Vaderisnothayden

Anchorhead said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Political discussion is not the purpose of art ....

 

Incorrect.

Ben Shahn, Diego Rivera, Käthe Kollwitz, Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Neil Young, Peter Gabriel, U2, Roger Waters, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, Josef Thorak, Ernst Barlach, and hundreds of others throughout history.

Just because people have discussed politics in works of art doesn't in any way make political discussion the purpose of art in general. Art is for deeper things than mere political discussion.

Political discussion may be the consciously intended purpose behind an individual work of art, but there's always more going on in a work of art than the conscious intentions, and the intentions of individual artists do not set the general overall purpose of art in general. The purpose of art in general is not decided by what some individual artist or artists think. It's decided by the nature of art and how it works and what it is and what inside us it comes from. Any sort of artist who thinks their work is first and foremost for politics is misguided and doesn't fully understand their own art. But then artists rarely understand their art, because art is founded on what goes on deep inside ourselves, stuff that's not so easy to consciously understand.

doubleofive said:

I was telling my wife about SkyJedi and VINH, and how they always seem to bring a thread around to the prequels sucking, even if its a thread that's not even about movies. 

We don't. We do it sometimes, hardly "always". And what's wrong with mentioning one of the most significant truths of Star Wars on a Star Wars board I don't know. I'm rather tired of people inventing myths about my posting. If people are going to take me to task for something, surely it should be something I did/do rather than something people only think I do.

And why are they not using the classic character that was important for so long instead of some recent invention?

I haven't read any new Marvel since the 90s and from what I've heard of the stories I think I have reason to be glad of that. They made most mutants non-powered, made spiderman's id public, etc.  Oh yeah, and they took the character of Bishop away from African-Americans, which stinks.

doubleofive said:

Sluggo said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It's a damn useful site. I don't get into trying to edit stuff on sites like that. I think you're bound to end up pissed off if you do. I got some bullshit treatment on one wiki site and since then I've stuck to reading the sites and not editing. I've found wookieepedia very useful. That's not to say I agree with all their policies and attitudes.

As I am one who doesn't ever feel the need to punch up the wookiepedia, may I ask what is useful about it?

I use it so I can point out how crazy the EU is, since WP tries to combine nearly EVERY source as canon, from "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" to the Marvel Comics to "Heir to the Empire" and "The Glove of Darth Vader, all the way to the latest comic.

Well, it's trying to go by the canon policy of Lucasfilm and Lucasfilm includes all that stuff as canon.

xhonzi said:

I think most, if not all, SciFi is allegory.  At least the good stuff is.  But it is subtle.  Once you get up on the soapbox and start pointing fingers, it loses its effect.

Yes. And also, some people are under the mistaken impression that the allegory part is what gives a work its value. Science fiction is supposed to be art. Art is about our deeper selves, thus emotion and imagination and the unconscious mind. Political discussion is not the purpose of art nor is it what makes art worthwhile.

The first Iron Man film was ok. Downey is a good actor, though I think he's a weird choice for Stark. Shawn Taub was good. Jeff Bridges was good. But I was pissed off about Samuel L Jackson being Nick Fury. I think it's racist to change the race of a character, at least if the character is well-established, important and popular. I like Jackson (outside of Star Wars, that is) and I think his performance in Black Snake Moan was oscar-worthy, but Nick Fury isn't black. I mean, people would (rightly) be pretty pissed off if they cast a white woman as Storm of the X-Men and I don't see how this is any different. I think Sam Rockwell is pretty weird casting for Justin Hammer, but I guess they have no interest in being faithful to the comics in this. Scarlett Johansson isn't my idea of Black Widow, but I don't have any objection to her doing the role (whereas I found Sam Rockwell fucking annoying in the last film I saw him in).

Somebody mentioned The Rise of the Silver Surfer. Wasn't that the second Fantastic Four film? I saw the first one and decided it was the dumbest shittiest superhero movie I'd ever seen (and that's saying something) and decided to watch no more Fantastic Four movies. Some really bad casting there. Fantastic Four was never Marvel's greatest property, but more could have been made of it than what they did. So many superhero movies are soundly disappointing.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

After our swearing debate, you posted a cartoon to mock me and then you pulled your "Queef" shit and I figured, what the hell, I've had enough of this guy's bullshit.

Fair enough. Doubt it'll mean much to you, but sorry about the "queef" comment, that was uncalled for. As for the picture, you said something along the lines of "I do what I want" and it really reminded me of that SP episode, so I posted that picture. I really wasn't meaning to insult you with it, but it was very dumb of me not to expect it to be construed that way, so I will apologise for that as well. You are right, I said I'd wouldn't pick on you in that PM, and I obviously slipped up on that one with the picture and the "queef" comment.

 Ok, I appreciate that apology.

ferris209 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Nanner Split said:

Vaderisnothayden has me on his ignore list. And because of one post where I made fun of one of his rants (I just quoted his post and replaced all the text with "BAWWWWW!")

You're misrepresenting what happened. You replaced my post text with a cartoon pic of a childlike rabbit wiping away tears while going "Bawww!" The implication being that that was what my posts amounted to and, more particularly, that that was what I amounted to, which was unprovoked personal insult. And it was such petty childish shit, which really didn't impress me. And you were joining in when I was already being ganged up on. I had done nothing to you and here you were joyfully engaging in kicking me while I was down. I saw no reason why I needed to pay attention to the posts of somebody who acted like that. I mean really, why should I bother with somebody who pulls that shit? So I put you on ignore and didn't bother responding to any of the three people (yourself included) who were giving me shit on the thread, with the end result that I was able to get the thread back on topic and it moved past the personal trouble.

But my whole point is VINH is that Nanner does that to EVERYONE!! He's posted various pictures in response to my rants. If he hadn't done that to you, at some point, then you'd certainly be the exception. I think you read way too much into the smallest things and take then too personal.

Well, there's posting pictures and there's posting pictures. This one was especially mocking. Also, when you come along when people are ganging up on someone and post pictures mocking them, it's reasonable to interpret it as hostile. And some of Nanner's behavior since then has supported that interpretation. And taking pot shots at someone who's being ganged up on is an especially low thing, no matter how much one may post pictures to mock other people. And I don't think it's taking things too personally to take personally something that amounts to a personal comment. I don't see how I'm reading anything into what Nanner did that isn't implied by what he did. If he doesn't want his actions to be interpreted as hostile he should avoid mocking people who are being kicked and ganged up on. And I really don't see how unprovoked personal mockery counts as such a small thing. As far as I'm concerned, personal comments against a poster who hasn't attacked you at some point are totally unacceptable and crossing a crucial line.

Nanner Split said:

Vaderisnothayden has me on his ignore list. And because of one post where I made fun of one of his rants (I just quoted his post and replaced all the text with "BAWWWWW!")

You're misrepresenting what happened. You replaced my post text with a cartoon pic of a childlike rabbit wiping away tears while going "Bawww!" The implication being that that was what my posts amounted to and, more particularly, that that was what I amounted to, which was unprovoked personal insult. And it was such petty childish shit, which really didn't impress me. And you were joining in when I was already being ganged up on. I had done nothing to you and here you were joyfully engaging in kicking me while I was down. I saw no reason why I needed to pay attention to the posts of somebody who acted like that. I mean really, why should I bother with somebody who pulls that shit? So I put you on ignore and didn't bother responding to any of the three people (yourself included) who were giving me shit on the thread, with the end result that I was able to get the thread back on topic and it moved past the personal trouble.

xhonzi said:

I'm not on his yet.  I usually don't say much to him because I feel there is little point trying to convince him that he's in the wrong.  But he and I got into it a little in one of my threads.  I'm tempted to put him on ignore, but I do think he has valid opinions.  Even though he's usually a jerk whilst giving them.

I don't think stating things with feeling or defending one's views equate with being a jerk. We got into it on that thread because we had very different ideas of what that thread was supposed to be. It seemed to me that you were changing the topic and purpose of the thread halfway through. Of course, to you it just seemed like I was wrecking your thread. Whereas I felt I was keeping within bounds of the sort of discussion the thread allowed. You felt the thread's discussion assumed acceptance of certain points, whereas I saw no such thing.  I was sorry to get into conflict with you, because you had seemed one of the more civilized people here. As a result of that, I tried to be restrained when pointing out how I felt you'd crossed a line. I felt, and I continue to feel, that making critical personal comments about a poster is wrong except if you're doing it to somebody who's attacked you in some way. But I'm sorry if I unintentionally fucked up your thread.

I usually don't say much to him because I feel there is little point trying to convince him that he's in the wrong.

By in the wrong do you mean mistaken in views? Like about Star Wars or films or something? Because people certainly seem to feel it's ok to tell me my views are mistaken (and they're right in that, there's nothing wrong with telling anybody their views are mistaken), but I find that some people find it terribly offensive if I return the favor and try to tell somebody else their view is mistaken by debating with their reasoning. Also, I find that some people seem to find it offensive if I defend my views. If somebody comes along and tries to prove my view is mistaken and I respond by trying to prove their view is mistaken and that mine is in fact not mistaken, somehow what they do is considered ok but what I do is not.   

C3PX said:

Bumpin' our unofficial "Ignore List Discussion" forum.

VINH added me to his ignore list, I guess because I offended him by disagreeing with him, then offended him even more by pointing out that he was offended just because I disagreed with him after he specifically mentioned my disagreement with him in an argument trying to prove that he doesn't get offended when people disagree with him, despite the fact that everyone at OT.com seems to think he does (obviously, they are just ganging up on him to be mean).

From the looks of things, sounds like he has every regular poster other than Don Gaffer on his ignore list (bet he gets tired of clicking all those "Show Post" buttons all the time). I've actually often enjoyed having him around, but you have to walk on egg shells around the poor guy. I work with kids with these kinds of disabilities all day, kind of a relief not to have to deal with it around here too.

 

There are plenty people who are not on my ignore list. Not everybody here is incapable of controlling themselves. As for you, I didn't put you on my ignore list for disagreeing with me. I don't put people on ignore just for disagreeing with my views. I put you on ignore for popping up after my post and going "Queef!" It was misogynistic of you and and I had been ready to put you ignore for quite a while, due to your various insults and putdowns which kept coming even after you PMed me to tell me you'd quit giving me shit. I mean, I had been asking myself for quite a while "Why don't I put this guy on ignore already?" and it was because I felt that way about you that I was impatient with you in the swearing debate. After our swearing debate, you posted a cartoon to mock me and then you pulled your "Queef" shit and I figured, what the hell, I've had enough of this guy's bullshit.

trying to prove that he doesn't get offended when people disagree with him, despite the fact that everyone at OT.com seems to think he does

Don't equate yourself and few friends with everybody. The problem seems to be that you and various others mistake strong disagreement with getting offended. If I feel strongly about a point I will be emphatic in how I express my disagreement. That is not meant as anything against the person with whom I'm disagereeing and nor does it mean I am in any way offended. When I get genuinely offended it's usually because somebody has gotten in some way personally offensive or rude. It's their crossing that line that offends me, not their disagreeing with me. The claim that I get offended by people disagreeing with me is bullshit and it's not made any more true if a number of people share the same mistaken view, anymore than the world was made flat by the fact that a lot of people once thought it was. 

Disappointing to hear that Avatar did so well. Doesn't say much for the intelligence of moviegoers, who should reject this gimmick-selling preachathon insult to the human race. Well, I haven't seen it and won't.

I don't agree with the view that Ford did a bad job in ROTJ. He did the best performance in the film. He was a joy to watch. He didn't have as much to do of interest as he had in the previous two films, but he made excellent use of what he was given.

vote_for_palpatine said:

The most sophisticated defenders of the PT are those who praise it by association - and Bob Clark's review of TPM drops big names in cinema and references all sorts of important social issues. The meaning is plain: "If George Lucas can deal with such meaningful topics in his films, you must understand that these are important pieces of work." What a brazen attempt to attach gravitas to such a lightweight movie.

I agree. Anybody can stick Big Topics into a work of art. But it's supposed to be a work of art, therefore the movie has to do more than just bring up big topics. It has to make you FEEL something about them. And the prequels are no good at that, unless "Wtf is Yoda doing bouncing around howling?!!!" counts.

Also, as for discussion of big issues, there's no discussion in the prequels that's particularly intelligent. The prequels have a lot more pretensions to intelligence than the OT but ultimately they're dumber.

It's a damn useful site. I don't get into trying to edit stuff on sites like that. I think you're bound to end up pissed off if you do. I got some bullshit treatment on one wiki site and since then I've stuck to reading the sites and not editing. I've found wookieepedia very useful. That's not to say I agree with all their policies and attitudes.

In Star wars, knowing what planet something is on is knowing where it is. Not knowing where Jabba is is not knowing what plenet he's on.

SilverWook said:

That's a pretty good point, zombie84! I don't think even the Marvel comics in between films ever specified the location of Jabba's base of operations. And Lucasfilm was keeping an eye on those if only to make sure they didn't unintentionally do a plotline similar to the sequels.

The story in the Marvel comics was the search for Solo. They were looking for Han because they didn't know where he was.

zombie84 said:

Actually, you know not many people pick up on this, but near as I can tell, Jabba was not based on Tatooine at the time ESB was made, and none of the heroes knew where he was.

Think about it: Lando says, they'll find Han, and sets off to do so. Why would they need to do this if Jabba is just sitting around on Tatooine?

Luke says they'll meet on Tatooine--but he doesn't say that this is to rescue Han. Its just a rendevouz point. Its out of the way, and Luke's old haunting ground. Lando is taking off to get a head start on tracking down Han, and in a few days time they are going to have a secret meeting on Tatooine to regroup.

Jabba is on Tatooine in ANH, but that's because its a spaceport and he had to track Han there to shake him down for money; there's nothing that indicates he was indiginous to there, anymore than Greedo was. They just had been able to trace Han while he had a brief stopover. Because if Han was trying to avoid Jabba for fear of his life, why would he be hanging out around the corner when the entire galaxy was open to him? That's what makes the Jabba element in ANH so unexpected to him, that even when he's hiding out in a remote desert planet his debtors still catch up with him.

It's interesting to consider the possibilities of the ESB climax, where Jabba is unknown and has to be tracked down, with a Tatooine rendevouz to regroup after Luke is healed.

Luke: I'll meet you at the rendevouz point on Tatooine...Good luck you two.

Lando: Princess, we'll find Han. I promise.

I've wondered about that. In the end of ESB it clearly sounds like they don't know where Jabba is. The mention of Tatooine there confuses the matter slightly, but nobody asks why Lando is wearing Han's clothes, except in Family Guy.

___________________________________

As for the topic of the thread, I don't see the point in nitpicking the logic of the OT. The OT WORKS. It just does, logical faults and all. So there's no need to kvetch over bad logic (this includes the Han rescue question). Save that logic nitpicking for the PT, which doesn't work. When a story convinces imaginatively and emotionally, it can survive logic faults, but when it doesn't, logic faults become a problem.

Anyway, I always figured Vader and the emperor were letting Luke develop by himself between ESB and ROTJ because they figured that development would benfit them. Like as if Vader had sown the seeds of the dark side in Luke in ESB and they would grow and bring Luke back to them or they could pick him up when he was more developed in the direction they wanted.

beebech7117 said:

I've noticed at least one mistake that still remains in Star Wars Episode IV, and possibly another one.  In the Mos Eisley scene near the Cantina, I've noticed problems with shading direction, where for no reason the shade seems to change direction.  And in the Death Star in the control room, right after Leia leads Luke, Han and Chewie into a trash compactor, a storm trooper still bangs his helmet on the door on his way in.  I'm sure there's no way around it other than to completely redo that scene or possibly crop it to cut the open door out, but to the untrained eye, viewers barely even notice if even at all.  Just thought I'd let you know.

So what. These aren't problems. They don't need to be fixed. In fact it would be wrong to fix them.

Octorox said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I have not seen the film yet though the films message will be judged by me if its applicability or pure allegory.  I dislike pure allegory usually in fantasy fiction.

As for a sci fi film actually having some plot, meaning and feeling and a message that should have been what Star Trek should have been instead of a remake of starship troopers/star wars.  This to me has the chance of being the second good sci film of the year the other was District 9. Star Trek was nothing but sights and sounds lacking any subtance, lens flares and shaky cam, pure eye candy aka junk.  Good action film it may have been Star Trek it was not.

Star Trek has really always more about the characters than the science fiction, and while there has definitely been much more cerebral Star Trek, I think Abrams captured the series' essence perfectly. Like the original Star Wars it's NOT all flash and effects, It also has great characters and a solid story. By your logic Star Wars was also junk. I'm sure the next Star Trek film will have a message but for the first one it would have been too much to have a message, reset the continuity, introduce the characters, do the origin story, liven up the action and "sexiness" of the series all at the same time. Now that all that stuff is out of the way, the next one can have more of a message.

 I can do without the message.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It's patently absurd to say I attack anyone who has the slightest difference of opinion. I do nothing of the sort. There are certain people I will be less patient with due to past troubles (such as C3PX, on this thread)...

Wait a minute... what did I do "on this thread"?

Oh yeah, that's right! I disa-fuckin'-greed with you in the whole "cursing debate". Hell of a way to defend your position V.

You misunderstand. I wasn't saying you'd done something on this thread, I was saying that on this thread you were an example of somebody who'd previously given me trouble elsewhere and who were thus being treated with less than full patience by me. You've done plenty against me on previous threads, even after saying you'd quit doing stuff against me. My patience has been sorely tried by your sneering at me again and again. So when you came along and started getting repressive over swearing I lost patience and allowed myself to speak pretty freely to you as I felt was necessary to explain my point. Basically, I didn't compromise my argument by censoring myself for the sake of diplomacy, that censorship being something I would have done were I dealing with somebody who hadn't annoyed the shit out of me with personal offense crap in the past. 

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden, you correct.  This is not a sports thread.  But the thread this discussion originally started in, was a sports thread.   It was started in the "I've said it before and I'll say it again: College Football Needs a playoff system" thread.   Please read it to see how the discussion began.    

The other thread isn't relevant. This is a new thread, thus a new discussion.

The stuff Frink said in response to your post, didn't seem that bad to me.  He even said he has no problem with people who dislike sports.

 

The fact that he felt the need to say that implied a certain tension. It's not a neutral or even conciliatory statement. It's "I don't mind people not liking sports so you shouldn't mind people liking sports." Which didn't need to be said. And in the context, saying he didn't mind people not liking sports almost implies the opposite to what it sounds like it's saying. People often say the direct opposite of what they feel in conversation.

He felt the need to defend liking sports, as if my post was an attack on liking sports. And I didn't appreciate my post being interpreted that way. I thus expressed exasperation at the tendency people have to get defensive just because you say you don't like something.

You did ask "who cares?"   That was worth responding too.  

 

No, I did not ask who cares. Look at my original post. There's no question mark at the end. I was not asking a question. The who cares was a rhetorical statement that was an expression of the fact that I didn't care. Look carefully at my original post. The whole post leading up to that is solely about my attitude towards sports, about how I feel. The who cares was the end of a statement on how I didn't care. The actual phrase was "but as it is, it's just like who cares", as in that's how I felt about it. There was no question in that. I was not asking who cared, nor was I saying nobody cared, nor was I saying nobody should care or that people were wrong to care.

Giving what this thread is about, I don't see what is so wrong with someone trying to say why he likes sports and why its ok to watch them.

But that's not what he did. What he did was get defensive and start trying to justify and basically imply that my post had said something it hadn't. The whole "I don't mind people not liking sports and you shouldn't mind people liking sports" that was implied in his statement was drawing boundary lines and adjucating tension, which was totally unnecessary. I didn't appreciate his unnecessarily defensive reaction.

I reread you post and can see that you certainly did not say it wasn't ok to watch sports.   Maybe what Frink said wasn't meant just for you was just to the anti-sports people in general.  In any case, its not worth any of us getting upset at each other.   So lets all calm down. 

I'm calm, but I'm not so sure Tv's Funk is. He seems to have a certain hostility towards me. While this discussion was going on here he was giving me a whole lot of very much personal trouble on another thread. Which was an aggravating factor in my reaction to his defensiveness here. Btw, I appreciate your conciliatory tone.

I wish they wouldn't portray Barriss Offee as such a submissive goody two shoes. I'm sick of all this jedi stiffness. Luminara is more of the same. I hope we aren't supposed to see these people as some sort of ideal.

.

xhonzi said:

Yes, I realize that we already had an Avatar thread and a Politics thread... but I didn't want to derail (as if this were possible) either one.

So, I had heard various reports of the amount of pro-liberal content in Avatar.  I mentioned a quote earlier in the Avatar and 3D thread that Cameron claimed he was trying to step lightly around the political pitfalls.

Having seen the movie this morning... he's flat out lying.  There are parts of this movie that are so oriented as to specifically evoke political controversy surrounding President George W. Bush and the current conflict in Middle East.

But let me take a step back.  I really wanted to like this movie, and I came pretty close.  I was aware of the hype and how distorted hype has effected me in the past and prevented me from enjoying an otherwise good movie.  I'm also a 3D nut, and have sat through- nay, enjoyed! some terrible movies just because they were in 3D.  I went in with guarded expectations and I felt the movie really won me over.  Until the 3rd act started.

It's really summed up in a couple lines from the characters.  Perhaps someone at fanedit will produce a "Tolerable for Conservatives or anyone else not drinking the Green Kool-Aid" edit.  Shouldn't be too hard to cut 5 lines of dialogue maybe.

Here's the dialogue:
The evil human's attack on the peaceful Na'vi is referred to as "some sort of 'shock and awe' tactic".  Obviously an referrence to the US and Ally's tactics in the Middle East.

The evil Colonel of the Marines tells the human soldiers that the Na'vi are about to attack them and that they must match "terror for terror."

Jake, disgusted that his fellow humans are not being patient enough with the Na'vi, throws a book on their culture down and says, "this is what humans do!  They find someone living on top of something they want, and they make them an enemy so they can take it!"  Seems a little too ripe of the theories that Bush staged 9-11 (or at least allowed it to happen) so that we could go to war and make oil prices.... go up?

And finally:
Jake tells the "Gaia" like spirit that is the God of the Na'vi people... that there is no green left on Earth and that the people there killed their mother and that he needs to stop them from doing the same thing here.

There's also one more shot of when the evil humans are scrambling to their fighters that shows this incredible dense brown smog hanging over their compound.  And there are about 28 smoke stacks billowing in the background.  Just in case you didn't get it.

What did I miss?

I think it's really a shame.  Technically, it's all there.  The movie is well acted, the CG is superb, I enjoyed the 3D quite a bit.  The music is moving, the action is exciting, and the characters are compelling.  If Cameron could have simply avoided using it as soapbox to bash George W. Bush (the election of which caused Cameron to cancel his application for US citizenship) it would have been totally great.

I admire you, my liberal friends, for you probably enjoyed the movie with little exception.

Now if Global Warming weren't a total crock.

I don't think global warming is a total crock. Whether we can really do anything about it is another question, but I do think we should try. That said, I understand the urge to react against all the trendy shouting about the matter. 

Your report on Avatar is interesting. It sounds much as I expected. A film drowning in self-satisfied poltical bullshit. It's amazing how people can still continue to view the Iraq war as the US going to invade Iraq for oil (that tired cliche) and as the US then killing all the Iraqis who have died there. There are so many obvious reasons why Bush and co might have wanted to go into Iraq other than oil. And the fact remains that what the US did was liberate Iraq from an oppressive dictatorship under a GENOCIDAL dictator. As a result there were democratic elections in Iraq. The US created hope for a bright new future for Iraq. And the terrorists vandalized that. That last is the crucial point that many left-wingers like to forget. That the terrorists played a part and are the actual people who have made Iraq the mess it has become. That it wasn't all the US. The terrorists were the ones who killed all those Iraqis and the US troops there been PROTECTING the Iraqis from them. And pulling out of Iraq is leaving the Iraqi people to the mercy of the terrorists. I can't understand liberals who claim to care about the Iraqi people but want the US to pull out of Iraq and abandon them. Though I can certainly understand the urge to pull out Iraq, considering how hard the war has been for the US. So Hollywood spouts trendy brainless cliches to sell a big event movie. Watch The Hurt Locker instead. That film shows some of the horror in Iraq without beating you over the head with poorly thought-out political cliches. 

Also, I am sick of fiction that goes on about how awful the human race is while showing how some alien species is so much better. We are all human and we should have some respect for the human race, despite its faults. This contempt for humanity is disgusting. And if some alien species is as much like us as such alien races have to be to be portrayed as relatable, then that alien species would share our faults. Lets have the non-whitewashed version of the Navi. I bet that really "what humans do" they do too, all the conquest and war and bloodshed. Come on Mr Cameron, let's have the real story of the Navi. Fat chance of us seeing that, because that would require some complexity and intelligence and we're not going to get that in a film like this.