth seeing if you missed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Fantastic Mr. Fox ! I think that might have been my favorite movie of 2009 , not just my favorite kids ' movie , and definitely worth seeing if you missed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Fantastic Mr. Fox!  I think that might have been my favorite movie of 2009, not just my favorite kids' movie, and definitely worth seeing if you missed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641102</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1262622420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals."</p><p>And how much is the Walt Disney company worth today?</p><p>I'm looking at Mickey Mouse laughing on my new desk calendar right now.</p><p>He's laughing at the idea that someone thinks it's news that old stories with a few pretty visuals are worth over a billion dollars worldwide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals .
" And how much is the Walt Disney company worth today ? I 'm looking at Mickey Mouse laughing on my new desk calendar right now.He 's laughing at the idea that someone thinks it 's news that old stories with a few pretty visuals are worth over a billion dollars worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.
"And how much is the Walt Disney company worth today?I'm looking at Mickey Mouse laughing on my new desk calendar right now.He's laughing at the idea that someone thinks it's news that old stories with a few pretty visuals are worth over a billion dollars worldwide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646094</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262599260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one. The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.</p><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div><p>Yeah! Stop producing all this unoriginal, uninspired drivel and start producing inoffensive apolitical, aphilisophical, viewpointless masterpieces!  That's how Art has worked the last few hundred years why stop now?  I want entertainment that has no viewpoint but is meaningful and significant!  The artist shouldn't try to inject any personal perspective on their work, that's how great art is made!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one .
The story line , apart from the apparently necessary political message , is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Yeah !
Stop producing all this unoriginal , uninspired drivel and start producing inoffensive apolitical , aphilisophical , viewpointless masterpieces !
That 's how Art has worked the last few hundred years why stop now ?
I want entertainment that has no viewpoint but is meaningful and significant !
The artist should n't try to inject any personal perspective on their work , that 's how great art is made !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one.
The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Yeah!
Stop producing all this unoriginal, uninspired drivel and start producing inoffensive apolitical, aphilisophical, viewpointless masterpieces!
That's how Art has worked the last few hundred years why stop now?
I want entertainment that has no viewpoint but is meaningful and significant!
The artist shouldn't try to inject any personal perspective on their work, that's how great art is made!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</id>
	<title>The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>xzvf</author>
	<datestamp>1262619900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line.  It'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies.  Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children's fare.  For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office.  Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie, but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70's.  It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention?  Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line .
It 'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies .
Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children 's fare .
For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office .
Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie , but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70 's .
It is not a bad movie by any stretch , but without the special effect advancement , would this movie garner any attention ?
Will Avatar 's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line.
It'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies.
Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children's fare.
For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office.
Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie, but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70's.
It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention?
Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>click2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262620200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably only really cost $50 million to make.  The special effects cost five times as much because they used a newer version of some software<br>and made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.  The more capitals you have in the promotional crap the more expensive a film is.<br>The rest was Hollywood Accounting (tm). oh and they spent almost 47 dollars on the script.  Thats a lot these days.</p><p>I cant wait for Avatar 2: Revenge of the Smurfs in 8D.  Then we'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably only really cost $ 50 million to make .
The special effects cost five times as much because they used a newer version of some softwareand made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before .
The more capitals you have in the promotional crap the more expensive a film is.The rest was Hollywood Accounting ( tm ) .
oh and they spent almost 47 dollars on the script .
Thats a lot these days.I cant wait for Avatar 2 : Revenge of the Smurfs in 8D .
Then we 'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably only really cost $50 million to make.
The special effects cost five times as much because they used a newer version of some softwareand made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.
The more capitals you have in the promotional crap the more expensive a film is.The rest was Hollywood Accounting (tm).
oh and they spent almost 47 dollars on the script.
Thats a lot these days.I cant wait for Avatar 2: Revenge of the Smurfs in 8D.
Then we'll see a sequal to Spinal Tap in 11D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30649792</id>
	<title>Unobtainium</title>
	<author>imtheguru</author>
	<datestamp>1262616240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?), but it wasn't featured too prominently.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Aerospace\_and\_electronics" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Aerospace\_and\_electronics</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s[2]) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist. By the 1990s the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]".[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous ( seriously guys ?
) , but it was n't featured too prominently .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium # Aerospace \ _and \ _electronics [ wikipedia.org ] Engineers have long ( since at least the 1950s [ 2 ] ) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials , or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it does n't exist .
By the 1990s the term was in wide use , even in formal engineering papers such as " Towards unobtainium [ new composite materials for space applications ] " .
[ 3 ] The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry .
Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?
), but it wasn't featured too prominently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Aerospace\_and\_electronics [wikipedia.org]Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s[2]) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist.
By the 1990s the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]".
[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry.
Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642392</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262627280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're right that there aren't new stories, and sometimes people who ask for "originality" as missing the point somewhat.  On the other hand, one of the big reasons we retell the same stories and reframe them as new stories is to keep the fresh and relevant.  If the general consensus is that it feels too derivative of other stories, it might mean that the author failed somewhat in his reinvention.
</p><p>I haven't seen Avatar yet, though, so I can't really comment on whether Cameron failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're right that there are n't new stories , and sometimes people who ask for " originality " as missing the point somewhat .
On the other hand , one of the big reasons we retell the same stories and reframe them as new stories is to keep the fresh and relevant .
If the general consensus is that it feels too derivative of other stories , it might mean that the author failed somewhat in his reinvention .
I have n't seen Avatar yet , though , so I ca n't really comment on whether Cameron failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're right that there aren't new stories, and sometimes people who ask for "originality" as missing the point somewhat.
On the other hand, one of the big reasons we retell the same stories and reframe them as new stories is to keep the fresh and relevant.
If the general consensus is that it feels too derivative of other stories, it might mean that the author failed somewhat in his reinvention.
I haven't seen Avatar yet, though, so I can't really comment on whether Cameron failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646058</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1262599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div></blockquote><p>Read up on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#The\_value\_of\_art" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">aesthetics</a> [wikipedia.org]. Many (including myself) would point out that art is a form of expression, and its raison d'etre. You apparently wish to deny the artist self-expression.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Read up on aesthetics [ wikipedia.org ] .
Many ( including myself ) would point out that art is a form of expression , and its raison d'etre .
You apparently wish to deny the artist self-expression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.Read up on aesthetics [wikipedia.org].
Many (including myself) would point out that art is a form of expression, and its raison d'etre.
You apparently wish to deny the artist self-expression.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641308</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you might have gotten more of a plot that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you might have gotten more of a plot that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you might have gotten more of a plot that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642776</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>JBv</author>
	<datestamp>1262628660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to see the district9 aliens playing the role of the blue smurfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see the district9 aliens playing the role of the blue smurfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see the district9 aliens playing the role of the blue smurfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643060</id>
	<title>Re:3D?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262629800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses technique</p></div><p>Do you wear glasses? Some people, depending on their eye specifications, will always suffer 3d movie strain. It's a small portion of the population and not the fault of the movie makers....your eyes just can't handle it.<br> <br>

Anyhow, give it a try.  Even without the 3d, however, the world designed was gorgeous so that may entice you if you like nice visuals.  3d just makes it 3d.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses techniqueDo you wear glasses ?
Some people , depending on their eye specifications , will always suffer 3d movie strain .
It 's a small portion of the population and not the fault of the movie makers....your eyes just ca n't handle it .
Anyhow , give it a try .
Even without the 3d , however , the world designed was gorgeous so that may entice you if you like nice visuals .
3d just makes it 3d .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses techniqueDo you wear glasses?
Some people, depending on their eye specifications, will always suffer 3d movie strain.
It's a small portion of the population and not the fault of the movie makers....your eyes just can't handle it.
Anyhow, give it a try.
Even without the 3d, however, the world designed was gorgeous so that may entice you if you like nice visuals.
3d just makes it 3d.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641282</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie."</p><p>You clearly miss the point of art. Stick to being a human calculator, douche bag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
" You clearly miss the point of art .
Stick to being a human calculator , douche bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
"You clearly miss the point of art.
Stick to being a human calculator, douche bag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644170</id>
	<title>Re:Overhyped, but well-timed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262634660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I loved how the villain in the walking-robot-suit pulled out a walking-robot-sized knife to fight with.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/facepalm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I loved how the villain in the walking-robot-suit pulled out a walking-robot-sized knife to fight with .
/facepalm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I loved how the villain in the walking-robot-suit pulled out a walking-robot-sized knife to fight with.
/facepalm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30652908</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen Avatar, but it would have to be pretty awful for it to be less likely to be watched centuries from now compared to Jurassic Park...perhaps you were still a kid when it came out and that has gilded your memories, but seriously...the book was ok, but the movie...urgh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen Avatar , but it would have to be pretty awful for it to be less likely to be watched centuries from now compared to Jurassic Park...perhaps you were still a kid when it came out and that has gilded your memories , but seriously...the book was ok , but the movie...urgh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen Avatar, but it would have to be pretty awful for it to be less likely to be watched centuries from now compared to Jurassic Park...perhaps you were still a kid when it came out and that has gilded your memories, but seriously...the book was ok, but the movie...urgh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645484</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262597040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and its annoying as fuck cause the second they can obtain it even at 21mil a kilo its NOT unobtanium anymore its gonna have a fucking name associated with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and its annoying as fuck cause the second they can obtain it even at 21mil a kilo its NOT unobtanium anymore its gon na have a fucking name associated with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and its annoying as fuck cause the second they can obtain it even at 21mil a kilo its NOT unobtanium anymore its gonna have a fucking name associated with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642786</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I thought some of the plant &amp; animal life was really clever. I was also really glad they didn't try to make all the novel things logical - they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks, which I think is good.... The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?), but it wasn't featured too prominently.</p></div></blockquote><p>"Unobtanium" is generally sci-fi parlance for "Material that does nigh-magical things, that we can't produce".  The rock they were mining in this movie was a superconducting magnetic structure, which worked at room temperature.  (Something which apparently is valuable, and we can't do it.)  The director of the expedition was playing with some in his office, for example, when he was explaining the value of it to the doctor.  I felt that using that term (while perhaps tongue-in-cheek) made it clear that this was the ONLY place to get said material.  Imagine this planet as Arakkis, and the humans are after the technological equivalent of spice.</p><p>The floating rocks were (I assumed) composed at least partially of this material, and were basically levitated by magnetism in the planet's magnetic field.  Some were tethered to one another by plant growths, but the rocks themselves were held up by the large magnetic deposits.  (The smaller ones seemed buouyant also, but I'm sure some were just normal rock overgrown with vines.)  They talked many times about the flux -- lines of magnetic force -- and how it was so strong there that it completely screwed their navigational electronics, and also messed with computer displays (in the gunships) and interfered with voice communications.  The rocks around the aliens' Most Holy Place were arranged (as others mentioned) in lines like magnetic force lines.  The connection seemed (to me) to be clear, but I could be wrong.</p><p>The hints at the underlying science do seem to be there. I definitely want to see the director's cut, and read the novel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought some of the plant &amp; animal life was really clever .
I was also really glad they did n't try to make all the novel things logical - they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks , which I think is good.... The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous ( seriously guys ?
) , but it was n't featured too prominently .
" Unobtanium " is generally sci-fi parlance for " Material that does nigh-magical things , that we ca n't produce " .
The rock they were mining in this movie was a superconducting magnetic structure , which worked at room temperature .
( Something which apparently is valuable , and we ca n't do it .
) The director of the expedition was playing with some in his office , for example , when he was explaining the value of it to the doctor .
I felt that using that term ( while perhaps tongue-in-cheek ) made it clear that this was the ONLY place to get said material .
Imagine this planet as Arakkis , and the humans are after the technological equivalent of spice.The floating rocks were ( I assumed ) composed at least partially of this material , and were basically levitated by magnetism in the planet 's magnetic field .
Some were tethered to one another by plant growths , but the rocks themselves were held up by the large magnetic deposits .
( The smaller ones seemed buouyant also , but I 'm sure some were just normal rock overgrown with vines .
) They talked many times about the flux -- lines of magnetic force -- and how it was so strong there that it completely screwed their navigational electronics , and also messed with computer displays ( in the gunships ) and interfered with voice communications .
The rocks around the aliens ' Most Holy Place were arranged ( as others mentioned ) in lines like magnetic force lines .
The connection seemed ( to me ) to be clear , but I could be wrong.The hints at the underlying science do seem to be there .
I definitely want to see the director 's cut , and read the novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought some of the plant &amp; animal life was really clever.
I was also really glad they didn't try to make all the novel things logical - they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks, which I think is good.... The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?
), but it wasn't featured too prominently.
"Unobtanium" is generally sci-fi parlance for "Material that does nigh-magical things, that we can't produce".
The rock they were mining in this movie was a superconducting magnetic structure, which worked at room temperature.
(Something which apparently is valuable, and we can't do it.
)  The director of the expedition was playing with some in his office, for example, when he was explaining the value of it to the doctor.
I felt that using that term (while perhaps tongue-in-cheek) made it clear that this was the ONLY place to get said material.
Imagine this planet as Arakkis, and the humans are after the technological equivalent of spice.The floating rocks were (I assumed) composed at least partially of this material, and were basically levitated by magnetism in the planet's magnetic field.
Some were tethered to one another by plant growths, but the rocks themselves were held up by the large magnetic deposits.
(The smaller ones seemed buouyant also, but I'm sure some were just normal rock overgrown with vines.
)  They talked many times about the flux -- lines of magnetic force -- and how it was so strong there that it completely screwed their navigational electronics, and also messed with computer displays (in the gunships) and interfered with voice communications.
The rocks around the aliens' Most Holy Place were arranged (as others mentioned) in lines like magnetic force lines.
The connection seemed (to me) to be clear, but I could be wrong.The hints at the underlying science do seem to be there.
I definitely want to see the director's cut, and read the novel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645506</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Caraig</author>
	<datestamp>1262597160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could *never* see movies with the red/blue 3D glasses.  My eyes just aren't able to handle it.</p><p>That being said, somehow, this worked.  I wore the glasses over my own, and a few times I found myself trying to whack away insects on the screen that looked like they were a bit too close.</p><p>The glasses fit reasonably well over mine and did not impair viewing the movie at all.</p><p>By all means, see it in 3D if you possibly can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could * never * see movies with the red/blue 3D glasses .
My eyes just are n't able to handle it.That being said , somehow , this worked .
I wore the glasses over my own , and a few times I found myself trying to whack away insects on the screen that looked like they were a bit too close.The glasses fit reasonably well over mine and did not impair viewing the movie at all.By all means , see it in 3D if you possibly can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could *never* see movies with the red/blue 3D glasses.
My eyes just aren't able to handle it.That being said, somehow, this worked.
I wore the glasses over my own, and a few times I found myself trying to whack away insects on the screen that looked like they were a bit too close.The glasses fit reasonably well over mine and did not impair viewing the movie at all.By all means, see it in 3D if you possibly can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641872</id>
	<title>A very confused film.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262625360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An incredibly violent movie, which is purported to have some kind of anti-war message?</p><p>I guess the powers that be who fund this kind of pablum for the masses don't have a problem with ostensibly allowing a director to express his political opinions as long as it's clear they will be delivered in such a confused and ambivalent way they are sure to have no political effect.</p><p>Claiming this film as a vehicle for an anti-war message is the worst kind of doublethink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An incredibly violent movie , which is purported to have some kind of anti-war message ? I guess the powers that be who fund this kind of pablum for the masses do n't have a problem with ostensibly allowing a director to express his political opinions as long as it 's clear they will be delivered in such a confused and ambivalent way they are sure to have no political effect.Claiming this film as a vehicle for an anti-war message is the worst kind of doublethink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An incredibly violent movie, which is purported to have some kind of anti-war message?I guess the powers that be who fund this kind of pablum for the masses don't have a problem with ostensibly allowing a director to express his political opinions as long as it's clear they will be delivered in such a confused and ambivalent way they are sure to have no political effect.Claiming this film as a vehicle for an anti-war message is the worst kind of doublethink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640614</id>
	<title>News for retards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the fuck did this even make it on to Slashdot?</p><p>Avatar was a complete waste, but now I'm beginning to think that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ beat them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the fuck did this even make it on to Slashdot ? Avatar was a complete waste , but now I 'm beginning to think that ./ beat them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the fuck did this even make it on to Slashdot?Avatar was a complete waste, but now I'm beginning to think that ./ beat them out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643208</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262630580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.</p><p>Did I read this wrong, or were Beowulf, Coraline, whatever that monster movie was, etc, all  non-existent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.Did I read this wrong , or were Beowulf , Coraline , whatever that monster movie was , etc , all non-existent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>made a CGI film in 3D which is has never been done before.Did I read this wrong, or were Beowulf, Coraline, whatever that monster movie was, etc, all  non-existent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644880</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait for the DVD/BR.</title>
	<author>Wraithlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262638080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>bring on the blue alien sex</p></div></blockquote><p>You're going to get your wish on that one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6931166/Avatar-fans-promised-alien-sex-scene-on-DVD.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6931166/Avatar-fans-promised-alien-sex-scene-on-DVD.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bring on the blue alien sexYou 're going to get your wish on that one ; ) http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6931166/Avatar-fans-promised-alien-sex-scene-on-DVD.html [ telegraph.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bring on the blue alien sexYou're going to get your wish on that one ;)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6931166/Avatar-fans-promised-alien-sex-scene-on-DVD.html [telegraph.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643494</id>
	<title>Re:Dances with Thundercats!</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1262631900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Unobtainium" may have been valuable, but the technology on the planet was actually immortality.  At the end of the movie then end up transferring the mind of the soldier to the body of an Avatar.  The humans have the technology to create avatars the indigenous people have the technology to to a permanent transfer between the two.  Right there you have everything you need to make people immortal.  I'm pretty sure that would be worth more than "unobtainium".<br>
<br>

Also, why couldn't they just mine the stuff in small mine shafts without destroying the native flora and fauna?  Why is it assumed they must strip mine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unobtainium " may have been valuable , but the technology on the planet was actually immortality .
At the end of the movie then end up transferring the mind of the soldier to the body of an Avatar .
The humans have the technology to create avatars the indigenous people have the technology to to a permanent transfer between the two .
Right there you have everything you need to make people immortal .
I 'm pretty sure that would be worth more than " unobtainium " .
Also , why could n't they just mine the stuff in small mine shafts without destroying the native flora and fauna ?
Why is it assumed they must strip mine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unobtainium" may have been valuable, but the technology on the planet was actually immortality.
At the end of the movie then end up transferring the mind of the soldier to the body of an Avatar.
The humans have the technology to create avatars the indigenous people have the technology to to a permanent transfer between the two.
Right there you have everything you need to make people immortal.
I'm pretty sure that would be worth more than "unobtainium".
Also, why couldn't they just mine the stuff in small mine shafts without destroying the native flora and fauna?
Why is it assumed they must strip mine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651334</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1262627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you are the only one in the fucking entire world who has not seen it.</p><p>What is the point of your comment? It is almost as useless as this comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you are the only one in the fucking entire world who has not seen it.What is the point of your comment ?
It is almost as useless as this comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you are the only one in the fucking entire world who has not seen it.What is the point of your comment?
It is almost as useless as this comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643686</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have 3d movies for your TV at home. I think Spy Kids 3 was released in 3d on DVD. The problem is that your TV at home is relatively small to the big screen, so the 3d doesn't pop out as nicely. Unless you have a big screen (46"+) and sit no more than 10 feet away, you won't get the same experience. Also, the surround sound that you have in theaters just can't be matched at home unless you have a good high end system.</p><p>Avatar not only had amazing visuals, but the sounds were equally fantastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have 3d movies for your TV at home .
I think Spy Kids 3 was released in 3d on DVD .
The problem is that your TV at home is relatively small to the big screen , so the 3d does n't pop out as nicely .
Unless you have a big screen ( 46 " + ) and sit no more than 10 feet away , you wo n't get the same experience .
Also , the surround sound that you have in theaters just ca n't be matched at home unless you have a good high end system.Avatar not only had amazing visuals , but the sounds were equally fantastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have 3d movies for your TV at home.
I think Spy Kids 3 was released in 3d on DVD.
The problem is that your TV at home is relatively small to the big screen, so the 3d doesn't pop out as nicely.
Unless you have a big screen (46"+) and sit no more than 10 feet away, you won't get the same experience.
Also, the surround sound that you have in theaters just can't be matched at home unless you have a good high end system.Avatar not only had amazing visuals, but the sounds were equally fantastic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641568</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line. It'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies. Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children's fare. For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office. Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie, but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70's. It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention? Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?</p></div><p>The first Jurassic Park remains a great movie even with the dino effects looking slightly dated. (they really weren't equaled in my opinion until the creatures from Lord of the Rings. A lot of artistry was put into JP that simply was not equaled by other, lesser productions.) The two sequels were slugs on toast and I could go the rest of my life never seeing them again. JP1? Strip away the effects and it's a lesser movie but still a great summer popcorn blockbuster. You'd bring back more of the exposition and description from the novel excised for the film and you could do a dramatized audiobook production. It would work. Now you can take this to a silly extent. How about stripping away all the horses and cacti and cowboy trappings of a Sergio Leone western? Well, you're left at actors on an empty stage staring at each other for long periods of time. Can't even do the tight focus on squinting eyes and twitching hands because there's no camera. All you're left with is the Good,Bad,Ugly "wao-wao-waaaa" sound. Does this mean the man with no name movies were artless? Nope! It means the cinematography was really goddamn important, integral to making the pictures what they are. In contrast, something like Clerks is dialog-oriented. You could stage it as a radio play and retain more than 90\% of it perfectly intact. Same goes for the Princess Bride.</p><p>Novels, theater, movies, and radio all have points of similarity but are vastly different media. They have their strengths and weaknesses. But the point they all share, it's about telling a story. You just use different approaches for telling the story. With a movie, the action and effects could be part of the story or it could just be mindless spectacle. It's up to the director to make it one and not the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line .
It 'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies .
Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children 's fare .
For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office .
Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie , but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70 's .
It is not a bad movie by any stretch , but without the special effect advancement , would this movie garner any attention ?
Will Avatar 's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told ? The first Jurassic Park remains a great movie even with the dino effects looking slightly dated .
( they really were n't equaled in my opinion until the creatures from Lord of the Rings .
A lot of artistry was put into JP that simply was not equaled by other , lesser productions .
) The two sequels were slugs on toast and I could go the rest of my life never seeing them again .
JP1 ? Strip away the effects and it 's a lesser movie but still a great summer popcorn blockbuster .
You 'd bring back more of the exposition and description from the novel excised for the film and you could do a dramatized audiobook production .
It would work .
Now you can take this to a silly extent .
How about stripping away all the horses and cacti and cowboy trappings of a Sergio Leone western ?
Well , you 're left at actors on an empty stage staring at each other for long periods of time .
Ca n't even do the tight focus on squinting eyes and twitching hands because there 's no camera .
All you 're left with is the Good,Bad,Ugly " wao-wao-waaaa " sound .
Does this mean the man with no name movies were artless ?
Nope ! It means the cinematography was really goddamn important , integral to making the pictures what they are .
In contrast , something like Clerks is dialog-oriented .
You could stage it as a radio play and retain more than 90 \ % of it perfectly intact .
Same goes for the Princess Bride.Novels , theater , movies , and radio all have points of similarity but are vastly different media .
They have their strengths and weaknesses .
But the point they all share , it 's about telling a story .
You just use different approaches for telling the story .
With a movie , the action and effects could be part of the story or it could just be mindless spectacle .
It 's up to the director to make it one and not the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line.
It'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies.
Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children's fare.
For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office.
Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie, but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70's.
It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention?
Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?The first Jurassic Park remains a great movie even with the dino effects looking slightly dated.
(they really weren't equaled in my opinion until the creatures from Lord of the Rings.
A lot of artistry was put into JP that simply was not equaled by other, lesser productions.
) The two sequels were slugs on toast and I could go the rest of my life never seeing them again.
JP1? Strip away the effects and it's a lesser movie but still a great summer popcorn blockbuster.
You'd bring back more of the exposition and description from the novel excised for the film and you could do a dramatized audiobook production.
It would work.
Now you can take this to a silly extent.
How about stripping away all the horses and cacti and cowboy trappings of a Sergio Leone western?
Well, you're left at actors on an empty stage staring at each other for long periods of time.
Can't even do the tight focus on squinting eyes and twitching hands because there's no camera.
All you're left with is the Good,Bad,Ugly "wao-wao-waaaa" sound.
Does this mean the man with no name movies were artless?
Nope! It means the cinematography was really goddamn important, integral to making the pictures what they are.
In contrast, something like Clerks is dialog-oriented.
You could stage it as a radio play and retain more than 90\% of it perfectly intact.
Same goes for the Princess Bride.Novels, theater, movies, and radio all have points of similarity but are vastly different media.
They have their strengths and weaknesses.
But the point they all share, it's about telling a story.
You just use different approaches for telling the story.
With a movie, the action and effects could be part of the story or it could just be mindless spectacle.
It's up to the director to make it one and not the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643480</id>
	<title>I remember that plan...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1262631840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.</p></div><p>SciFi tried that couple of years ago.<br>We got <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430334/" title="imdb.com">Mansquito</a> [imdb.com], <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290747/" title="imdb.com">Man-Thing</a> [imdb.com] and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404756/" title="imdb.com">Alien Apocalypse.</a> [imdb.com]</p><p>Wonderful movies all, and a great addition to the culture of the world. If you are drunk enough, that is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.SciFi tried that couple of years ago.We got Mansquito [ imdb.com ] , Man-Thing [ imdb.com ] and Alien Apocalypse .
[ imdb.com ] Wonderful movies all , and a great addition to the culture of the world .
If you are drunk enough , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.SciFi tried that couple of years ago.We got Mansquito [imdb.com], Man-Thing [imdb.com] and Alien Apocalypse.
[imdb.com]Wonderful movies all, and a great addition to the culture of the world.
If you are drunk enough, that is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643930</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>SlowMovingTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1262633580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie...?</p></div></blockquote><p>The best literature or art often advances a belief or a "side" if you will.  Do you think <em>Aliens</em> or <em>The Abyss</em> offered no beliefs or morales?  Or how about <em>No Country For Old Men</em> (moving beyond James Cameron and SF) which was actually an analysis of free will and fate?  The problem with the "beliefs" laid in to <em>Avatar</em> is that they were clumsy, amateurish and clich&#233;d.  They stuck out and were annoying and preachy rather than thought-provoking.  It is better to avoid allegory altogether than to do it poorly.</p><p>A good story teller is one that can engage your mind and your senses.  Sadly <em>Avatar</em> only engaged the senses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie... ? The best literature or art often advances a belief or a " side " if you will .
Do you think Aliens or The Abyss offered no beliefs or morales ?
Or how about No Country For Old Men ( moving beyond James Cameron and SF ) which was actually an analysis of free will and fate ?
The problem with the " beliefs " laid in to Avatar is that they were clumsy , amateurish and clich   d .
They stuck out and were annoying and preachy rather than thought-provoking .
It is better to avoid allegory altogether than to do it poorly.A good story teller is one that can engage your mind and your senses .
Sadly Avatar only engaged the senses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie...?The best literature or art often advances a belief or a "side" if you will.
Do you think Aliens or The Abyss offered no beliefs or morales?
Or how about No Country For Old Men (moving beyond James Cameron and SF) which was actually an analysis of free will and fate?
The problem with the "beliefs" laid in to Avatar is that they were clumsy, amateurish and clichéd.
They stuck out and were annoying and preachy rather than thought-provoking.
It is better to avoid allegory altogether than to do it poorly.A good story teller is one that can engage your mind and your senses.
Sadly Avatar only engaged the senses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642818</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1262628840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Avatar was (among other things) an interesting way to breach "the uncanny valey."  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley</a> [wikipedia.org]  By using the newer, more complex CGI on aliens' faces, they managed to shoot for levels of realism that would become disturbing had they attempted them on humans faces.  As you say, there are several realms in which they missed the mark, but even so they did a better job than anything else I've seen.</p><p>One slightly amusing note was that the Na'vi were obviously "naked savages" who wore enough decorative jewelry or scraps of clothing to retain the PG-13 rating.  But it looked to me as if those adornments were bump-mapped onto their bodies.  There were some incredibly athletic actions, and though I didn't notice if everything remained plastered primly in place, I never noticed anything flopping around, the way loose things such as necklaces do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Avatar was ( among other things ) an interesting way to breach " the uncanny valey .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny \ _valley [ wikipedia.org ] By using the newer , more complex CGI on aliens ' faces , they managed to shoot for levels of realism that would become disturbing had they attempted them on humans faces .
As you say , there are several realms in which they missed the mark , but even so they did a better job than anything else I 've seen.One slightly amusing note was that the Na'vi were obviously " naked savages " who wore enough decorative jewelry or scraps of clothing to retain the PG-13 rating .
But it looked to me as if those adornments were bump-mapped onto their bodies .
There were some incredibly athletic actions , and though I did n't notice if everything remained plastered primly in place , I never noticed anything flopping around , the way loose things such as necklaces do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Avatar was (among other things) an interesting way to breach "the uncanny valey.
"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley [wikipedia.org]  By using the newer, more complex CGI on aliens' faces, they managed to shoot for levels of realism that would become disturbing had they attempted them on humans faces.
As you say, there are several realms in which they missed the mark, but even so they did a better job than anything else I've seen.One slightly amusing note was that the Na'vi were obviously "naked savages" who wore enough decorative jewelry or scraps of clothing to retain the PG-13 rating.
But it looked to me as if those adornments were bump-mapped onto their bodies.
There were some incredibly athletic actions, and though I didn't notice if everything remained plastered primly in place, I never noticed anything flopping around, the way loose things such as necklaces do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642354</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262627160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park.</p></div><p>Except that Star Wars and Jurassic Park will probably be watched centuries from now. They have value beyond merely the special effects.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated. Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor. I believe that embedding messages like Avatar's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people, whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.</p></div><p>For the people gullible enough to take their beliefs from a movie with cartoonish, childlike morality, you might be right. For the people who use the gullible, this movie is a joke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park.Except that Star Wars and Jurassic Park will probably be watched centuries from now .
They have value beyond merely the special effects.I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated .
Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor .
I believe that embedding messages like Avatar 's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people , whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.For the people gullible enough to take their beliefs from a movie with cartoonish , childlike morality , you might be right .
For the people who use the gullible , this movie is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park.Except that Star Wars and Jurassic Park will probably be watched centuries from now.
They have value beyond merely the special effects.I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated.
Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.
I believe that embedding messages like Avatar's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people, whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.For the people gullible enough to take their beliefs from a movie with cartoonish, childlike morality, you might be right.
For the people who use the gullible, this movie is a joke.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642478</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262627520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, no no no no!</p><p>Not even remotely close.</p><p>You have 2 eyes. They see two slightly different views of the world, since they are in two slightly different places. Your brain turns this into 3D.</p><p>To produce a 3D movie, they take two slightly different shots of the scene, from cameras in two slightly different places. They then must display this in such a way that each of your eye sees one, and only one, of these two different shots.</p><p>Red/green 3D used coloured film to block out one image and allow each eye to see the one it was supposed to see. The difference in colour gives you a headache, but it works.</p><p>Polarized light can be projected in such a way that a single filter can pass nearly 100\% of the light at one angle, and when you rotate the filter 90 degrees, block nearly 100\% of the same light. By projecting two pictures, polarized at 90 degree angles to each other, and using two polarizing filters, also set at 90 degree angles to each other, you can separate the pictures, one for each eye. However, tilting your head slightly starts to let the wrong image bleed through each filter (tilting your head 90 degrees would switch the images entirely: your right eye would see the image meant for your left eye, and vice versa), which is also headache-inducing. You have to sit with your head perfectly straight for 2&frac12; hours.</p><p>The newest design uses light that is polarized in a different way (circularly instead of linearly). Basically it works approximately the same way, but one image is polarized clockwise and the other counter-clockwise. This makes it so that tilting your head does not affect the image.</p><p>Polarized light must be projected onto a reflective metallic screen. A standard white screen will de-polarize the light.</p><p>An LCD is designed in such a way that the light from it is linearly polarized. However, it is all polarized in the same direction. Creating a home theatre with 3D using polarized light would require either dual projection using polarized lights (exactly as it is done in the theatre) or by using two LCD panels with a mirror system to superimpose their images.</p><p>The current approach for 3D in the home is to use some sort of holographic screen. A hologram is an image that looks different when you tilt it. On a holographic screen, the picture would depend on the angle from which you are looking at it, which would permit giving each eye its own different image. The problem with this sort of screen is that you basically have to be sitting in one precise spot to get the proper effect, so it does not work well if more than one person is viewing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , no no no no ! Not even remotely close.You have 2 eyes .
They see two slightly different views of the world , since they are in two slightly different places .
Your brain turns this into 3D.To produce a 3D movie , they take two slightly different shots of the scene , from cameras in two slightly different places .
They then must display this in such a way that each of your eye sees one , and only one , of these two different shots.Red/green 3D used coloured film to block out one image and allow each eye to see the one it was supposed to see .
The difference in colour gives you a headache , but it works.Polarized light can be projected in such a way that a single filter can pass nearly 100 \ % of the light at one angle , and when you rotate the filter 90 degrees , block nearly 100 \ % of the same light .
By projecting two pictures , polarized at 90 degree angles to each other , and using two polarizing filters , also set at 90 degree angles to each other , you can separate the pictures , one for each eye .
However , tilting your head slightly starts to let the wrong image bleed through each filter ( tilting your head 90 degrees would switch the images entirely : your right eye would see the image meant for your left eye , and vice versa ) , which is also headache-inducing .
You have to sit with your head perfectly straight for 2   hours.The newest design uses light that is polarized in a different way ( circularly instead of linearly ) .
Basically it works approximately the same way , but one image is polarized clockwise and the other counter-clockwise .
This makes it so that tilting your head does not affect the image.Polarized light must be projected onto a reflective metallic screen .
A standard white screen will de-polarize the light.An LCD is designed in such a way that the light from it is linearly polarized .
However , it is all polarized in the same direction .
Creating a home theatre with 3D using polarized light would require either dual projection using polarized lights ( exactly as it is done in the theatre ) or by using two LCD panels with a mirror system to superimpose their images.The current approach for 3D in the home is to use some sort of holographic screen .
A hologram is an image that looks different when you tilt it .
On a holographic screen , the picture would depend on the angle from which you are looking at it , which would permit giving each eye its own different image .
The problem with this sort of screen is that you basically have to be sitting in one precise spot to get the proper effect , so it does not work well if more than one person is viewing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, no no no no!Not even remotely close.You have 2 eyes.
They see two slightly different views of the world, since they are in two slightly different places.
Your brain turns this into 3D.To produce a 3D movie, they take two slightly different shots of the scene, from cameras in two slightly different places.
They then must display this in such a way that each of your eye sees one, and only one, of these two different shots.Red/green 3D used coloured film to block out one image and allow each eye to see the one it was supposed to see.
The difference in colour gives you a headache, but it works.Polarized light can be projected in such a way that a single filter can pass nearly 100\% of the light at one angle, and when you rotate the filter 90 degrees, block nearly 100\% of the same light.
By projecting two pictures, polarized at 90 degree angles to each other, and using two polarizing filters, also set at 90 degree angles to each other, you can separate the pictures, one for each eye.
However, tilting your head slightly starts to let the wrong image bleed through each filter (tilting your head 90 degrees would switch the images entirely: your right eye would see the image meant for your left eye, and vice versa), which is also headache-inducing.
You have to sit with your head perfectly straight for 2½ hours.The newest design uses light that is polarized in a different way (circularly instead of linearly).
Basically it works approximately the same way, but one image is polarized clockwise and the other counter-clockwise.
This makes it so that tilting your head does not affect the image.Polarized light must be projected onto a reflective metallic screen.
A standard white screen will de-polarize the light.An LCD is designed in such a way that the light from it is linearly polarized.
However, it is all polarized in the same direction.
Creating a home theatre with 3D using polarized light would require either dual projection using polarized lights (exactly as it is done in the theatre) or by using two LCD panels with a mirror system to superimpose their images.The current approach for 3D in the home is to use some sort of holographic screen.
A hologram is an image that looks different when you tilt it.
On a holographic screen, the picture would depend on the angle from which you are looking at it, which would permit giving each eye its own different image.
The problem with this sort of screen is that you basically have to be sitting in one precise spot to get the proper effect, so it does not work well if more than one person is viewing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641882</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262625360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ought to point out - "Star Wars" was far (very very far) from being original in any way as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ought to point out - " Star Wars " was far ( very very far ) from being original in any way as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ought to point out - "Star Wars" was far (very very far) from being original in any way as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644412</id>
	<title>Guilty Supporter</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1262635860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes I went to see Avatar and don't regret it.  The reason is because its one of the few movies (probably should have gone to see Star Trek too...) that can provide a better experience at the theater rather than just paying two bucks to rent it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I went to see Avatar and do n't regret it .
The reason is because its one of the few movies ( probably should have gone to see Star Trek too... ) that can provide a better experience at the theater rather than just paying two bucks to rent it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I went to see Avatar and don't regret it.
The reason is because its one of the few movies (probably should have gone to see Star Trek too...) that can provide a better experience at the theater rather than just paying two bucks to rent it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644650</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>sourICE</author>
	<datestamp>1262636940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's what I disliked the most about this movie, they took no creative chances.</p></div><p>I completely agree, UP was extremely overrated, within the first 15-20 minutes of the film I heard a barrage of quotes ripped straight from other Disney movies. At this point I walked out on the film.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I disliked the most about this movie , they took no creative chances.I completely agree , UP was extremely overrated , within the first 15-20 minutes of the film I heard a barrage of quotes ripped straight from other Disney movies .
At this point I walked out on the film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I disliked the most about this movie, they took no creative chances.I completely agree, UP was extremely overrated, within the first 15-20 minutes of the film I heard a barrage of quotes ripped straight from other Disney movies.
At this point I walked out on the film.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646336</id>
	<title>Re:Great movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262600100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fine. In Hollywood, the price for unoriginality is very very small. Too small in my opinion but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... okay, I don't have to watch this movie. A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.</p></div><p>Ever here of the Hero's Journey?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine .
In Hollywood , the price for unoriginality is very very small .
Too small in my opinion but ... okay , I do n't have to watch this movie .
A shame that Cameron did n't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.Ever here of the Hero 's Journey ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine.
In Hollywood, the price for unoriginality is very very small.
Too small in my opinion but ... okay, I don't have to watch this movie.
A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.Ever here of the Hero's Journey?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643172</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1262630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you are the only one. In fact, virtually eveyone I know who has seen it (including me), every thread discussing it, and every review I've read of it (not many, but you know what I'm saying) has called the story trite, but the visuals spectacular. You're hardly in the minority here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you are the only one .
In fact , virtually eveyone I know who has seen it ( including me ) , every thread discussing it , and every review I 've read of it ( not many , but you know what I 'm saying ) has called the story trite , but the visuals spectacular .
You 're hardly in the minority here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you are the only one.
In fact, virtually eveyone I know who has seen it (including me), every thread discussing it, and every review I've read of it (not many, but you know what I'm saying) has called the story trite, but the visuals spectacular.
You're hardly in the minority here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>jitterman</author>
	<datestamp>1262624760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.</p></div><p>I don't equate wanting plot with film snobbery; also though, I don't look down on you  (or anyone) for enjoying sfx and not caring about the overall story. Movies/music/art forms of any type speak to different people differently. Personally, I'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story, but that's me.<br> <br>Please read no tone of anger, flaming, attitude, or other negative vibes in this post. Lately, I notice that if I reply to someone as if I'm having a normal conversation with them, I get at least one, and often several, angry replies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.I do n't equate wanting plot with film snobbery ; also though , I do n't look down on you ( or anyone ) for enjoying sfx and not caring about the overall story .
Movies/music/art forms of any type speak to different people differently .
Personally , I 'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story , but that 's me .
Please read no tone of anger , flaming , attitude , or other negative vibes in this post .
Lately , I notice that if I reply to someone as if I 'm having a normal conversation with them , I get at least one , and often several , angry replies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry if that offends your film snobbery.I don't equate wanting plot with film snobbery; also though, I don't look down on you  (or anyone) for enjoying sfx and not caring about the overall story.
Movies/music/art forms of any type speak to different people differently.
Personally, I'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story, but that's me.
Please read no tone of anger, flaming, attitude, or other negative vibes in this post.
Lately, I notice that if I reply to someone as if I'm having a normal conversation with them, I get at least one, and often several, angry replies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642048</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262626020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, I didn't see it either.  I'm somewhat interested in seeing the 3D special effects, but not enough to pay the going rate for movie passes to do so.</p><p>It started out as a "Wow, I may want to see that one!" when I saw the first movie trailer for it, but all the reviews of it turned me off to it completely.  Maybe it's kind of a sore point with me, but I'm really bothered by how often the science-fiction genre of films seems to be treated like "Viewers won't care if the storyline is thin or a re-hash, as long as all the cool CGI is there!"</p><p>I'm much more accepting of it for a typical action movie, where people don't really go in expecting a truly original, intelligent and thought-provoking experience.  They just want to be entertained and see some cool explosions.  But to me, good sci-fi REQUIRES a script that makes people think.  Avatar lacks it, if only because it's a re-hash of re-hashes.  (Might have been different if nobody tackled the theme before....)</p><p>So I'll wait and watch it as a rental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , I did n't see it either .
I 'm somewhat interested in seeing the 3D special effects , but not enough to pay the going rate for movie passes to do so.It started out as a " Wow , I may want to see that one !
" when I saw the first movie trailer for it , but all the reviews of it turned me off to it completely .
Maybe it 's kind of a sore point with me , but I 'm really bothered by how often the science-fiction genre of films seems to be treated like " Viewers wo n't care if the storyline is thin or a re-hash , as long as all the cool CGI is there !
" I 'm much more accepting of it for a typical action movie , where people do n't really go in expecting a truly original , intelligent and thought-provoking experience .
They just want to be entertained and see some cool explosions .
But to me , good sci-fi REQUIRES a script that makes people think .
Avatar lacks it , if only because it 's a re-hash of re-hashes .
( Might have been different if nobody tackled the theme before.... ) So I 'll wait and watch it as a rental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, I didn't see it either.
I'm somewhat interested in seeing the 3D special effects, but not enough to pay the going rate for movie passes to do so.It started out as a "Wow, I may want to see that one!
" when I saw the first movie trailer for it, but all the reviews of it turned me off to it completely.
Maybe it's kind of a sore point with me, but I'm really bothered by how often the science-fiction genre of films seems to be treated like "Viewers won't care if the storyline is thin or a re-hash, as long as all the cool CGI is there!
"I'm much more accepting of it for a typical action movie, where people don't really go in expecting a truly original, intelligent and thought-provoking experience.
They just want to be entertained and see some cool explosions.
But to me, good sci-fi REQUIRES a script that makes people think.
Avatar lacks it, if only because it's a re-hash of re-hashes.
(Might have been different if nobody tackled the theme before....)So I'll wait and watch it as a rental.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641632</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.</p></div><p>Why wouldn't they?</p><p>Art is communication as well as entertainment. I have strong political beliefs. As an artist, I am going to put those beliefs into my art because that is who I am. Why should I pretend to be something I'm not just so you don't get annoyed?</p><p>As others have said, if you don't like it, you don't have to go see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.Why would n't they ? Art is communication as well as entertainment .
I have strong political beliefs .
As an artist , I am going to put those beliefs into my art because that is who I am .
Why should I pretend to be something I 'm not just so you do n't get annoyed ? As others have said , if you do n't like it , you do n't have to go see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.Why wouldn't they?Art is communication as well as entertainment.
I have strong political beliefs.
As an artist, I am going to put those beliefs into my art because that is who I am.
Why should I pretend to be something I'm not just so you don't get annoyed?As others have said, if you don't like it, you don't have to go see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30661348</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1262689020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are huge and because I already use regular eyeglasses, I couldn't feel the 3D glasses at all.</p><p>Stick to the 2D version if you want. It's your loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are huge and because I already use regular eyeglasses , I could n't feel the 3D glasses at all.Stick to the 2D version if you want .
It 's your loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are huge and because I already use regular eyeglasses, I couldn't feel the 3D glasses at all.Stick to the 2D version if you want.
It's your loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643010</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen.</p> </div><p>They have all of that, just google some pics. The movement is motion captured so it's as smooth as reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The aliens are still too stiff , their faces are too uniform , their movements are too smooth - they need pores , facial hair , creases , loose skin , etc - but it is still the best I 've seen .
They have all of that , just google some pics .
The movement is motion captured so it 's as smooth as reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen.
They have all of that, just google some pics.
The movement is motion captured so it's as smooth as reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641402</id>
	<title>It made buckets of money because prices were up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just saw it last night and I think the main reason that it is making piles of money is because it's ticket prices are 40\% higher than the other options. One news article that I read mentioned that the billion dollar calculations were "not adjusted for inflation". I wonder how it would fare if they counted heads instead of dollars. I was told at the theater that the price increase was to cover the cost of the 3D glasses. If that's the case, I have to get into the 3D glasses manufacturing business...</p><p>Plot: D+<br>Effects: A<br>Acting: B+<br>Overall: B</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just saw it last night and I think the main reason that it is making piles of money is because it 's ticket prices are 40 \ % higher than the other options .
One news article that I read mentioned that the billion dollar calculations were " not adjusted for inflation " .
I wonder how it would fare if they counted heads instead of dollars .
I was told at the theater that the price increase was to cover the cost of the 3D glasses .
If that 's the case , I have to get into the 3D glasses manufacturing business...Plot : D + Effects : AActing : B + Overall : B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just saw it last night and I think the main reason that it is making piles of money is because it's ticket prices are 40\% higher than the other options.
One news article that I read mentioned that the billion dollar calculations were "not adjusted for inflation".
I wonder how it would fare if they counted heads instead of dollars.
I was told at the theater that the price increase was to cover the cost of the 3D glasses.
If that's the case, I have to get into the 3D glasses manufacturing business...Plot: D+Effects: AActing: B+Overall: B</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>tangent3</author>
	<datestamp>1262621160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wanted to see it too, but my wife made me watch Alvin and the Chipmunks instead...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to see it too , but my wife made me watch Alvin and the Chipmunks instead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to see it too, but my wife made me watch Alvin and the Chipmunks instead...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644360</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262635560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Truman show was a rehash of various ideas that had been in books for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Truman show was a rehash of various ideas that had been in books for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Truman show was a rehash of various ideas that had been in books for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645824</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262598180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the people who now bash Avatar used to be Star Wars lunatics in their childhood. I loved Star Wars too, but I can't watch it now without thinking it's very, very silly. And I don't mean the 70's visual effects, but the script.</p><p>I watched Avatar a couple of weeks ago. Leaving the silly script fact aside, I felt like I was a kid again, watching Star Wars. So my conclusion is that it's a kids' (maybe teens') movie and should be judged like one.</p><p>If you want to see some good acting, go see a play in a theatre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people who now bash Avatar used to be Star Wars lunatics in their childhood .
I loved Star Wars too , but I ca n't watch it now without thinking it 's very , very silly .
And I do n't mean the 70 's visual effects , but the script.I watched Avatar a couple of weeks ago .
Leaving the silly script fact aside , I felt like I was a kid again , watching Star Wars .
So my conclusion is that it 's a kids ' ( maybe teens ' ) movie and should be judged like one.If you want to see some good acting , go see a play in a theatre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people who now bash Avatar used to be Star Wars lunatics in their childhood.
I loved Star Wars too, but I can't watch it now without thinking it's very, very silly.
And I don't mean the 70's visual effects, but the script.I watched Avatar a couple of weeks ago.
Leaving the silly script fact aside, I felt like I was a kid again, watching Star Wars.
So my conclusion is that it's a kids' (maybe teens') movie and should be judged like one.If you want to see some good acting, go see a play in a theatre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643548</id>
	<title>ground-breaking movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar is notable not just for the special effects but for the science fiction aspect of it.  This movie was pure sci-fi, as opposed to a space opera (like Star Wars)...and Avatar is really good sci-fi.  From the surface of the rainforest moon at night, you see a sky back-drop of the gas giant it orbits.  The creativity and variety of life is astounding:  six-legged horse-like creatures with ant-eater tongues and gills, four-eyed flying reptiles, gyrocopter-like insects, bizarre plants and an on-demand neural connection between most life-forms and trees for communication and storing memories..It that takes the whole Gaia principal to a new level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar is notable not just for the special effects but for the science fiction aspect of it .
This movie was pure sci-fi , as opposed to a space opera ( like Star Wars ) ...and Avatar is really good sci-fi .
From the surface of the rainforest moon at night , you see a sky back-drop of the gas giant it orbits .
The creativity and variety of life is astounding : six-legged horse-like creatures with ant-eater tongues and gills , four-eyed flying reptiles , gyrocopter-like insects , bizarre plants and an on-demand neural connection between most life-forms and trees for communication and storing memories..It that takes the whole Gaia principal to a new level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar is notable not just for the special effects but for the science fiction aspect of it.
This movie was pure sci-fi, as opposed to a space opera (like Star Wars)...and Avatar is really good sci-fi.
From the surface of the rainforest moon at night, you see a sky back-drop of the gas giant it orbits.
The creativity and variety of life is astounding:  six-legged horse-like creatures with ant-eater tongues and gills, four-eyed flying reptiles, gyrocopter-like insects, bizarre plants and an on-demand neural connection between most life-forms and trees for communication and storing memories..It that takes the whole Gaia principal to a new level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643456</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry to hear that.  I got mod points but there's no "+1 Ouch, man"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry to hear that .
I got mod points but there 's no " + 1 Ouch , man "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry to hear that.
I got mod points but there's no "+1 Ouch, man"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648398</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know?</p><p>The history of art is littered with examples of stuff that looked great at the time but which the passing of the years became obvious it wasn't that great.</p><p>The custodians of these things (film historians and critics) are already very doubtful about the artistic values of both of these movies, and in any case we are far too close to them in order to judge them objectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know ? The history of art is littered with examples of stuff that looked great at the time but which the passing of the years became obvious it was n't that great.The custodians of these things ( film historians and critics ) are already very doubtful about the artistic values of both of these movies , and in any case we are far too close to them in order to judge them objectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know?The history of art is littered with examples of stuff that looked great at the time but which the passing of the years became obvious it wasn't that great.The custodians of these things (film historians and critics) are already very doubtful about the artistic values of both of these movies, and in any case we are far too close to them in order to judge them objectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642736</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait for the DVD/BR.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD. I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story"</p><p>Uhhhhh, this is as deep as the movie gets, dude. It's not going to suddenly shift from "magical white dude becomes king of the savages" because an hour is added. This is as he intended the movie to presented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd like to see a director 's cut when this goes to DVD .
I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story " Uhhhhh , this is as deep as the movie gets , dude .
It 's not going to suddenly shift from " magical white dude becomes king of the savages " because an hour is added .
This is as he intended the movie to presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD.
I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story"Uhhhhh, this is as deep as the movie gets, dude.
It's not going to suddenly shift from "magical white dude becomes king of the savages" because an hour is added.
This is as he intended the movie to presented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644300</id>
	<title>Re:The alternatives were better stories</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262635320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People always pan movies for relying too much on special effects.  The point of a movie is visual effects.  If you want to focus on a great story, read a book.  It's great if you can put a good story with a good movie, but the story is not the focus of the medium.</p><p>Take a look at the top grossing movies of all time: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_highest-grossing\_films" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_highest-grossing\_films</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Titanic, Dark Knight, Spiderman, Star Wars, Pirates, Jurassic Park, Transformers... all these have mediocre or classic plots.  The Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies are all stories everyone knows very well from the books (Lord of the Rings in particular is a remake of a remake of a book that embodies some pretty classic archetypes).  The Disney/Pixar movies are generally (not always) variations on classic stories.</p><p>The very successful movies seem to mostly take stories that everyone is familiar with and make them come alive.  As far as I remember Jurassic Park didn't have a plot, but everyone I know who saw it in theatre remembers the moment they saw a believable dinosaur for the first time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People always pan movies for relying too much on special effects .
The point of a movie is visual effects .
If you want to focus on a great story , read a book .
It 's great if you can put a good story with a good movie , but the story is not the focus of the medium.Take a look at the top grossing movies of all time : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _highest-grossing \ _films [ wikipedia.org ] .Titanic , Dark Knight , Spiderman , Star Wars , Pirates , Jurassic Park , Transformers... all these have mediocre or classic plots .
The Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies are all stories everyone knows very well from the books ( Lord of the Rings in particular is a remake of a remake of a book that embodies some pretty classic archetypes ) .
The Disney/Pixar movies are generally ( not always ) variations on classic stories.The very successful movies seem to mostly take stories that everyone is familiar with and make them come alive .
As far as I remember Jurassic Park did n't have a plot , but everyone I know who saw it in theatre remembers the moment they saw a believable dinosaur for the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always pan movies for relying too much on special effects.
The point of a movie is visual effects.
If you want to focus on a great story, read a book.
It's great if you can put a good story with a good movie, but the story is not the focus of the medium.Take a look at the top grossing movies of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_highest-grossing\_films [wikipedia.org].Titanic, Dark Knight, Spiderman, Star Wars, Pirates, Jurassic Park, Transformers... all these have mediocre or classic plots.
The Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies are all stories everyone knows very well from the books (Lord of the Rings in particular is a remake of a remake of a book that embodies some pretty classic archetypes).
The Disney/Pixar movies are generally (not always) variations on classic stories.The very successful movies seem to mostly take stories that everyone is familiar with and make them come alive.
As far as I remember Jurassic Park didn't have a plot, but everyone I know who saw it in theatre remembers the moment they saw a believable dinosaur for the first time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641676</id>
	<title>Re:Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen it four times already in IMAX 3D, and still want to see it again, till they stop (this Thursday in my location) showing it in IMAX. Every successive pass, one picks out more and more granular and subtle details. Well it's entertainment. Why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen it four times already in IMAX 3D , and still want to see it again , till they stop ( this Thursday in my location ) showing it in IMAX .
Every successive pass , one picks out more and more granular and subtle details .
Well it 's entertainment .
Why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen it four times already in IMAX 3D, and still want to see it again, till they stop (this Thursday in my location) showing it in IMAX.
Every successive pass, one picks out more and more granular and subtle details.
Well it's entertainment.
Why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640892</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait for the DVD/BR.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262621640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD. I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story, and most of it didn't make the cut to get into the movie, since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long. I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland.</i> <br> <br>Some of the scenes where are in could probably be trimmed. So even with more backstory you might not get much longer than 3 hours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see a director 's cut when this goes to DVD .
I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story , and most of it did n't make the cut to get into the movie , since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long .
I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland .
Some of the scenes where are in could probably be trimmed .
So even with more backstory you might not get much longer than 3 hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD.
I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story, and most of it didn't make the cut to get into the movie, since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long.
I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland.
Some of the scenes where are in could probably be trimmed.
So even with more backstory you might not get much longer than 3 hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644338</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262635500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Were this story presented as a book"</p><p>That's why it wasn't presented as a book.  If you want to read a book, read a book.  Movies are not books because of the visual effects.  A plot is a nice bonus, but not required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Were this story presented as a book " That 's why it was n't presented as a book .
If you want to read a book , read a book .
Movies are not books because of the visual effects .
A plot is a nice bonus , but not required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Were this story presented as a book"That's why it wasn't presented as a book.
If you want to read a book, read a book.
Movies are not books because of the visual effects.
A plot is a nice bonus, but not required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643360</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262631240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alien wasn't the bad guy in "Alien."  The corporation was.  They clearly knew they were putting their crew at extreme risk in their little side-op when writing the standing orders for the ship's computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alien was n't the bad guy in " Alien .
" The corporation was .
They clearly knew they were putting their crew at extreme risk in their little side-op when writing the standing orders for the ship 's computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alien wasn't the bad guy in "Alien.
"  The corporation was.
They clearly knew they were putting their crew at extreme risk in their little side-op when writing the standing orders for the ship's computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641070</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.</p></div><p> All stories that move you do so because they touch a personal experience or belief. Your beef seems to be that you feel there is a political message: and I'm sure you feel it's aimed at modern times.</p><p>While there may be a political message, Avatar's plot (as stated by Cameron) is basically "Dances with Wolves", and most every complaint you have should be directed there. While you are at it, make sure to hit basically everything Miazaki ever did (Princess Mononoke).</p><p>And if, like Dances with Wolves, the Natives are idealized: the colonial powers are not. The Na'vi are simply lucky there doesn't seem to be an equivelant to "small pox blankets".</p><p>Given Cameron's history (True Lies, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens (where nature is evil)) I don't think there's much case to be made that he's preaching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie .
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages , I will go to church or read a newspaper/book .
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts .
All stories that move you do so because they touch a personal experience or belief .
Your beef seems to be that you feel there is a political message : and I 'm sure you feel it 's aimed at modern times.While there may be a political message , Avatar 's plot ( as stated by Cameron ) is basically " Dances with Wolves " , and most every complaint you have should be directed there .
While you are at it , make sure to hit basically everything Miazaki ever did ( Princess Mononoke ) .And if , like Dances with Wolves , the Natives are idealized : the colonial powers are not .
The Na'vi are simply lucky there does n't seem to be an equivelant to " small pox blankets " .Given Cameron 's history ( True Lies , Titanic , The Abyss , Aliens ( where nature is evil ) ) I do n't think there 's much case to be made that he 's preaching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book.
I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
All stories that move you do so because they touch a personal experience or belief.
Your beef seems to be that you feel there is a political message: and I'm sure you feel it's aimed at modern times.While there may be a political message, Avatar's plot (as stated by Cameron) is basically "Dances with Wolves", and most every complaint you have should be directed there.
While you are at it, make sure to hit basically everything Miazaki ever did (Princess Mononoke).And if, like Dances with Wolves, the Natives are idealized: the colonial powers are not.
The Na'vi are simply lucky there doesn't seem to be an equivelant to "small pox blankets".Given Cameron's history (True Lies, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens (where nature is evil)) I don't think there's much case to be made that he's preaching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644590</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262636580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor. "</p><p>And yet, that's exactly what this movie's message is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor .
" And yet , that 's exactly what this movie 's message is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor.
"And yet, that's exactly what this movie's message is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648080</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262607780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, to be fair, the Chipmunks did TRY to make jokes that the kids wouldn't get.  So they do deserve some points for effort.</p><p>On the other hand, I didn't really care much for Up.  Or Wall-E.  They're just too much of the same content.  Pixar makes short films that deliver the same level of satisfaction in a much more convenient format.  'Jak Jak Attacks' is in a lot of ways better than 'The Incredibles'.  Maybe the short format makes them try harder.  I dunno.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to be fair , the Chipmunks did TRY to make jokes that the kids would n't get .
So they do deserve some points for effort.On the other hand , I did n't really care much for Up .
Or Wall-E. They 're just too much of the same content .
Pixar makes short films that deliver the same level of satisfaction in a much more convenient format .
'Jak Jak Attacks ' is in a lot of ways better than 'The Incredibles' .
Maybe the short format makes them try harder .
I dunno .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to be fair, the Chipmunks did TRY to make jokes that the kids wouldn't get.
So they do deserve some points for effort.On the other hand, I didn't really care much for Up.
Or Wall-E.  They're just too much of the same content.
Pixar makes short films that deliver the same level of satisfaction in a much more convenient format.
'Jak Jak Attacks' is in a lot of ways better than 'The Incredibles'.
Maybe the short format makes them try harder.
I dunno.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641504</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>xirusmom</author>
	<datestamp>1262623980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No you are not. I am resisting, but I think in the end I will have to see it just to be able to rant about it. If they had spent some of the 150 mi they did for publicity to improve the plot (as everybody seems to agree that sucks), I would be more willing to see it. Yes, I get the argument: "But the technology is amazing".
Fine, but maybe I should wait for a better  writer to make better use of that technology and come up with a decent story. Or is that too much to ask?
In the end, maybe it is a good combination: The mellow story is there so a guy can convince his girlfriend to go with him. In this case, maybe he needs to get a better girlfriend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No you are not .
I am resisting , but I think in the end I will have to see it just to be able to rant about it .
If they had spent some of the 150 mi they did for publicity to improve the plot ( as everybody seems to agree that sucks ) , I would be more willing to see it .
Yes , I get the argument : " But the technology is amazing " .
Fine , but maybe I should wait for a better writer to make better use of that technology and come up with a decent story .
Or is that too much to ask ?
In the end , maybe it is a good combination : The mellow story is there so a guy can convince his girlfriend to go with him .
In this case , maybe he needs to get a better girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you are not.
I am resisting, but I think in the end I will have to see it just to be able to rant about it.
If they had spent some of the 150 mi they did for publicity to improve the plot (as everybody seems to agree that sucks), I would be more willing to see it.
Yes, I get the argument: "But the technology is amazing".
Fine, but maybe I should wait for a better  writer to make better use of that technology and come up with a decent story.
Or is that too much to ask?
In the end, maybe it is a good combination: The mellow story is there so a guy can convince his girlfriend to go with him.
In this case, maybe he needs to get a better girlfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641288</id>
	<title>Re:Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>Drummergeek0</author>
	<datestamp>1262623080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seconded, if I didn't have a 2 yr old, that needed a babysitter, me and my wife would have already seen the movie about five-six times. We saw it this weekend and wanted to buy another ticket immediately afterward to watch it again. This is the movie that will finally get me to buy a Bluray player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded , if I did n't have a 2 yr old , that needed a babysitter , me and my wife would have already seen the movie about five-six times .
We saw it this weekend and wanted to buy another ticket immediately afterward to watch it again .
This is the movie that will finally get me to buy a Bluray player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded, if I didn't have a 2 yr old, that needed a babysitter, me and my wife would have already seen the movie about five-six times.
We saw it this weekend and wanted to buy another ticket immediately afterward to watch it again.
This is the movie that will finally get me to buy a Bluray player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642892</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts about common comments on the film</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262629080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That can only lead to good things.</p></div><p>Well it probably won't lead to mechas and you have to admit that mechas are pretty cool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That can only lead to good things.Well it probably wo n't lead to mechas and you have to admit that mechas are pretty cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That can only lead to good things.Well it probably won't lead to mechas and you have to admit that mechas are pretty cool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640974</id>
	<title>Re:Another nail</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262621940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Another nail in the "Piracy kills our industry!" coffin.</i> <br> <br>The "industry" will always claim that they could have made more if it hadn't been for "piracy".<br> <br> <i>But honestly, even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.</i> <br> <br>Kind of hard to get the 3d effect to work on a "camed" version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another nail in the " Piracy kills our industry !
" coffin .
The " industry " will always claim that they could have made more if it had n't been for " piracy " .
But honestly , even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first .
Kind of hard to get the 3d effect to work on a " camed " version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another nail in the "Piracy kills our industry!
" coffin.
The "industry" will always claim that they could have made more if it hadn't been for "piracy".
But honestly, even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.
Kind of hard to get the 3d effect to work on a "camed" version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640758</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = James Cameron</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1262620980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>James Cameron has done this to us before. Titanic had the same effect. Everyone was swooning, until they realized just how vapid the story was... and people started making fun of "I'm the king of the world!" and the old lady who throws away the insanely valuable necklace... [shudder]

So all we need do now is mock Avatar endlessly... and cynicism will win the day.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>James Cameron has done this to us before .
Titanic had the same effect .
Everyone was swooning , until they realized just how vapid the story was... and people started making fun of " I 'm the king of the world !
" and the old lady who throws away the insanely valuable necklace... [ shudder ] So all we need do now is mock Avatar endlessly... and cynicism will win the day .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Cameron has done this to us before.
Titanic had the same effect.
Everyone was swooning, until they realized just how vapid the story was... and people started making fun of "I'm the king of the world!
" and the old lady who throws away the insanely valuable necklace... [shudder]

So all we need do now is mock Avatar endlessly... and cynicism will win the day.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643984</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>OmniBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1262633880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it is fern gully in 3D but your complaint is ignorant.

All stories have been told before and will be retold again, just slightly different. To say you can find elements from a 100 other stories as flaw in the writing seems ignorant to me. Storytelling is what drives our species: you think there's anything that hasn't been said already? It's all about arrangement, that's all. Composition of plot has been completed for centuries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is fern gully in 3D but your complaint is ignorant .
All stories have been told before and will be retold again , just slightly different .
To say you can find elements from a 100 other stories as flaw in the writing seems ignorant to me .
Storytelling is what drives our species : you think there 's anything that has n't been said already ?
It 's all about arrangement , that 's all .
Composition of plot has been completed for centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is fern gully in 3D but your complaint is ignorant.
All stories have been told before and will be retold again, just slightly different.
To say you can find elements from a 100 other stories as flaw in the writing seems ignorant to me.
Storytelling is what drives our species: you think there's anything that hasn't been said already?
It's all about arrangement, that's all.
Composition of plot has been completed for centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30658502</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the biggest reasons is unobtanium!?</p></div><p>Would you have been happier if it was called MacGuffinium or MacGuffium? They never mention what it does or why it's so expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the biggest reasons is unobtanium !
? Would you have been happier if it was called MacGuffinium or MacGuffium ?
They never mention what it does or why it 's so expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the biggest reasons is unobtanium!
?Would you have been happier if it was called MacGuffinium or MacGuffium?
They never mention what it does or why it's so expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642584</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1262627940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50ft sounds like a fake IMAX screen you got screwed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50ft sounds like a fake IMAX screen you got screwed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50ft sounds like a fake IMAX screen you got screwed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641458</id>
	<title>But what does Cameron have up his sleeve?</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1262623860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that after Titanic, Cameron said he had his "f*ck you" money.  Now it looks like he's got his "f*ck you and the horse you rode in on" money.  So, what's next?  Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that after Titanic , Cameron said he had his " f * ck you " money .
Now it looks like he 's got his " f * ck you and the horse you rode in on " money .
So , what 's next ?
Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that after Titanic, Cameron said he had his "f*ck you" money.
Now it looks like he's got his "f*ck you and the horse you rode in on" money.
So, what's next?
Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651398</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1262628300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am critical because just the fact that something is a kids movie, doesn't mean it has to be stupid. See most Pixar movies, kids movies though they are, they still have a decent plot that an adult can enjoy.</p><p>I know making a decent plot must be hard, especially when you have to edit the film, but still, put in some effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am critical because just the fact that something is a kids movie , does n't mean it has to be stupid .
See most Pixar movies , kids movies though they are , they still have a decent plot that an adult can enjoy.I know making a decent plot must be hard , especially when you have to edit the film , but still , put in some effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am critical because just the fact that something is a kids movie, doesn't mean it has to be stupid.
See most Pixar movies, kids movies though they are, they still have a decent plot that an adult can enjoy.I know making a decent plot must be hard, especially when you have to edit the film, but still, put in some effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480</id>
	<title>Multiple viewings</title>
	<author>lammy</author>
	<datestamp>1262619840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be interested to see what proportion of this film's takings were from repeat viewings, and how this figure compares with other blockbusters. Avatar is one of very few films that I have paid to see more than once at the cinema, and it's the first time that I'm doing this simply because I wanted to see the film again (as opposed to being asked to go with someone else who wanted to see it).

In 3D IMAX, it really is an impressive spectacle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be interested to see what proportion of this film 's takings were from repeat viewings , and how this figure compares with other blockbusters .
Avatar is one of very few films that I have paid to see more than once at the cinema , and it 's the first time that I 'm doing this simply because I wanted to see the film again ( as opposed to being asked to go with someone else who wanted to see it ) .
In 3D IMAX , it really is an impressive spectacle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be interested to see what proportion of this film's takings were from repeat viewings, and how this figure compares with other blockbusters.
Avatar is one of very few films that I have paid to see more than once at the cinema, and it's the first time that I'm doing this simply because I wanted to see the film again (as opposed to being asked to go with someone else who wanted to see it).
In 3D IMAX, it really is an impressive spectacle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643722</id>
	<title>Re:Alvin &amp; the Chipmunks</title>
	<author>sproingie</author>
	<datestamp>1262632740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite thing about the 3D in Up was that they didn't overuse it.  There were about two "stuff coming out of the screen" scenes in the movie, and one of them was even sort of appropriate.</p><p>I thought it was all right -- it certainly struck a poignant note other Pixar films didn't, and it gave the elderly protagonist some real dignity.  Still, I place <i>Wall-E</i> at the very top, and it's going to take something really amazing to displace that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite thing about the 3D in Up was that they did n't overuse it .
There were about two " stuff coming out of the screen " scenes in the movie , and one of them was even sort of appropriate.I thought it was all right -- it certainly struck a poignant note other Pixar films did n't , and it gave the elderly protagonist some real dignity .
Still , I place Wall-E at the very top , and it 's going to take something really amazing to displace that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite thing about the 3D in Up was that they didn't overuse it.
There were about two "stuff coming out of the screen" scenes in the movie, and one of them was even sort of appropriate.I thought it was all right -- it certainly struck a poignant note other Pixar films didn't, and it gave the elderly protagonist some real dignity.
Still, I place Wall-E at the very top, and it's going to take something really amazing to displace that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643394</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Let Avatar Influence Your Statements So M</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.</p></div><p>I find it interesting that you should mention this, because I found the parallel between Avatar and Star Wars to be striking.  Unlike you, I don't find the plot of the 1977 Star Wars movie to be original at all.  It was simply that a farm-boy found a message from a princess who was captured by an evil knight and imprisoned in a dark fortress.  With the help of a good knight and a pirate, he frees the princess and destroys the fortress before the dark knight can destroy the village.

</p><p>That's about the most unoriginal story ever.  It's been done over and over again since the middle ages.  That's not why I loved Star Wars, however.  I loved it because the visual spectacle at the time it was created was unlike anything that I had seen before.  (I was only 9 years old in 1977, but still<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)  Fighting with laser swords is cool!  Fast moving spaceships with rapid fire lasers are cool!  It had never been done before.  The feeling was electric.

</p><p>As I was watching Avatar at age 41, I got that same feeling.  I felt like I was 9 years old again and seeing something absolutely amazing for the first time.   The 3D effects were awkward for about the first 15 minutes of the movie, and then I stopped noticing them.  The simply became the experience.  The computer animation sequences were ridiculously good -- fantastically detailed.  I think you can tell, I loved the movie.

</p><p>Movies don't always have to be story-telling masterpieces.  Sometimes they can just take you out of life for a while and put you on a visual roller-coaster ride.  This movie did that more successfully than anything that I've seen in a long, long time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A shame that Cameron did n't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.I find it interesting that you should mention this , because I found the parallel between Avatar and Star Wars to be striking .
Unlike you , I do n't find the plot of the 1977 Star Wars movie to be original at all .
It was simply that a farm-boy found a message from a princess who was captured by an evil knight and imprisoned in a dark fortress .
With the help of a good knight and a pirate , he frees the princess and destroys the fortress before the dark knight can destroy the village .
That 's about the most unoriginal story ever .
It 's been done over and over again since the middle ages .
That 's not why I loved Star Wars , however .
I loved it because the visual spectacle at the time it was created was unlike anything that I had seen before .
( I was only 9 years old in 1977 , but still ... ) Fighting with laser swords is cool !
Fast moving spaceships with rapid fire lasers are cool !
It had never been done before .
The feeling was electric .
As I was watching Avatar at age 41 , I got that same feeling .
I felt like I was 9 years old again and seeing something absolutely amazing for the first time .
The 3D effects were awkward for about the first 15 minutes of the movie , and then I stopped noticing them .
The simply became the experience .
The computer animation sequences were ridiculously good -- fantastically detailed .
I think you can tell , I loved the movie .
Movies do n't always have to be story-telling masterpieces .
Sometimes they can just take you out of life for a while and put you on a visual roller-coaster ride .
This movie did that more successfully than anything that I 've seen in a long , long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.I find it interesting that you should mention this, because I found the parallel between Avatar and Star Wars to be striking.
Unlike you, I don't find the plot of the 1977 Star Wars movie to be original at all.
It was simply that a farm-boy found a message from a princess who was captured by an evil knight and imprisoned in a dark fortress.
With the help of a good knight and a pirate, he frees the princess and destroys the fortress before the dark knight can destroy the village.
That's about the most unoriginal story ever.
It's been done over and over again since the middle ages.
That's not why I loved Star Wars, however.
I loved it because the visual spectacle at the time it was created was unlike anything that I had seen before.
(I was only 9 years old in 1977, but still ...)  Fighting with laser swords is cool!
Fast moving spaceships with rapid fire lasers are cool!
It had never been done before.
The feeling was electric.
As I was watching Avatar at age 41, I got that same feeling.
I felt like I was 9 years old again and seeing something absolutely amazing for the first time.
The 3D effects were awkward for about the first 15 minutes of the movie, and then I stopped noticing them.
The simply became the experience.
The computer animation sequences were ridiculously good -- fantastically detailed.
I think you can tell, I loved the movie.
Movies don't always have to be story-telling masterpieces.
Sometimes they can just take you out of life for a while and put you on a visual roller-coaster ride.
This movie did that more successfully than anything that I've seen in a long, long time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1262622420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that's another thing that spoils it, you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like, but you get another popcorn movie, albeit an expensive one.</p></div><p> Funny true story. StarWars is not original.</p><p>Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space. He hired as a consultant the man who wrote "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history: and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly (and repeates it in Empire). Add some scene-for-scene WWII air combat scenes and you have a movie.</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars. But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that 's another thing that spoils it , you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like , but you get another popcorn movie , albeit an expensive one .
Funny true story .
StarWars is not original.Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie , he just put it in space .
He hired as a consultant the man who wrote " the Hero with a Thousand Faces " , about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history : and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly ( and repeates it in Empire ) .
Add some scene-for-scene WWII air combat scenes and you have a movie.Do n't get me wrong : I * love * Star Wars .
But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that's another thing that spoils it, you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like, but you get another popcorn movie, albeit an expensive one.
Funny true story.
StarWars is not original.Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space.
He hired as a consultant the man who wrote "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history: and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly (and repeates it in Empire).
Add some scene-for-scene WWII air combat scenes and you have a movie.Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars.
But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646194</id>
	<title>Re:Awful Story + great effects = Blockbuster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most every story is a rehash of a million other stories.  That's how storytelling works.  A movie doesn't have to have a completely original, twisted plotline to be enjoyable, so enjoy the show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most every story is a rehash of a million other stories .
That 's how storytelling works .
A movie does n't have to have a completely original , twisted plotline to be enjoyable , so enjoy the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most every story is a rehash of a million other stories.
That's how storytelling works.
A movie doesn't have to have a completely original, twisted plotline to be enjoyable, so enjoy the show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644556</id>
	<title>Re:3d and tv</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1262636460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could explain this all day 'til I'm blue in the face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could explain this all day 'til I 'm blue in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could explain this all day 'til I'm blue in the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641840</id>
	<title>Except Jurassic park...</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1262625240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is still really good. Still one of my favorite movies in fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is still really good .
Still one of my favorite movies in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is still really good.
Still one of my favorite movies in fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643486</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story, but that's me.</p></div><p>I'd like that too, but you have to realize that it's extremely difficult to pull off. I was enlightened when the first new Transformers movie came out. I went in with low expectations, and more than not being disappointed rather enjoyed several aspects of an otherwise mediocre movie. That was when I realized what's obvious to the average person; You can enjoy something for what it is instead of always concerning yourself with what it could be. Transformers was not the last movie to ever be made, and neither is Avatar. Enjoy them now and hope for the next best thing to come along later.</p><p>Panning something that has a certain aspect that is above and beyond anything done before just because it has other aspects that are below average is practically the definition of snobbery. Something that looks as amazing as Avatar with a story as incredible as The Lord of the Rings would be great, but it's not likely to happen, so why not enjoy the parts that were done right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story , but that 's me.I 'd like that too , but you have to realize that it 's extremely difficult to pull off .
I was enlightened when the first new Transformers movie came out .
I went in with low expectations , and more than not being disappointed rather enjoyed several aspects of an otherwise mediocre movie .
That was when I realized what 's obvious to the average person ; You can enjoy something for what it is instead of always concerning yourself with what it could be .
Transformers was not the last movie to ever be made , and neither is Avatar .
Enjoy them now and hope for the next best thing to come along later.Panning something that has a certain aspect that is above and beyond anything done before just because it has other aspects that are below average is practically the definition of snobbery .
Something that looks as amazing as Avatar with a story as incredible as The Lord of the Rings would be great , but it 's not likely to happen , so why not enjoy the parts that were done right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd like a movie to have both visual appeal and a great story, but that's me.I'd like that too, but you have to realize that it's extremely difficult to pull off.
I was enlightened when the first new Transformers movie came out.
I went in with low expectations, and more than not being disappointed rather enjoyed several aspects of an otherwise mediocre movie.
That was when I realized what's obvious to the average person; You can enjoy something for what it is instead of always concerning yourself with what it could be.
Transformers was not the last movie to ever be made, and neither is Avatar.
Enjoy them now and hope for the next best thing to come along later.Panning something that has a certain aspect that is above and beyond anything done before just because it has other aspects that are below average is practically the definition of snobbery.
Something that looks as amazing as Avatar with a story as incredible as The Lord of the Rings would be great, but it's not likely to happen, so why not enjoy the parts that were done right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640844</id>
	<title>3D?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I havn't seen the movie yet, and really don't intend to unless my wife drags me there. Really one of the things that's keeping me away is the whole 3d deal. Did James Cameron invent some new type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses technique that 3d movies have been using for the past 2 or 3 decades? Did he manage to get this new method distributed to thousands of theatres nationwide?</p><p>If it's using the old method, what's all the raving about? It's ok to watch 15 minutes of muppetvision 3d or honey-i-shrunk-the-audience, but I can't imagine sitting there trying to watch a full-length movie with those things on, ugh.</p><p>If it's using a new method, I'd be interested in hearing about it.</p><p>Yes, I'm aware it's available in 2D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hav n't seen the movie yet , and really do n't intend to unless my wife drags me there .
Really one of the things that 's keeping me away is the whole 3d deal .
Did James Cameron invent some new type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses technique that 3d movies have been using for the past 2 or 3 decades ?
Did he manage to get this new method distributed to thousands of theatres nationwide ? If it 's using the old method , what 's all the raving about ?
It 's ok to watch 15 minutes of muppetvision 3d or honey-i-shrunk-the-audience , but I ca n't imagine sitting there trying to watch a full-length movie with those things on , ugh.If it 's using a new method , I 'd be interested in hearing about it.Yes , I 'm aware it 's available in 2D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I havn't seen the movie yet, and really don't intend to unless my wife drags me there.
Really one of the things that's keeping me away is the whole 3d deal.
Did James Cameron invent some new type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses technique that 3d movies have been using for the past 2 or 3 decades?
Did he manage to get this new method distributed to thousands of theatres nationwide?If it's using the old method, what's all the raving about?
It's ok to watch 15 minutes of muppetvision 3d or honey-i-shrunk-the-audience, but I can't imagine sitting there trying to watch a full-length movie with those things on, ugh.If it's using a new method, I'd be interested in hearing about it.Yes, I'm aware it's available in 2D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643322</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1262631060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's a mix of Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully (and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of gung-ho-soldier-meets-and-loves-the-natives has been done to death), although it does strike chords with a few present day "situations". The main appeal is the graphics, the atmosphere, surroundings and facial expressions of the macrosmurfs.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien\_(film)#Origins" title="wikipedia.org">it's a mix of The Thing from Another World and Forbidden Planet and Planet of the Vampires  (and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of strange-creature-terrorizes-the-crew-of-a-ship has been done to death), although it does strike chords with a few present day "situations". The main appeal is the visual effects, the atmosphere, surroundings and creature's costume.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a mix of Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully ( and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of gung-ho-soldier-meets-and-loves-the-natives has been done to death ) , although it does strike chords with a few present day " situations " .
The main appeal is the graphics , the atmosphere , surroundings and facial expressions of the macrosmurfs .
it 's a mix of The Thing from Another World and Forbidden Planet and Planet of the Vampires ( and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of strange-creature-terrorizes-the-crew-of-a-ship has been done to death ) , although it does strike chords with a few present day " situations " .
The main appeal is the visual effects , the atmosphere , surroundings and creature 's costume .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a mix of Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully (and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of gung-ho-soldier-meets-and-loves-the-natives has been done to death), although it does strike chords with a few present day "situations".
The main appeal is the graphics, the atmosphere, surroundings and facial expressions of the macrosmurfs.
it's a mix of The Thing from Another World and Forbidden Planet and Planet of the Vampires  (and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of strange-creature-terrorizes-the-crew-of-a-ship has been done to death), although it does strike chords with a few present day "situations".
The main appeal is the visual effects, the atmosphere, surroundings and creature's costume.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saw it in 3D at the Imax.  I think that this movie is visually appealing, and that's what it was made for.  You're not supposed to actually pay attention to the story; it's a mix of Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully (and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of gung-ho-soldier-meets-and-loves-the-natives has been done to death), although it does strike chords with a few present day "situations".  The main appeal is the graphics, the atmosphere, surroundings and facial expressions of the macrosmurfs.
<br> <br>
Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that's another thing that spoils it, you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like, but you get another popcorn movie, albeit an expensive one.  With blue people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw it in 3D at the Imax .
I think that this movie is visually appealing , and that 's what it was made for .
You 're not supposed to actually pay attention to the story ; it 's a mix of Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully ( and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of gung-ho-soldier-meets-and-loves-the-natives has been done to death ) , although it does strike chords with a few present day " situations " .
The main appeal is the graphics , the atmosphere , surroundings and facial expressions of the macrosmurfs .
Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that 's another thing that spoils it , you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like , but you get another popcorn movie , albeit an expensive one .
With blue people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw it in 3D at the Imax.
I think that this movie is visually appealing, and that's what it was made for.
You're not supposed to actually pay attention to the story; it's a mix of Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully (and potentially about 30 other movies in which this concept of gung-ho-soldier-meets-and-loves-the-natives has been done to death), although it does strike chords with a few present day "situations".
The main appeal is the graphics, the atmosphere, surroundings and facial expressions of the macrosmurfs.
Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that's another thing that spoils it, you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like, but you get another popcorn movie, albeit an expensive one.
With blue people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642016</id>
	<title>Re:And yet...</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262625900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar. Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.</p></div><p>THe visuals were amazing. Story was ripped for a bunch of other movies. Sherlock holmes original????? I haven't seen the chipmunks movie yet but I doubt it is original either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films. Even if only one of those was
really good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals.</p></div><p>So you want 10 movies made, one of which will be good...as opposed to one movie that is made which is good?  I don't follow. Either way 430 million was spent and there is only one good movie.  Nobody tauted this movie as an oscar nomination for best story, or hell best movie.  It was tauted as best visuals - and it delivered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar .
Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.THe visuals were amazing .
Story was ripped for a bunch of other movies .
Sherlock holmes original ? ? ? ? ?
I have n't seen the chipmunks movie yet but I doubt it is original either.Instead of spending $ 430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films .
Even if only one of those was really good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals.So you want 10 movies made , one of which will be good...as opposed to one movie that is made which is good ?
I do n't follow .
Either way 430 million was spent and there is only one good movie .
Nobody tauted this movie as an oscar nomination for best story , or hell best movie .
It was tauted as best visuals - and it delivered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar.
Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.THe visuals were amazing.
Story was ripped for a bunch of other movies.
Sherlock holmes original?????
I haven't seen the chipmunks movie yet but I doubt it is original either.Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.
Even if only one of those was
really good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals.So you want 10 movies made, one of which will be good...as opposed to one movie that is made which is good?
I don't follow.
Either way 430 million was spent and there is only one good movie.
Nobody tauted this movie as an oscar nomination for best story, or hell best movie.
It was tauted as best visuals - and it delivered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642628</id>
	<title>Death World</title>
	<author>drunkenkatori</author>
	<datestamp>1262628120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the 'something borrowed' department is the deathworld concept.  Pandora was already dangerous and then became an adversary once the planetary consciousness decided to fight back.  For me this elevated the story to more than Pocahontas-in-space since the indigenous people's wholistic view on the world wasn't just philosophy, it was real.</p><p>P.S.  The 'anti-technology POV' complaints are completely off base.  Recall that the scientists are allowed to stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that does n't seem to be mentioned much in the 'something borrowed ' department is the deathworld concept .
Pandora was already dangerous and then became an adversary once the planetary consciousness decided to fight back .
For me this elevated the story to more than Pocahontas-in-space since the indigenous people 's wholistic view on the world was n't just philosophy , it was real.P.S .
The 'anti-technology POV ' complaints are completely off base .
Recall that the scientists are allowed to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the 'something borrowed' department is the deathworld concept.
Pandora was already dangerous and then became an adversary once the planetary consciousness decided to fight back.
For me this elevated the story to more than Pocahontas-in-space since the indigenous people's wholistic view on the world wasn't just philosophy, it was real.P.S.
The 'anti-technology POV' complaints are completely off base.
Recall that the scientists are allowed to stay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642072</id>
	<title>Looking forward to 'directors cut' = more.</title>
	<author>ah802</author>
	<datestamp>1262626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Definitely escapist; It's the dream of what could be, might be, should be in the eyes of the artist. Cameron ties his vision together with a 'fragile story' with some social undertones almost as an after thought. Sooner or later, some artist would have done one of these Utopian paradise worlds worlds; Cameron got there first. A visual feast that takes us beyond the distraction of the plot, actors, into the world of art without many barriers. If there is any shortcomings, I would like to have seen a new opus magnum created for the musical score and better quality 3D glasses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely escapist ; It 's the dream of what could be , might be , should be in the eyes of the artist .
Cameron ties his vision together with a 'fragile story ' with some social undertones almost as an after thought .
Sooner or later , some artist would have done one of these Utopian paradise worlds worlds ; Cameron got there first .
A visual feast that takes us beyond the distraction of the plot , actors , into the world of art without many barriers .
If there is any shortcomings , I would like to have seen a new opus magnum created for the musical score and better quality 3D glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely escapist; It's the dream of what could be, might be, should be in the eyes of the artist.
Cameron ties his vision together with a 'fragile story' with some social undertones almost as an after thought.
Sooner or later, some artist would have done one of these Utopian paradise worlds worlds; Cameron got there first.
A visual feast that takes us beyond the distraction of the plot, actors, into the world of art without many barriers.
If there is any shortcomings, I would like to have seen a new opus magnum created for the musical score and better quality 3D glasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650520</id>
	<title>Re:Another nail</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1262620800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.</i></p><p>Well then, that completely justifies putting up a pirate copy then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:dusts off hands:</p><p>IF YOU LIKE THIS GAME GO BUY IT etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.Well then , that completely justifies putting up a pirate copy then : dusts off hands : IF YOU LIKE THIS GAME GO BUY IT etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.Well then, that completely justifies putting up a pirate copy then :dusts off hands:IF YOU LIKE THIS GAME GO BUY IT etc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642772</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good for you.<br>I got swept by the media buzz and this movie has turned out to be a bore.<br>Yes the FX were great, but after the first hour or so I did not find it any more exciting. Give me a gazillion dollars and a lot of time, I could also come up with such a FX loaded movie. I spoke to my friend in Mumbai, India; they had 6 AM show times during this weekend. I thought it was ridiculous that people are going so crazy about this movie. James Cameron and his production company are laughing their way to the banks while the general economy is still in a slump. The script had no depth to it, which many others have also pointed out here. The first Matrix movie, Terminator (1 and 2), LOTR, etc. had great FX combined with a pretty good script and that's what has made them memorable.</p><p>This movie is another example of media trumpeting something and the population believing them and jumping in (like they made us believe the bankers knew what they were doing and that housing prices will keep going up forever!).</p><p>Only positive from this movie I hope will be that people become more tolerant of others with different skin color.</p><p>Stay home this winter and read a book or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for you.I got swept by the media buzz and this movie has turned out to be a bore.Yes the FX were great , but after the first hour or so I did not find it any more exciting .
Give me a gazillion dollars and a lot of time , I could also come up with such a FX loaded movie .
I spoke to my friend in Mumbai , India ; they had 6 AM show times during this weekend .
I thought it was ridiculous that people are going so crazy about this movie .
James Cameron and his production company are laughing their way to the banks while the general economy is still in a slump .
The script had no depth to it , which many others have also pointed out here .
The first Matrix movie , Terminator ( 1 and 2 ) , LOTR , etc .
had great FX combined with a pretty good script and that 's what has made them memorable.This movie is another example of media trumpeting something and the population believing them and jumping in ( like they made us believe the bankers knew what they were doing and that housing prices will keep going up forever !
) .Only positive from this movie I hope will be that people become more tolerant of others with different skin color.Stay home this winter and read a book or / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for you.I got swept by the media buzz and this movie has turned out to be a bore.Yes the FX were great, but after the first hour or so I did not find it any more exciting.
Give me a gazillion dollars and a lot of time, I could also come up with such a FX loaded movie.
I spoke to my friend in Mumbai, India; they had 6 AM show times during this weekend.
I thought it was ridiculous that people are going so crazy about this movie.
James Cameron and his production company are laughing their way to the banks while the general economy is still in a slump.
The script had no depth to it, which many others have also pointed out here.
The first Matrix movie, Terminator (1 and 2), LOTR, etc.
had great FX combined with a pretty good script and that's what has made them memorable.This movie is another example of media trumpeting something and the population believing them and jumping in (like they made us believe the bankers knew what they were doing and that housing prices will keep going up forever!
).Only positive from this movie I hope will be that people become more tolerant of others with different skin color.Stay home this winter and read a book or /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646950</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't see Avatar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come to Guatemala if ten bucks is too much.  Its 2.50 USD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come to Guatemala if ten bucks is too much .
Its 2.50 USD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come to Guatemala if ten bucks is too much.
Its 2.50 USD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922</id>
	<title>Re:Not bad for an update verion of "Fern Gully"</title>
	<author>jambarama</author>
	<datestamp>1262621760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife called it "dances with wolves" meets "fern gully" in 200 years.  I thought some of the plant &amp; animal life was really clever. I was also really glad they didn't try to make all the novel things logical - they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks, which I think is good. The planetary neural network idea has been done an awful lot, but I think it worked just fine. The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?), but it wasn't featured too prominently.<br> <br>

The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen. Some of the new humaniod features were imaginative, like the neural connection in the pony tail, but overall the alients were pretty standard - "good" aliens must look human for us to identify with them, they must have the same mannerisms (e.g. identical emotions), and other real differences must be superficial. For example, the aliens were more like humans than the Indians in "Dances with Wolves" were like Costner, a movie which shares a number of connections with Avatar. I suppose if I want imaginative, I should just go watch La plan&#232;te sauvage.<br> <br>

Overall though, I think this movie marks the latest in the "spectacle over plot" shift in filmmaking. Cameron has always been at the forefront of this change, right there with Michael Bay, so I should've expected it, but so it goes. Avatar did have a lot more plot than Transformers, GI Joe, and some other recently popular films, but it was still simpler than the Cat in the Hat - subtle &amp; not-so-subtle political statements notwithstanding. Between visual effect and good writing, I'll take the latter, but why can't we have both?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife called it " dances with wolves " meets " fern gully " in 200 years .
I thought some of the plant &amp; animal life was really clever .
I was also really glad they did n't try to make all the novel things logical - they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks , which I think is good .
The planetary neural network idea has been done an awful lot , but I think it worked just fine .
The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous ( seriously guys ?
) , but it was n't featured too prominently .
The aliens are still too stiff , their faces are too uniform , their movements are too smooth - they need pores , facial hair , creases , loose skin , etc - but it is still the best I 've seen .
Some of the new humaniod features were imaginative , like the neural connection in the pony tail , but overall the alients were pretty standard - " good " aliens must look human for us to identify with them , they must have the same mannerisms ( e.g .
identical emotions ) , and other real differences must be superficial .
For example , the aliens were more like humans than the Indians in " Dances with Wolves " were like Costner , a movie which shares a number of connections with Avatar .
I suppose if I want imaginative , I should just go watch La plan   te sauvage .
Overall though , I think this movie marks the latest in the " spectacle over plot " shift in filmmaking .
Cameron has always been at the forefront of this change , right there with Michael Bay , so I should 've expected it , but so it goes .
Avatar did have a lot more plot than Transformers , GI Joe , and some other recently popular films , but it was still simpler than the Cat in the Hat - subtle &amp; not-so-subtle political statements notwithstanding .
Between visual effect and good writing , I 'll take the latter , but why ca n't we have both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife called it "dances with wolves" meets "fern gully" in 200 years.
I thought some of the plant &amp; animal life was really clever.
I was also really glad they didn't try to make all the novel things logical - they never attempted an explanation of the flying rocks, which I think is good.
The planetary neural network idea has been done an awful lot, but I think it worked just fine.
The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?
), but it wasn't featured too prominently.
The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen.
Some of the new humaniod features were imaginative, like the neural connection in the pony tail, but overall the alients were pretty standard - "good" aliens must look human for us to identify with them, they must have the same mannerisms (e.g.
identical emotions), and other real differences must be superficial.
For example, the aliens were more like humans than the Indians in "Dances with Wolves" were like Costner, a movie which shares a number of connections with Avatar.
I suppose if I want imaginative, I should just go watch La planète sauvage.
Overall though, I think this movie marks the latest in the "spectacle over plot" shift in filmmaking.
Cameron has always been at the forefront of this change, right there with Michael Bay, so I should've expected it, but so it goes.
Avatar did have a lot more plot than Transformers, GI Joe, and some other recently popular films, but it was still simpler than the Cat in the Hat - subtle &amp; not-so-subtle political statements notwithstanding.
Between visual effect and good writing, I'll take the latter, but why can't we have both?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30661348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30664288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30657116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30653014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30649178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30748238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30649792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30658502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30664198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30652908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_145247_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645526
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645060
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30649178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30652908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30664288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30653014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30648080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30657116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641432
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645484
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30664198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30658502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30748238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30649792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30646282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30642488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30640490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30644100
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30651520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641914
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30661348
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645694
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645506
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30647408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30645500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30643322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_145247.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30641330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_145247.30650624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
