this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
729 points (98.8% liked)

Comic Strips

23005 readers
3443 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get that writers use placeholder names for all sorts of things, but as you said yourself, it's meant to be replaced later. That giant budget, and nobody could think of a better name than Unobtanium?

It was either a terrible oversight, or it was chosen purposefully. Either one indicates an objectively poor artistic choice.

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, I'll start by disagreeing with the premise that an "objectively poor" artistic choice exists, at least in this context. There are choices that work for you and choices that don't, but neither are objective. The name unobtanium was chosen because it represents a hypothetical substance that is everything that Cameron needed it to be to tell his story in a single word. He's practically telling the audience, "look, guys, don't think about it that hard, I'm speeding through the set-up because I know everyone is here to look at pretty shit in 3d".

In another story, one where the specific properties of unobtanium were in any way relevant (beyond being valuable), that sort of handwavey shorthand might perturb me. However, as it stands within the context of the film, it's fine. It's functional screenwriting, and that, to me, is a hallmark of Cameron's style.

Also, I'm not suggesting unobtanium was a placeholder for Cameron. I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily strain my credulity to believe that, if scientists are pre-conditioned to refer to a hypothetical wonder material as unobtanium, and then they actually discover a wonder material, they might continue referring to it as such. Or, if not scientists, at least corporate ghouls like Ribisi who probably can't pronounce the "official" name, if one exists.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Using shorthand because you're bored with your own exposition dump, and want to speed it along, seems like a strong sign of a poor screenplay.

EVERYBODY knows it was a terrible name, even those offering weak-ass rationalizations. NONE of you sound like you've even convinced yourselves.

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying it's a brilliant name. Im arguing it is an inconsequential detail that does not matter in the context of the story, and it should be treated as such. You called it "possibly the stupidest artistic choice in cinematic history". I guess I just find that to be at least as ridiculous as "unobtanium", if not moreso.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 20 hours ago

It's not an inconsequential detail, it is literally the reason the movie is taking place, and they can't be bothered to question such a lame name.

Obviously, Cameron declared this to be the final name, and nobody else was brave enough to say, "Hey, Boss, are you really married to that name? Because we could workshop it a bit, if you want."