Avatar (1 Viewer)

[nmrocks]

Color me puzzled. A fantasy movie where WE are the bad guys and we LOSE to the natives is GOOD and its SAD and "nonrefreshing" that we dont lose more in real life? huh?

So sorry, but I couldnt divorce myself from the underlying message of this movie, which is that WESTERN/MODERN civilization is a greedy, amoral and an unjust culture at its core. Meanwhile "indigenous" cultures are shown as inherently more natural, peaceful, loving and purely benevolent. The message of the movie, basically, is that nazi supremicist values were and are the raw embodiment of modern US civilzation/capitalism in which wealth, science and military power take precedence over all else.

Pardon me of I dont share, at all, this grossly simplistic and negative view of oursevles.

I know, I know, its only a movie. But still, demonizing the culture and system which made the magnificent technology that allowed its creation possible is bizarre to me. It seems to me that if we dont go forward the only other direction is backwards.

Couldn't agree with you more, I've just given up saying as the liberal thought police will not tolerate opposing views.
There are no more self indulgent, out of touch people in the world than the hollywood elite. They reap the greatest rewards and spits in the eye of a society that no other country/society would tolerate.
First to use and decry the most advanced sciences, they think they know better than us and would have us all eating grass and living in caves for which we would all be better people (ALL people that is except them, there lifestyles are exempt from what they preach).
I mean it's so two faced! the story and then the reality of the HUGE money Camerron will make from the movie, endorsments, game and toy franchises that make him everything he decries with the exception of the direct blood on his hands. But thats hollywood, all smoke and mirrors.....

 

[Spitfrnd]

Color me puzzled. A fantasy movie where WE are the bad guys and we LOSE to the natives is GOOD and its SAD and "nonrefreshing" that we dont lose more in real life? huh?

So sorry, but I couldnt divorce myself from the underlying message of this movie, which is that WESTERN/MODERN civilization is a greedy, amoral and an unjust culture at its core. Meanwhile "indigenous" cultures are shown as inherently more natural, peaceful, loving and purely benevolent. The message of the movie, basically, is that nazi supremicist values were and are the raw embodiment of modern US civilzation/capitalism in which wealth, science and military power take precedence over all else.

Pardon me of I dont share, at all, this grossly simplistic and negative view of oursevles.

I know, I know, its only a movie. But still, demonizing the culture and system which made the magnificent technology that allowed its creation possible is bizarre to me. It seems to me that if we dont go forward the only other direction is backwards.

That is an aweful lot of negativity so early in the day mate. First off it is indeed just a movie and a SF one at that. Demonstrating the relative moral decline of civilization is a mainstay theme of SF so this one is hardly new with such a premise. Secondly why do you think it is about our society. As I understand the story, it is about a future society that is projected from where we are now. As such, it represents one of many possible outcomes but not necessarily even a probable one. Again this is a SF mainstay. There is certainly no requirement that you indentify with the developed culture in that future outcome. Suggesting that this even implies a connection between Nazi Germany and current US morality is more than a wee stretch.

The simple fact is that a culture is not automatically good or bad because it is native or developed. Both are possible scenarios and we have many examples of both in our history, both as a world and as a nation. This movie represents ONE example of a bad developed culture and a good native one. Again this is hardly revolutionary but as movies go, it is in the minority. Can you imagine how many slaughtering native savage movies Hollywood has produced over the years. I humbly think you are making too much out of this. It may be a technological mountain but as an indictment of our society I think it is not even a molehill.

As to way we actually go from her, well I hope our intellectual and cultural development can catch up with our technological progress. I am quite a fan of both but certainly one has all to often outstripped the other.

 

[Rutledge]

That is an aweful lot of negativity so early in the day mate. First off it is indeed just a movie and a SF one at that. Demonstrating the relative moral decline of civilization is a mainstay theme of SF so this one is hardly new with such a premise. Secondly why do you think it is about our society. As I understand the story, it is about a future society that is projected from where we are now. As such, it represents one of many possible outcomes but not necessarily even a probable one. Again this is a SF mainstay. There is certainly no requirement that you indentify with the developed culture in that future outcome. Suggesting that this even implies a connection between Nazi Germany and current US morality is more than a wee stretch.

The simple fact is that a culture is not automatically good or bad because it is native or developed. Both are possible scenarios and we have many examples of both in our history, both as a world and as a nation. This movie represents ONE example of a bad developed culture and a good native one. Again this is hardly revolutionary but as movies go, it is in the minority. Can you imagine how many slaughtering native savage movies Hollywood has produced over the years. I humbly think you are making too much out of this. It may be a technological mountain but as an indictment of our society I think it is not even a molehill.

As to way we actually go from her, well I hope our intellectual and cultural development can catch up with our technological progress. I am quite a fan of both but certainly one has all to often outstripped the other.

Early in the day? Hmmm. My comment was submitted at 10:30 PM. Your schedule must be different than mine.

Have you even seen the movie? Your comment "as I understand the story" makes me suspect not.

I do not believe Cameron made a SF genre flick totally disconnected from the world in which we live. He is smarter than that. Plus, as a college English major, I was taught to look beneath the surface for the true meaning of any story. Ever read Gulliver's Travels? Hint: Its not really about little people.

In addition to the same old "the military industrial complex is evil"'" theme, Avatar also presented an obvious (and annoying as a colleague put it) environmental "message". Sorry, but I am just not a tree hugger and dont need Hollywood preaching to me about it.

Avatar's bad guys were clearly "corporate soldiers", all with american accents. I am not being "negative" in seeing that for what it is. To do otherwise would be naieve.

Frankly, given the situation the US is in today, with our troops overseas in two foreign wars (and perhaps more on the way), we hardly need more not-so-subtle NEGATIVITY about our troops and their mission from James Cameron and his Hollywood/liberal elite buddies.

 

[jazzeum]

My point out was is that history has shown us that when Western culture has come in contact with indigenous or native cultures, the latter tend to lose out because they are/were not as technologically equipped as Western culture. If you need examples, the Aztec and Incas come to mind, not to mention the Native Americans of the United States. Although not all of these cultures are nomadic or peaceful or benevolent, etc., Western culture wasn't there to proslyetize but to conquer, take what they could and move on. It was on the backs of these conquests that so called "civilization" was built.

Avatar was a fictional example of where this didn't happen and if it's pc to say that an indigenous culture doesn't want to submit to having its resources depleted without its consent or to be told what to do against its wishes, principles that I thought we fought for in 1776, yes, then color me pc.

It's the right of every people to control their destiny and the point I was trying to make was this is not always the reality and that's what is unfortunate.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Early in the day? Hmmm. My comment was submitted at 10:30 PM. Your schedule must be different than mine.

Amusing retort; if I didn't know better I would take that as an intended slur but I know an English major would not be so obvious. I suppose that is the curse of having had that as one of my majors as well. Since I gave you no reason to be personal I will take it in the same comic vein I intended my remarks.

Have you even seen the movie? Your comment "as I understand the story" makes me suspect not.

Actually I have so perhaps I should have more accurately said, as I took the story.

I do not believe Cameron made a SF genre flick totally disconnected from the world in which we live. He is smarter than that. Plus, as a college English major, I was taught to look beneath the surface for the true meaning of any story. Ever read Gulliver's Travels? Hint: Its not really about little people.

It is much more the norm than the exception for SF, especially movies, to be related in some significant way to the present but it is not a function of being smart or not; it is simply an artistic choice. As an English major, you will of course know than many stories and most good ones have more than one meaning and that the author's intent is only a guide, not a limitation. It seems you chose to view it as a condemnation of our existing US culture. I took is as a fictional adventure in a world that just happened to have some characteristics similar to ours. To the extent I chose to assign it a deeper meaning it would still only represent to me a parable for how a world LIKE ours COULD evolve. To answer your next question, yes I have read Gulliver's Travels but I didn't know until now it wasn't about little people. Please accept my humorous retort to your humorous comment.

In addition to the same old "the military industrial complex is evil"'" theme, Avatar also presented an obvious (and annoying as a colleague put it) environmental "message". Sorry, but I am just not a tree hugger and dont need Hollywood preaching to me about it.

Neither am I but I simply chose not to take it that way. That said, there is little doubt that a significant number of the worlds problems could have been averted if our ancestors had maintained more of their earlier connection with nature. I am not preaching and you are free to do as you like as far as I am concerned.

Avatar's bad guys were clearly "corporate soldiers", all with American accents. I am not being "negative" in seeing that for what it is. To do otherwise would be naive.

Frankly, given the situation the US is in today, with our troops overseas in two foreign wars (and perhaps more on the way), we hardly need more not-so-subtle NEGATIVITY about our troops and their mission from James Cameron and his Hollywood/liberal elite buddies.

Well perhaps I am just naive but you are seeing it quite differently than I did. I am not sure what accents you would want them to have; they were American actors or actors commonly working in American films were they not? I am sorry but I saw nothing in this film that suggested we should not support our troops or that their current mission was not honorable or worth supporting. As an ex-military pilot from a war a LOT less popular than the current actions, I humbly suggest that is a giant extrapolation. I also think I have earned the right to chose not be offended by those who take a view contrary to my own or to equate a criticism of the policies of our government with a lack of respect and appreciation for our soldiers.

Looking for hidden meanings is fine as long as we can appreciate the difference between those we invent and those that are devised by others. We clearly have invented two different ones. There are many times when Hollywood does manifest an elitist and excessively liberal attitude but to me, this simply was not one of them. I would hope that doesn't place me on some "black list" for contrary thinking. As much as I do not agree with your assessment of this movie that is no more to me than a difference in critical reviews. You presented your view and I have simply noted mine. To me it was not great literature but it was also not elitest propaganda; it is that simple.

 

[Alexdakar]

I saw the movie this past weekend in 3D it was pretty cool. Were we suppose to return the 3D glasses.

 

[Wraith]

I saw the movie this past weekend in 3D it was pretty cool. Were we suppose to return the 3D glasses.

Yep. You turn blue otherwise.

 

[jazzeum]

Ohhh, no!!!!

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Ohhh, no!!!!

I was thinking more like this!

Best Regards, Vick

 

[Spitfrnd]

Dabba de-a dabba da da ba dee dabba da

 

[jazzeum]

I was thinking more like this!

Best Regards, Vick

Much better selection

 

[dea]

Thank god you guys lightened up, after all it's just a movie!
Phil

 

[Wraith]

Thank god you guys lightened up, after all it's just a movie!
Phil

That's the trouble with blue movies, they always seem to illicit different responses.

 

[VIRIATO]

That is an aweful lot of negativity so early in the day mate. First off it is indeed just a movie and a SF one at that. Demonstrating the relative moral decline of civilization is a mainstay theme of SF so this one is hardly new with such a premise. Secondly why do you think it is about our society. As I understand the story, it is about a future society that is projected from where we are now. As such, it represents one of many possible outcomes but not necessarily even a probable one. Again this is a SF mainstay. There is certainly no requirement that you indentify with the developed culture in that future outcome. Suggesting that this even implies a connection between Nazi Germany and current US morality is more than a wee stretch.

The simple fact is that a culture is not automatically good or bad because it is native or developed. Both are possible scenarios and we have many examples of both in our history, both as a world and as a nation. This movie represents ONE example of a bad developed culture and a good native one. Again this is hardly revolutionary but as movies go, it is in the minority. Can you imagine how many slaughtering native savage movies Hollywood has produced over the years. I humbly think you are making too much out of this. It may be a technological mountain but as an indictment of our society I think it is not even a molehill.

As to way we actually go from her, well I hope our intellectual and cultural development can catch up with our technological progress. I am quite a fan of both but certainly one has all to often outstripped the other.

To me part of the childishness of this movie is the way it presents things: the oh so good natives on one side and the oh so bad developed guys on the other. I believe History teaches us that nothing is that black and white...


Paulo

 

[VIRIATO]

There is a moment in the movie when the bad guy (attacking commanding officer) tells the crowd something like «we need a preemptive strike, to fight terror with terror». Now this phrase didn't come out of nowhere, did it?


Paulo

 

[Spitfrnd]

To me part of the childishness of this movie is the way it presents things: the oh so good natives on one side and the oh so bad developed guys on the other. I believe History teaches us that nothing is that black and white...


Paulo

Well you are quite correct about history Paulo but movies are driven by a different agenda and it is not political for the most part. Movies are generally made for profit, which for a movie with this kind of budget means a very broad audience. That is why for example they deleted the undoubtedly tame sex scene. Sadly this means for technological breakthroughs you are destined to get strained carrots for a story line. I would not disagree that it is childish or simplistic or that the story is not well worn. Its simple magic is in its special effects and the creation of a completely artificial virtual world. I simply enjoyed it at the level of Fantasia. Of course it is not on the same level as Lord of the Rings but then the writing wasn't exactly up to the level of Tolkien.

Indeed the phrase "we need a preemptive strike, to fight terror with terror" was hardly original but then while it has a contemporary ring with all too much baggage, it was hardly original when used most recently in earnest. I think you will find its analogues in many societies dating from the early days of recorded history. If there is anything certain, politicians have fewer original thoughts than film makers (or maybe any body).

 

[jazzeum]

To me part of the childishness of this movie is the way it presents things: the oh so good natives on one side and the oh so bad developed guys on the other. I believe History teaches us that nothing is that black and white...


Paulo

That is quite true but then that would also probably apply to a similar movie like Dances with Wolves.

At any rate, my apologies if I took this thread in a direction other than enjoyment for an entertaining movie.

 

[Rutledge]

Well you are quite correct about history Paulo but movies are driven by a different agenda and it is not political for the most part. Movies are generally made for profit, which for a movie with this kind of budget means a very broad audience. That is why for example they deleted the undoubtedly tame sex scene.......
Indeed the phrase "we need a preemptive strike, to fight terror with terror" was hardly original but then while it has a contemporary ring with all too much baggage, D

Movies are not political? Paging Oliver Stone. Paging Spike Lee. etc.

Im sure you remember the series "Seinfeld". One of my favorites. What was its "catchphrase"? It was a show about nothing. Remember. That was its unique positioning. Of course it wasnt about nothing. There were stories and goings-on. But, and this is the key, there was no morality lesson. Almost every other show, sitcom or otherwise, is at its core a morality play. It started with the Globe Theater, kept on thru Andy Griffith and remains so today.

Interesting how tv reality shows have become so popular. Generally they contain no inherent morality lesson. They reflect real life. Sure they still try and create characters and "good guys" and "villains". But the producers cant insert "lessons" like a writer. Perhaps its a reason they are so popular?

I find it unfathomable than Cameron would spent huge quantities of money on this film and NOT have a message he wanted to impart. Sure, profit was a primary motive. But I dont get the sense he was ALL about the technology and nothing about the story. I am sure he likes a good "yarn" but he definitely is not just a story teller.

If you watch the old SF shows like The Twilight Zone there is usually a morality play embedded. Typically it revolves around human nature having its weaknesses or frailties, and the disasters that could result.

Avatar does not portray its villains as just human nature gone awry. The evil soldiers and their bosses are presented as human nature in its most capitalistic and greedy form. They "rape" the land and disenfrachise its inhabitants with no conscuious or self-doubt. It suggests this as a clear echo of our capitalist systems today, as well as US foreign policy, whether its the wars in the mideast or various foreign policies.

Of course I cant prove this was the inention of the movie, as you cant prove that it wasnt. But I think its awfully naieve to assume that there is no message other than the Blue people and technology are cooler than real humans ever could be.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Movies are not political? Paging Oliver Stone. Paging Spike Lee. etc.

Of course they can be intended that way but I think you will find I said "generally" not political. Given how many movies I have watched over the years I think I am more than a wee bit supported. Moreover, I really don't care how they were intended if they are well done. If I think the movie has a message that is worth considering, fine; if not, it doesn't bother me if it can be put aside for simple entertainment.

I'm sure you remember the series "Seinfeld". One of my favorites. What was its "catchphrase"? It was a show about nothing. Remember. That was its unique positioning. Of course it wasnt about nothing. There were stories and goings-on. But, and this is the key, there was no morality lesson. Almost every other show, sitcom or otherwise, is at its core a morality play. It started with the Globe Theater, kept on thru Andy Griffith and remains so today.

Well I am not so sure what is wrong with a morality play. Ancient epic stories and drama were unabashed morality plays. The notion goes something like humans are flawed and faced with numerous moral choices which they often get wrong. I think any art form has both intended and unintended moral and other messages but to me it is more important what they mean to the audience, and it particular, me, than what anyone else intended them to mean.

Actually I am also not so sure about Seinfeld. It was replete with personal choices gone wrong, presented in an engagingly humorous fashion.

Interesting how tv reality shows have become so popular. Generally they contain no inherent morality lesson. They reflect real life. Sure they still try and create characters and "good guys" and "villains". But the producers cant insert "lessons" like a writer. Perhaps its a reason they are so popular?

Frankly I have no idea why they are so popular since they are uniformly boring to me. If I want a release to live another life for a while, I prefer it to one that was well though out. I also wouldn't say they are without lessons. Hopefully ever thing we do and see is a lesson of sorts. I know I like to think it is possible to learn from mistakes, both mine and those of others.

I find it unfathomable than Cameron would spent huge quantities of money on this film and NOT have a message he wanted to impart. Sure, profit was a primary motive. But I dont get the sense he was ALL about the technology and nothing about the story. I am sure he likes a good "yarn" but he definitely is not just a story teller.

Well I never said he did not intend a message; just that I did not think either his intent or the import of the movie to me was a condemnation of current American society. I have certainly not seen that expressed in his interviews and if anything he has gone out of his way to be a cheerleader for the promise of future technologies. He even created his own production company to create the effects for this movie and I am certain he does not intend to stop here.

If you watch the old SF shows like The Twilight Zone there is usually a morality play embedded. Typically it revolves around human nature having its weaknesses or frailties, and the disasters that could result.

Avatar does not portray its villains as just human nature gone awry. The evil soldiers and their bosses are presented as human nature in its most capitalistic and greedy form. They "rape" the land and disenfranchise its inhabitants with no conscuious or self-doubt. It suggests this as a clear echo of our capitalist systems today, as well as US foreign policy, whether its the wars in the mideast or various foreign policies.

Of course I cant prove this was the inention of the movie, as you cant prove that it wasnt. But I think its awfully naieve to assume that there is no message other than the Blue people and technology are cooler than real humans ever could be.

Well as I observed earlier, I think a moral message is almost unavoidable in stories that include humans. Humans are imperfect and they make truly colossal mistakes. In ancient cultures the human frailties lead to disfavor with the gods and the ruin of one's kingdom. The more modern version calls for global and sometimes galactic Armageddon. I am sure you remember all those 50s and 60s movies that projected the end of earth by nuclear war or pollution if society did not change. There are far to many to list.

No doubt there may be some of that here and clearly you can take this movie in part as a condemnation of unrestrained greed, the failure of humans to maintain their connection to the natural world around them, unbridled development at the expense of quality of life or the attempted exploitation of a technologically inferior culture by a superior one without any appreciation of the moral values that make us human. If so, I think that is a good thing. Those are all mistakes that humans have made over time and I think it is useful that they be reminded of the consequences that can result from losing your moral sense. What I don't see is how that equates to a condemnation of our society or our foreign policy unless you take the view that what we are doing is in fact in violation of those moral principles. I don't and I really see no conclusive evidence that Cameron does as well but I do find it useful to be mindful of those risks. To the extent our policies do have this defect then I would say it is appropriate to have some concern about where we are going to end up. Of course you can also chose to be naive and take it as a cool movie about Blue People.

 

[VIRIATO]

I am not sure there is a political message in this movie, what I am sure is that this movie really tries to catch the environmentalist fashion wave and stay with it and with a lot of popular PC concepts and prejudice, probably not out of any ideals but out of marketing strategy...
Brad, don't apologize, I for one love a good (although civilized) debate (even if somewhat political) and don't think we should be afraid of it (unless it really gets out of hand, but let's trust we are all tolerant and democratic grownups...). On «Dances with Wolves» yes that was probably also a simplistic movie, but a beautiful and moving one at that, a lot of notches above «Avatar». I found it a lot easier to take that boat or embark on that piece of fiction than with «Avatar», which is anyway an entertaining movie and a nice visual experience. All IMHO of course...
Hmm, I like this movie debate thing, we'll have to debate other movies, I'll think of some other thread.

Paulo