Avatar and Politics in general (mild spoilers) — Page 4

So is it basically any movie Zoe Saldana is in becomes a hit.

She was damn ugly in the pirates trilogy because of the makeup, but fanboys loved her in star trek and as a cgi creature in avatar,lol.

I agree with your thoughts there, Frink.  (Don't believe me? check the first post!)  I really enjoyed the parts I enjoyed.  But there were enough of those things we both mentioned that took me out of the movie that the "shroud of fantasy" sort of just evaporated and kept me from caring anymore.  There are so many great movies out there, I'll just watch something else.  Unless someone can produce a decent fan edit.  ;)

On the surface, the Na'vi are Native Americans.  I think the subtext is that they're Middle Easterns, or that as Americans we haven't changed our ways since our treatment of the N.A.'s and that our dealings in the Middle East or on Pandora might as well all be the same thing.

The conflict with the N.A.'s involved outsiders ("us" hereafter) trying to find a new land to call home and finding lots of it that the N.A.'s weren't already living on, but might have been living near.  We were "civilians" and "families" just trying to make our own way too.  Some N.A. tribes were more hostile towards that than others, but in the end- we expanded into their territories, or close enough to their territories that it went to war and we (apparently) won.  I don't think anyone made the N.A's an enemy so that we could take their land.  We were taking (arguably) their land, that made them mad, emotions escalated and then we were enemies.

In the Middle East, we have companies mining for oil.  Some people think that there is a campaign to get the Western world to go to war there as an easiery way of getting to the oil than simple business negotiations.  At least, that is the sentiment Jake Sully is referring to when he says, "When other people have what we want!  We make them an enemy so that we can go take it!  Grrrrr!"

That's why the Na'vi actually had more to do with Middle Easterners, in my humblest of opinions, despite their outside appearance.

You had my hopes up.  The fanedit.org guys sound like they're kind of poo-pooing an edit.

Seriously- they can edit Transformers eight different ways from Sunday, but they think Avatar is unsalvagable?

It's one thing to dislike the movie.  I think it's a little silly to pretend it has no redeeming qualities just because you don't love it.  I hope you all don't think that's what I've done.

ChainsawAsh said:

I really don't understand why the political agenda of a film like Avatar prevents people from liking it.  I love The Dark Knight, and that film had very conservative undertones.  The way I see it, it's there if you want to take it in, but you can ignore it and enjoy the ride if you like.

I also don't understand how environmentalism is "liberal."  It's an issue that affects everyone, and guess what?  If we keep going the way we're going, we ARE going to seriously fuck up our planet.  Just because you don't like that idea doesn't mean you should dislike a movie that says, "Hey, we should probably think a little bit before we do this shit next time.

And I don't see the "This is what humans do!" line as a Bush commentary at all.  That is what humans do.  Look at what we did to the Native Americans, or Alexander's conquests, or the Nazis, or any other part of human history.

By the way, I'm not trying to attack you personally in any way.  I'm just throwing my two cents in the pile.

Weeell, I think it is all in the execution of the politics.

In THE DARK KNIGHT, generic conservatism (or how Hollywood/Liberals tend to perceive conservatives as) isn't exactly trumpeted as the status quo 100% solution; in fact, when Batman starts to beat the Joker up in the police station, the Joker laughs at his attempts to get him to talk; Batman realizes he can't beat the answers out of him.  When the Joker DOES answer him (the locations of Harvey and Rachel), he twists the answers knowing/suspecting Batman would go after the woman.  In order to defeat the Joker, Batman has to think on his feet and not play by the book (which we learned from DIE HARD a decade earlier).

AVATAR is quite a bit different: NONE of the pro-liberals are depicted as capable of being wrong or shown having to change their tack to solve an issue/problem, while the conservative villians are depicted as equally shoe-horned and cornered into a stereotype, without any ability to think outside of their own playbook.

Even from a logical point of view (outside of politics), AVATAR is extremely stupid:

(1) why doesn't Michelle Rodriguez' character get put into jail as soon as she landed back at the base after blatantly disobeying a direct order from Quattrich (especially considering one of the chief henchmen was in the chopper with her)?  Considering that she is the one who busts out Jake and the rest out of jail means that if she was imprisoned BEFORE them, there would be no rescue and no third act.

(2) if the macguffinite is in the floating mountains, why drill under the Na'vi when they could lift the already floating unobtainium mountains into orbit and get what they (the humans) wanted without bothering the Na'vi?

(3) if the Avatar brain waves could penetrate the distortion from the unobtainium, why didn't the humans use similarly designed machines using the same frequency/wavelength as radars and targeting systems?  For that matter, why design and spend the money on Avatars when they could have created machines to control/disrupt the Na'vi and other animals by influencing their minds by sending out signals along the same brainwave patterns?  I'm sure the humans did plenty of DISTRICT 9ish experiments (and thus would know about the organic USB ports) and would exploit the results appropriate to their simplistic, moustache-twirling characters.

(4) if the humans have "close to lightspeed" travel (as it takes 5 years to travel 5 light years), why are humans 300 years into the future still use bullets and missiles?  More so, why do the humans create a makeshift bomb when it's already established that the military/blackwater mercs have professional munitions already?  Even so, if the unobtainium is as powerful as suggested, why wasn't the unobtainium used in the bomb?

(5) where are the colonists?  Where are the other countries other than the USA?  Where is the professional military from multiple countries?  If the entirety of the Earth's environment was wrecked to the degree that the entire human race was on the verge of extinction, wouldn't one think that there would be a full-fledged migration to Pandora, with oxygen being spewed out of terra-forming plants, as opposed to black smoke?

To me, for any movie to hold my attention, you have to take your own story seriously enough that at the least you do not violate the rules you set up in your own story.  Once characters start to act stupid for the sake of progressing a plot point or a political/philosophical point of view, I give up on the film as either propaganda or pap.  You cannot be "taken seriously with a serious message" and still be a popcorn "check your brain at the door and just enjoy it" movie at the same time (SHOOT 'EM UP, I'm looking at you!). 

Either you are GLORY, 2012 or (once in a blue moon) DIE HARD, which you can just enjoy as a typical action movie OR find some really interesting and intelligent social commentary. 

ferris209 said:

Well, I'll try to kick this thread back on topic, seeing as how Avatar passed the 1 Billion mark yesterday and all. I found an interesting review of Avatar by a Conservative who walked away from the movie feeling that it was "a stealth conservative manifesto wrapped up in leftist gobbly gook". I found what he extrapolated interesting.

Have a read!

BTW, this is a joke/prank (the writer isn't really a conservative).  It is a counter-response to the typical conservative reviews of the movie in an attempt to discredit/impugn the conservative points.

xhonzi said:

Oh, and RE: Palin.  (here I go, derailing my own thread)

I think it's unfair to call her detractors 'sexist' when I think she was dragged out on the McCain campaign for sexist reasons.  The left had played the race card.  The right then decided to play the gender card.  I like Palin as a politician well enough, but I think you're crazy if you think she was put on the ticket as a genderless polician. 

It was an experiment to see if unpolitical Americans were more embarrassed by imaginary sexism or imaginary racism.

I was embarrassed by my part stooping to that level.  I thought we were supposed to be above the silly superficial level of politics and focus on the issues.  Ah, well...

And that is why Republicans keep on failing...

Unfortunately, politics IS an image game... it can be about ideas, and it SHOULD be about goals and achievements (and how to accomplish them), but most people simply react and do not think many things through (even Harvard grads and PH.D.s, as seen on Fox and other news programs), or are simply biased by their political/superstitious beliefs (as politics as essentially BECOME the new "the boogeyman is gonna getcha!" that the devil was for 1000+ years).

Until Republicans figure out that you need a woman and/or minority who can ALSO communicate true straight-forward conservative philosophy (ie "has a personality"), have the plan to show as to HOW to accomplish said goals AND is willing to sacrifice something of themselves (50% personal paycut; 24 hours of community service per month of term; etc) they are going to be trapped by the Democrats propaganda of them.

Or put in another way: until George (Bush) McFly learns to have balls and stand up for himself against Biff (Clinton), everyone is going to pick on him as an irrelevant wimp.  That is not even to say that Republicans need to match the violence/belligerence of the left (G4 riots, etc), just stand up for themselves and be willing to prove themselves.

In regards to Sarah Palin, I believe she is an intelligent person and a good person; I do not know of her committing adultery or any other direct betrayal of her family or friends, nor do I know of her accepting bribes, looking the other way or starting some secret military operation against a third world country. 

My biggest complaints are she sounds (1) like The Nanny or the lady from FARGO and (2) like a typical programed, robotic politician - forget specifically republican or conservative, she has that same "wound-up by the key in her back" personality that Hillary, Barack, John and the rest have going on.  She is no "far, right-wing nutcase" (sorry leftys), as she simply (and typically) states the generic republican basic beliefs.  Hell, the fact that she has to write "tax cuts" on her hand may show her human nervousness, but can also show her "not ready for prime time" nature... I mean really folks... is there ANY conservative out there who has to write down "tax cuts" on their hand to talk about tax cuts?

Now Bobby Jindal on the other hand...

Oh yeah!  To keep it on topic...

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Avatar-Recycled/topic/11528/

Avatar - Politics Lite version in progress.

Ah, so the fox has reported in, letting us know that everything is A-OK at the hen house?  Terrific.

I guess I question the bias/motivations of the independent team, moreso than the independence of it.

If one team of scientists believe that the issue is too important to tell the truth... then can another team be fully trusted?

If the truth was that mankind did not land on the moon in 1969, but that the US Gov't lied in an effort to gain the upper hand in the space race (which hand it clearly did gain)... furthermore, if that truth would potentially unravel the fragile relationship of trust that the US Gov't has with its peoples and the peoples of the world... And you stood in a position to tell everyone this truth... would you consider the truth to do more good or harm in this case?  Could you at least understand the motivation someone would have to knowingly lie about it in the name of preserving peace and the prosperity of this great nation?  Who would the truth hurt?

If you believe that mankind is destroying the earth, and are a scientist tasked with proving it with concrete data... but the data proves to be elusive... Wouldn't you believe it to be the right thing to tell a little lie, especially if you believe that that lie will save the future of mankind?

[citation needed] = Profile not approved.  Come on this is supposed to be a serious role playing board.  And stop writing in the present tense!

Sluggo said:

xhonzi said:

...If you believe that mankind is destroying the earth, and are a scientist tasked with proving it with concrete data... but the data proves to be elusive... Wouldn't you believe it to be the right thing to tell a little lie, especially if you believe that that lie will save the future of mankind?

In this case, I would also say No.

For the record, I'm not advocating the lying.  Just saying I'm wary of people with agendas claiming to tell me the scientific truth.

<snip>

...common sense and a moral issue, not a political issue.  ...

From what I can tell, the definition of "common sense" and "moral issue" seems to be at the heart of ancient, modern, and post-modern politics.  One man's commonly sensible moral issue, is another man's fool's crusade.

The real emphasis ought to be keeping better stewardship of the earth. 

Yes, but at what cost?  In some cases you're pitting the death of humans, here on the planet today, against the posibility that certain actions may be ruining the planet 1000 years from now.  It's not an easy decision to make, in this case, and so we need to know what the actual effects of those actions are, so they can be weighed against the other known consequences.  Attempts to control those decisions through the contol of information and the proliferation of misinformation obfuscate our ability to make the best decisions we can make.

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

I realize this is a bit naive, or at least whimsically hopeful.  But if we can't trust the scientists, then who do we trust?  How do we get a truly independent report?

Even if you don't agree with his political views, you should give Ben Stein's Expelled a view.  It's about the "scientific community" banning anyone that doesn't subscribe to specific dogma.  In the case of his movie, it's Darwinism, but I think it's impossible to not imagine a similar thing going on within the environmental sciences.  In the end, I'm not sure you can trust "scientists" when they personally have so much on the line for saying anything that goes against the rest of the braintrust.  Sort of like the picture you posted.

Does it just come down to what we want to believe, you and I?

 I don't know.  When you can't trust anyone else, don't you just rely on yourself?  What else can you do?

Consider these points in regards to scientists, the environment and everything:

(1) scientists (much less anyone else) instantly start to become biased (even if it is subconsciously) the moment their work becomes funded by money - if they want the money to fund their research, they have to put up with things like:

- developing super weapons for ulterior purposes/ developing boring, practical technological tools when they WANT to design and develop super weapons.. I mean, wonders of the world.
- skewing test results towards what the funders want to see so they can keep the funding coming in.
- if said scientist is smart, they will keep an "ace up the sleeve", ie email correspondence, the key/remote/kill switch to said ultra-mega-killing machine, or your usual black mail or copy of the invention.  If the scientist is NOT that smart (or lucky or politically savvy), then we know what usually happens....


hint: he didn't used to look like this when he first got the job...

have we not learned this in movies since the 1950's?

(2) Sluggo and co.: you are correct in that neither side really seem to care about what they are saying.  Republicans could have expanded coal and oil production (or at least built more refineries, as one of the biggest reasons gas/ natural gas/ diesel cost so much is because we have very few refineries to process the oil/ ore), whereas Democrats could have begun creation of nuclear fission/ fusion, pushed the lunar mining project (to mine the fuel for said fusion reactors), develop solar roofing shingles and building windows to turn neighborhoods and entire cities into solar power plants, etc.  Yet we have been talking about this since Tesla (and that was what, 1920's?)!

(3) in regards to pollution, the simple fact is that the Earth pollutes itself FAR more in one year from any random volcanic explosion than the entirety of the Industrial Revolution (from the late 1800's to this very second)..

NOT TO MENTION:
the worse humans could ever do is return the Earth back to its prime/first state of molten hot magma.  People tend to forget that the Earth is 99% solid and liquid rock, and the "environment" is the millimeter thin skin (or fungus growing on the bark, if you will).  If environmentalists were a little more honest about their message ("Save the Humans") and spent their time AND MONEY creating the alternative energy sources as opposed to wasting their time bitching about stuff they have no intention of fixing (see Al Gore, Earth Liberation Front, James Cameron, etc.), people would take them more seriously.

Oh yeah: and it's always the smart thing to do to create the replacement energy source BEFORE you start anything like "cap and trade" on what you are currently using.

Or in the words of George Carlin and Penn and Teller...

STOP THE EVIL OF DI HYDROGEN MONOXIDE and the excessive urination it causes!