|
AVATAR
Dec 18, 2009 14:11:14 GMT -8
Post by Jens Dietrich on Dec 18, 2009 14:11:14 GMT -8
It wasn't offensive to me, just tired, cliched and pretty cheesy in places - even cheesier than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I couldn't disagree more. I thought Avatar did a perfectly fine job explaining the inter-connectivity of Pandora's eco-system in a simple and scientific way, and made it perfectly clear why life on that particular planet is so very precious. Spirits Within, however, alternated between being condescendingly simplistic and incomprehensibly obtuse trying to achieve the same thing, and most of the time would just resort to all the characters name-dropping "Gaia" and "the Earth spirit" over and over and over again. I usually despise these sorts of stories, which is why I expected to hate Avatar, but I found myself genuinely caring about Pandora's creatures and the Na'vi. I was genuinely distraught by the damage done to their habitat. Again, I think this is because Cameron does such a good job establishing the world and the Na'vi culture.
|
|
ddueck
Ghostwriter
Omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina!
Posts: 245
|
AVATAR
Dec 18, 2009 14:47:01 GMT -8
Post by ddueck on Dec 18, 2009 14:47:01 GMT -8
Fair enough! That's quite a refreshing, clear way of explaining it. I too thought it was at least nice that they were able to explain the connection between all of Pandora scientifically, and the empathy generated for the cultures and habitats was palpable and real - even for me. It just seems too convenient to have Gaia or Mother Nature or whomever they called their planet's soul (was it Enya? I can't remember ) be the crucial factor at the film's climax (trying to to spoil anything here for those who haven't seen it...) The reason I found it tired and cheesy was because, for as well as that aspect of the story was articulated and rendered within the narrative, it was still incredibly formulaic. I was able to predict a great many pivotal plot points, something I hoped not to be able to do in a movie of this size and grandeur.
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 18, 2009 14:59:05 GMT -8
Post by Jens Dietrich on Dec 18, 2009 14:59:05 GMT -8
The reason I found it tired and cheesy was because, for as well as that aspect of the story was articulated and rendered within the narrative, it was still incredibly formulaic. I was able to predict a great many pivotal plot points, something I hoped not to be able to do in a movie of this size and grandeur. Oh, absolutely. Almost every plot point in Avatar follows a well-established formula, and it would be extremely easy to predict any and all of them if one were so inclined (especially if one has seen Dances With Wolves and/or Ferngully). However, the one thing I didn't expect from Avatar's plot were surprises, so I can't say I was disappointed on that count. There are many reasons to see Avatar, but the desire to be surprised by unpredictable plot twists certainly isn't one of them.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
AVATAR
Dec 18, 2009 20:06:50 GMT -8
Post by cheno on Dec 18, 2009 20:06:50 GMT -8
Jocko, you never explained how it's anti-American to show how the massacre of the Native Americans was a bad thing.
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 18, 2009 20:57:49 GMT -8
Post by Jockolantern on Dec 18, 2009 20:57:49 GMT -8
Jocko, you never explained how it's anti-American to show how the massacre of the Native Americans was a bad thing. Because you're making a straw man argument that isn't based in any real history. If your understanding of history relies upon the notion that all Native American tribes were purely peaceful and non-confrontational and that the European Christian settlers simply drove them from their land out of spite and greed, then you have an entirely fallacious, narrow understanding of American history. It has always struck me as particularly interesting how it is really only the white, Christian man (or woman) who is expected to conform to the customs of other races and religious creeds and show "inclusiveness" while their own Biblical viewpoints and way of life continue to be scoffed at, held in contempt, and not allowed the least bit of concurrent respect. What if history were reversed and the Native Americans had become the dominant race of North America and had "slaughtered" the white man and made extensive use of the land, resources, and industrial enlightenment to progress forward? Would we be talking about the plight of the white man in society and how evil Native Americans are? I sincerely hope not. Either way, racism is racism (particularly when played as victimhood), especially when it is used to support an agenda based entirely upon a Holocaust-like attitude that bears no real weight in the realm of factual history and common sense perspective on where we are today. You are arguing events that are neither here nor there; they are what they are: history. How we choose to live our lives as contemporary adults, the importance we place on our own independence and ability to become everything we choose to strive for, and to treat our fellow man and environment with the respect they both deserve, free of the garbage and clutter that comes with race-baiting (that includes white people) and distorted history to encourage more animosity-- those are the qualities we should seek after. Just as with caucasian Americans, there are plenty of Native Americans doing very well for themselves in America today (see, for example, their gambling industry, which has been very lucrative for them). Your straw man thinking simply doesn't fly and asks a question that is not merely loaded against the addressee but does a disservice to the proud culture and history of the people whom you choose to press down as a victim of society rather than a contemporary arbiter of the freedoms and liberties they have been made to enjoy in what is arguably the freest of all nations to have ever existed on the face of the earth. No humans are perfect though and no nation's history is perfect; not ours and not theirs. To pretend that theirs was a holier and better society than our own and that the European settlers just casually slaughtered them to have their own way with the land is an out-and-out lie. Just because history is written by the "winners" (or shall we say the "most motivated") doesn't mean that the so-called "losers" should be content and dignified by wallowing in their supposed victimhood and blame their lot in life on historical events which they cannot change. Such bitterness does nothing but engender more bitterness. Sorry to say, cheno, but the good and ill (on both sides) of what happened during the colonization of the Americas hundreds of years ago is out of your hands and is out of my hands. We are where we are and I'm tired of liberal filmmakers using their money, technology, power, and liberalized understanding of history to film hundred million dollar projects that condemn... money, technology, power, and liberalized understanding of history. It would be a breath of fresh air if they actually walked their talk or just stuck with making entertainment that provokes thought on a universal philosophical level and not one based entirely around that filmmaker's own political and social agenda. My apologies for completely derailing the thread. I've simply had it with inaccurate understandings of American history. Carry on. -The Old Coot
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
AVATAR
Dec 18, 2009 23:56:00 GMT -8
Post by cheno on Dec 18, 2009 23:56:00 GMT -8
So Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears, Bloody Island, Wiyot and Bear River were all okay because it was natural colonization?
And even if that's true, I don't see how sympathizing with Native Americans is anti-American. Maybe you should say anti-United States?
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 1:35:09 GMT -8
Post by Jockolantern on Dec 19, 2009 1:35:09 GMT -8
So Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears, Bloody Island, Wiyot and Bear River were all okay because it was natural colonization? I'm not arguing the imperfections that have existed and taken place in our country's history but those certainly do not have any bearing on the outlook of our current generation. Just a century and a half ago, we went to war with one other over slavery, for God's sake; our own founders knew that very issue was one which would one day end up resolved in blood were human freedom allowed to reign supreme. And only within the past half-century have we finally seen African Americans and women be granted equal rights; but look how both of those issues occurred: intellectually. There was no violent war that had to take place in order for those particular revolutions to happen; freedom and liberty birthed itself intellectually, without mass bloodshed. I see that as a sign of where this country has succeeded above all others: From the genius of its founders to the imperfections of its people to the blood shed by its own citizens for the freedom of others (both domestic during the Civil War and abroad in the World Wars) to the growth of generation after generation in a free and unoppressed society into greater, matured enlightenment regarding all races and sexes and their innate God-given rights to equality in every walk of life. Go talk to contemporary China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. if you want to bitch and moan about societies who still hold minorities and women in near or total contempt; who have histories of their governments murdering millions of their own people; who have one-child policies to this day; who stone homosexuals to death simply for being homosexual; who continue to stifle minority's and women's rights; whose ethics and ideas of equality are still stuck centuries in the past. I don't want to be preached to by any filmmaker about the "evils" of the United States and its history until that director first has the courage to broach all the true evil and injustice taking place countries as those which I have mentioned. Call it whatever you want; it's the high-and-mighty mentality that gets to me, since such intellectual arguments could be put to much better use by moving forward rather than constantly looking behind us to bring forth the notion that what has become the most equal and free and desired nation is somehow the exact opposite of those very qualities. We must learn from history but not dwell on it in so bitter a fashion as to hold it against a current generation that has no frame of reference, agreement with, or customary relation to times past. Ray Bradbury wrote in his poem America, "We are the dream that other people dream." I don't see people choosing to emigrate to Cuba or Mexico or China or the tribes of central Africa. People want to come here because they have seen the opportunity that lies here for people of all creeds, of all races, of all religions. They want the freedom that we have. I, of all people, cannot blame even the illegal immigrants among us for wanting to come here and make money for their families across the border in a country that lies economically stagnant and run amok with crime. We are a welcoming country, thanks to the freedoms and liberties we believe every human being is entitled to, in spite of those darker events in our own history we must own up to, disavow as wrong, and strive never to repeat. If only actors like Sean Penn would focus on these greater qualities of his country rather than worshipping at the feet of men like Chavez and Castro-- men who continue to hold their own people under their thumb and allow the very injustices liberals constantly bring up in accusation of the United States. Where freedom, liberty, prosperity, and bloodless revolutions have allowed the U.S. to grow out of its many imperfections, slavery, despotism, poverity, and bloody government quellings of revolutions continue to keep countries like North Korea, China, Cuba, and Iran in states of moral equality far diminished by comparison to our own. As an aside, when we're talking about life in North America over a century ago, we are discussing a very different point in time. The culture was different, lifestyles were different, customs were different, technology was different, attitudes were different. I'm not arguing the superiority or inferiority of these choices but it is well worth pointing out that times do change (in any country) and that events and social norms are always viewed in a very different light during their own time. They are what they are. No amount of James Cameron or Fern Gully preaching to me about how supposedly cruel our ancestors were to natives is going to change any of it. It was a culture and society far less civil than our own centuries ago. A world not centered on psycho-analyzing itself, holed up in basements, typing up paragraphs of words into an online forum. These were people whose lives were based around the outdoors, around the notion of expansion into an entire swatch of western land they were curious and motivated enough to uncover, discover; in which to settle their families and get to know those near them. They were a far cry from the naval-gazing culture of selfishly entitled, self-loathers with too much time on our hands we've become in the 21st century. Filmmakers painting with such a broad historical brush without any perspective is obviously and strikingly arrogant and preachy, especially in the face of the hypocrisy so many liberal filmmakers employ in their daily, consumerist lifestyles and viewpoints regarding actual contemporary tyranical, freedom-suppressing governments (ala the Sean Penn analogy from earlier). So what would you have me do? What would you have us do? Pack up our bags and head elsewhere in the world to live so that the Native Americans can have "their" land back? I do my very best to take care of the land and earth in whatever small ways I can and certainly do not wish anything but the most freedom and opportunity to anyone: Caucasian, Asian, African America, Native American... even those darn Canadians. I would dare say that finding a country whose history is not pock-mocked by immorality, injustice, or bloodshed might give all of us some very real trouble. I choose to love the country I was born in; even for its flaws, we remain that shining city on a hill and the very dream that those oppressed people dream. We offer more liberty to all races, nationalities, and creeds than any country like us in history. And if those less proud moments of our history make us so unworthy of the land we occupy in the eyes of certain individuals, then I suggest they do a little self examination of their own human defections before they accuse equally imperfect but American human beings of trying their damndest to see to it that all men and women, no matter how imperfect, may live free. Good lord, that was a mouthful.
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 1:37:15 GMT -8
Post by Jockolantern on Dec 19, 2009 1:37:15 GMT -8
Also, in before "tl;dr."
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 2:29:30 GMT -8
Post by cheno on Dec 19, 2009 2:29:30 GMT -8
tl;dr
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 2:30:21 GMT -8
Post by cheno on Dec 19, 2009 2:30:21 GMT -8
But if I'm reading this right, you're saying history should be ignored because we're better now or that we shouldn't worry about our own problems and injustices because other countries have worse?
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 2:45:00 GMT -8
Post by Jockolantern on Dec 19, 2009 2:45:00 GMT -8
But if I'm reading this right, you're saying history should be ignored because we're better now or that we shouldn't worry about our own problems and injustices because other countries have worse? *facepalm* Did you read a word I said? Of course we shouldn't ignore history but learn from it-- constantly. That is, however, no excuse for any member of a nation's citizenry to wallow in bitterness over a history they cannot control (much less change); we all have to accept where we are now and help make us stronger as a people through an individual choice to abandon self-loathing and victimhood in favor of embracing responsibility for oneself, promoting forgiveness, and influencing those around us for the betterment of human liberty and equality. We can show those nation's less fortunate than us what they can and should be allowed to experience and hopefully one day they will. I dare say this nation has learned more than most other nations what it means to abandon prejudice and bigotry and we are unquestionably a better nation for it. I am not, however, saying we should ignore our own problems or injustices in light of other countries having it worse off than do we. My point was directed at filmmakers who tend to single out the United States as this entity of evil and inequality whilst apologizing for, sucking up to, or outright ignoring aforementioned "other countries" and the centuries-old injustices and oppression their governments continue to force on their citizens. I can't make it much clearer than that.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 3:35:16 GMT -8
Post by cheno on Dec 19, 2009 3:35:16 GMT -8
But if the filmmakers live in America and the plurality of the audience is in America, then it is much much easier to fix the problems in their own country than to get another country to fix their problems. Chinese filmmakers should be worrying about China's problems.
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 3:51:01 GMT -8
Post by Jockolantern on Dec 19, 2009 3:51:01 GMT -8
But if the filmmakers live in America and the plurality of the audience is in America, then it is much much easier to fix the problems in their own country than to get another country to fix their problems. Chinese filmmakers should be worrying about China's problems. You are missing my point entirely. No matter. Enough thread derailment.
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 7:04:40 GMT -8
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Dec 19, 2009 7:04:40 GMT -8
Wow, Jocko, wow. The train has run off the tracks! I'm tired of liberal filmmakers using their money, technology, power, and liberalized understanding of history to film hundred million dollar projects that condemn... money, technology, power, and liberalized understanding of history. My apologies for completely derailing the thread. I've simply had it with inaccurate understandings of American history. Carry on. I hope I'll be able to enjoy the film and score this weekend (globally-warmed snow is in the forecast). Anyway, Jocko, you don't want to see films which cover issues like the struggle over money, technology, power, land, and history? I haven't seen the film yet, but your problem with Avatar is that it did not delve into the settler's perspective? I'm a little confused by your "inaccurate understandings of American history" comment. It's inaccurate because it's incomplete, because it doesn't cover both sides in depht... I'm sorry for taking the train further off the tracks, but I was watching Ken Burns documentary on WWII, and Burn's was criticized for not initially including minorities and for not tackling the other side's stories of loss, grief, bravery, and courage. Is it possible for folks just to enjoy films and to take into account the limits of a film or story? So, Jocko, your problem is that there aren't many Rambo films that are set in contemporary war zones/struggle spots like China? Now, spit it out and go have some fun. Watch Avatar again, and enjoy it, you crazy right-wing Jockoooooo.... ;D -CG
|
|
|
AVATAR
Dec 19, 2009 12:48:47 GMT -8
Post by Hook on Dec 19, 2009 12:48:47 GMT -8
Oh, absolutely. Almost every plot point in Avatar follows a well-established formula, and it would be extremely easy to predict any and all of them if one were so inclined (especially if one has seen Dances With Wolves and/or Ferngully). However, the one thing I didn't expect from Avatar's plot were surprises, so I can't say I was disappointed on that count. There are many reasons to see Avatar, but the desire to be surprised by unpredictable plot twists certainly isn't one of them. I must say that it's very encouraging that you liked it. I don't care if it's a rehash of everything we've seen before. As Ebert likes to say, it's not what it is about, but how it is about. And Cameron is great at this. I was watching the first two Terminator films the other day (because... well, it's Terminator, why the hell not?), and T2 is pretty much the same thing as the 84 original but I still prefer it to most action films ever made and I can't wait to scare my kids with it. One question: should I see it in 3-D? I can't see it at an IMAX theater, otherwise I would because then I wouldn't be too concerned with the brightness, but at a regular 35mm joint? Would I be missing much? I think I'll wait for the holiday season to die out, though. And for the (better damned be) deleted Bill Paxton scene to be added in, too. Jocko, you never explained how it's anti-American to show how the massacre of the Native Americans was a bad thing. Whoa, whoa, WTF? Whoever talked about anything like that? I raised the issue that "anti-(country)ism" is insane and that the majority of the most admirable Americans quoted in history had ideals (ideals, I never said they followed through with them perfectly or at all) that reflect those of the stereotypical, "Dances With Wolves" Native American: learn to play nice with Nature and if you don't it'll bite you in the ass some day, and Cameron's message seems to be that, but I can't confirm it for sure. That was it. Let's end this nonsense right now. Please. But you only know that about Wall-E because you gave it a chance. If you had gone by the "outrage" and "indoctrination-gate" raised by the media you'd probably be badmouthing Pixar and it's momma, too. All I'm saying is be fair to the movie: don't see it but don't condemn it for things you don't know for sure or see it and let go as you please. I can't say bad things about Transformers 2 because I managed to put a notch on my belt there by avoiding it at all costs (and because I really liked the first and some commercials were tempting, not to mention the MST3K potential I was warned about by everyone here, it was pretty hard to resist). I can say one thing about New Moon, though: when I was having my blood drawn on Wednesday all I could think of while watching its crimson tenderness resting peacefully inside its test tube was "What in heaven's name does Edward Cullen see in this?". That's right. My vampire of reference is now Edward Cullen. Damn you, Stephenie Meyer! (at least I had to google her name; that's a relief). I dunno how Jens did it. As for what I think about Titanic today: it's extremely overrated as films go, but it's also magnificently done (I tear up as the sound fades and all we're left with are the strings played by the ship's band) and Horner hit a well-deserved home run there, as well.
|
|