| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
I don't think anybody seriously said this movie was the best ever, to the guy calling these nonexistant people assholes. but it is guaranteed to usher in a new age of films where hopefully, stunning, immersive visuals and complex plot/good script can be combined. The only thing i really had a problem with was the script, the soldier saying "Get some!" RAPED my suspension of disbelief, as well as other moments. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On December 28 2009 19:38 Promises wrote: The plot has been told a million times before. Is this necesarily a bad thing? No, if its a timeless story it can be told again. The plot has a high Disney-level. Is this necesarily a bad thing? No, its a fairly simplistic moralistic story but this doesnt have to be a bad thing. The dialogue is horrible and then movie is utterly and completely predictable in everything it does. Is this necesarily a bad thing? Yeah. Tollerance stops somewhere, and it would've been very easy to polish up the conversations, quotes and to make the story a bit more interesting, which they didnt even seem to try to do. Are the visuals good enough to still make it a movie worth watching? Very much so. Is this a 10/10 movie? No. A 10/10 movie has good dialogue and isn't predictable in this way, and to say otherwise is giving a whole new meaning to 10/10. One of the few sensible posts i've read in this thread. (rhyme unintentional) Original movies can be pretty bad and unorignal movies can be pretty good. That said, while Avatar is an unoriginal movie it's also pretty average because of it's many flaws and technical mediocrity. (Not Graphics technical but the actual Directing skill involved) It Never had any actual great scenes apart from the awesome camera shot of the space ship at the start. It didn't have anything special like the panning sequence in the club in the movie goodfellas, or the "you talking to me?" scene in Taxi driver. Avatar was just dull. I've seen it all before and the graphics arn't amazing either. In fact they are shit compared to what you'll see in 10 years time anyway. Also yeah the dialogue was atrocious and the colonel character was laughably overdone to the point where i couldn't tell if they were taking the piss. He didn't ruin the movie for me though, in fact that overdone character kind of boosted it for me. Anyway, anyone praising Avatar needs to go watch Aliens if they havn't already, because it's a much better action movie from james cameron | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
On December 28 2009 19:43 BanZu wrote: The funny thing is, I don't even think about all the crap that you just wrote up. It's entertaining, good enough for me lmfao. You talk about messages being rammed down your throat. So let me guess this straight, you get your moral substance and beliefs through movies? Where did I say I get my moral substance and beliefs from movies? Nice assumption. Come on, you've got to be kidding me. I didn't even give a thought about the messages Okay well obviously you're the wrong person to be entering into a debate about why a movie should be considered a masterpiece when you've confessed you haven't bothered to analyze it in the slightest. "Human expansionism is bad, destroying the environment is bad, corporate greed is bad". And you also say that the movie never tells you why it's bad. Are you that fucking stupid? You need someone to explain that to you? I shouldn't even be surprised considering the fact that you find a movie to be propaganda. Actually, yes, it would be nice to see the movie try to justify its moral views. Let's see, imagine ourselves in the situation we find humans depicted in Avatar. Our natural resources of Earth have been depleted. If we do not seek alternate resources, many of us will perish. Why is seeking resources bad? That is why we went to Pandora. The Na'vi seek resources as do we: They hunt and kill their local wildlife for food. How is that OK but what we're doing is not? These are questions that should be considered before you create a movie with such an obvious bias against humans. Corporate expansion could be considered bad and the reason that Earth is in the situation it finds itself in, however it is also the chief driving force behind our economy and the reason why we live in a prosperous society and why we are technologically in a position to choose whether or not we conquer a race such as the Na'vi. It is the reason that medicine has advanced as far as it has, and why the human life expectancy has increased steadily over the last few centuries to over 80 years. It is the reason that equipment exists for James Cameron to even shoot this film in the first place. However, what James Cameron is essentially saying through the message of Avatar is that we should stop all of these things entirely. Where would that leave us? Living in the jungle like the Na'vi or native Africans? Living at the mercy of the environment and its wild creatures? Would we then be justified in destroying certain aspects of it in order to survive ourselves? If we lived like the Na'vi do, would it be possible that one day we find ourselves in their position and having to defend against a hypothetically technologically superior African invasion? I hope you realize I'm not pro expansionism, consumerism, and destroying the environment. I'm not a racist, I don't believe we are superior to Africans. What I believe doesn't come into the equation. My point is, a 150 minute movie which preaches such a shallow, ill considered stance on these issues is not worthy of being considered a masterpiece. The movie never attempts to even explore the idea of a middle ground on these issues. What if the Na'vi had consented to having some of their planet mined of unobtanium, but that their Home Tree remains untouched? The movie preaches about how the Na'vi believes in the circle of life, how life energy which is borrowed must eventually be repaid: Why doesn't James Cameron set up a scenario where the Na'vi agree to allow limited mining? It makes sense in the context of their cultural beliefs of balance in life. If the humans then said "no, we don't want a fraction of your ore: We want it all" and proceed to destroy the Na'vi, then I could understand and accept the anti-human message. But as it stands, it is the Humans who tried desperately to come to a diplomatic solution with the Na'vi, yet they staunchly refused to negotiate at all. However, the movie sweeps this under the carpet: It never treats the Na'vi's stubbornness as a potential issue worth considering, when it could present an insight on the perils of being too stubborn vs the potential benefits of sticking to ones beliefs. Maybe you should be the one growing a spine because apparently you can't handle it when a movie (lmao) "presents" a message. Yes I'm sure you felt very empowered and witty when you wrote this line. You even managed to place a word in inverted commas. However, you need some substance and meaning behind words before stringing them together to form a sentence that conveys purposeful meaning, which yours does not. | ||
|
Ganfei
Taiwan1439 Posts
| ||
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
| ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
On December 28 2009 21:27 LilClinkin wrote: Actually, yes, it would be nice to see the movie try to justify its moral views. Let's see, imagine ourselves in the situation we find humans depicted in Avatar. Our natural resources of Earth have been depleted. If we do not seek alternate resources, many of us will perish. Why is seeking resources bad? That is why we went to Pandora. The Na'vi seek resources as do we: They hunt and kill their local wildlife for food. How is that OK but what we're doing is not? These are questions that should be considered before you create a movie with such an obvious bias against humans. how are the actions the humans take that different from the reality of our nature? its an old story, natural resources bringing a stronger/more advanced people who steadily amp up the pressure on the indigenous if they resist. there was a natural progression in the movie, from diplomacy to war, and yes there was this three month time line presented by the movie but who knows how long the humans had been on pandora mining unobtanium and attempting to find a diplomatic solution with the navi. as selfridge said, they tried giving food/medicine/knowledge to the navi, and nothing was working. sure he called them blue monkeys but he had a job to do and de-humanizing the humanoid natives was a way for him to try to soften the blow of the decision he had to make. and were the navi really presented as better than us? they were racist towards jake upon first meeting him, they expelled the only link they had (grace) to the new aliens on their planet, deciding instead isolationism was preferable to learning. they led attacks on the humans, and didn't seem bothered one bit that their actions were putting them on the brink of war with an alien race they willfully refused to understand. people like to say the colonel and selfridge are examples of how cameron vilified the humans, but honestly the colonel was doing the job he was paid for and selfridge was obviously conflicted about the decisions he was making. when he saw home tree burning to the ground, was he jumping for joy, or even smiling? he just unlocked the richest pocket of unobtanium in the area, wouldn't he be popping champagne bottles and partying down? to me he looked shocked, understandably so. all of it could have been prevented if the navi had been even slightly more willing to learn and deal with humans. Corporate expansion could be considered bad and the reason that Earth is in the situation it finds itself in, however it is also the chief driving force behind our economy and the reason why we live in a prosperous society and why we are technologically in a position to choose whether or not we conquer a race such as the Na'vi. It is the reason that medicine has advanced as far as it has, and why the human life expectancy has increased steadily over the last few centuries to over 80 years. It is the reason that equipment exists for James Cameron to even shoot this film in the first place. However, what James Cameron is essentially saying through the message of Avatar is that we should stop all of these things entirely. Where would that leave us? Living in the jungle like the Na'vi or native Africans? Living at the mercy of the environment and its wild creatures? Would we then be justified in destroying certain aspects of it in order to survive ourselves? If we lived like the Na'vi do, would it be possible that one day we find ourselves in their position and having to defend against a hypothetically technologically superior African invasion? i disagree that cameron is suggesting we slow or reverse the march of technological progress. i think the core message he was trying to get across wasn't that technology was bad, forest good, but that being willfully ignorant can be incredibly destructive. the navi were willfully ignorant of what would happen if they stopped interacting with the sky people. how else could they justify shutting down grace's school and banning the "dreamwalkers" from their village? they knew the technology humans had was far advanced, and they knew the humans wanted to mine their planet, but instead of taking that and trying to learn to co-exist in an obviously brand new dichotomy on their planet, they recoiled and became aggressive (jake sees navi arrows sticking into the truck's tire at the beginning...). the navi didn't even try to mass up and repulse the humans, instead they just ignored the new problems their entire race was faced with entirely, when the gravity of the situation was quite evident to any species capable of higher learning and critical thinking... at least you'd think so right? the navi are not as morally and ethically squeaky clean as you'd think. they chose to live in ignorance, and it resulted in the deaths of countless navi and humans through war. even in the end when eywha<sp> sent waves of species to over run the humans, it was really as much the navi's fault that so many had to die as it was the humans. the willful ignorance of the humans is much easier to understand (cuz we're human! ;D). the planet had what we needed, unobtanium, and a bunch of other stuff that may or may not lead to some more interesting technological breakthroughs (drugs/medicine from new plants, a chance to study alien life, etc etc), but really the only thing of an concern was the mineral. the earth was dying, there was no green, but here was this other planet that could fix our problems (hence the name of the mineral). if selfridge and the humans had stopped to have a touchy feely discussion about the consequences of their actions, they'd be wasting precious mining time and it would only serve to make their jobs even harder. also since the human colony was a private venture (corporation) and not a government entity per se, selfridge really only had once sensible choice to make.. as i pointed out in an earlier post, if it takes ten years for light to travel from pandora to earth and back, how is that even a choice for him if the people even more removed from the situation than him would make the incredibly obvious choice of green lighting the tree's destruction, and probably send someone to replace him cuz he's obviously too incompetent at his post? again this character was conflicted (i saw it even if some people didn't), but he really had only one sensible option, as far as i could tell. close your eyes and pull the trigger! is he evil, and a villain? no, but was his course of action evil? perhaps, but so was the blind eye the navi turned to the humans, leaving selfridge with no options. he even let jake and grace try one last time after the colonel left to persuade the navi to leave. this had no effect on his mining operation whatsoever, the tree was coming down and that was that, but it could have saved lives. the good vs evil, technology vs. nature dilemma here is not as clear cut as some people like to think. its emotional watching the missiles bringing down home tree, but either side could have done a lot more to prevent it, like the navi being more open to learning about humans and their intentions. cameron doesn't want humanity to slow its technological progress, i bet if anything he'd love to see it speed up, but he does want people to stop and think, "is there a better way to do this?". that applies to the navi as well. The movie never attempts to even explore the idea of a middle ground on these issues. What if the Na'vi had consented to having some of their planet mined of unobtanium, but that their Home Tree remains untouched? The movie preaches about how the Na'vi believes in the circle of life, how life energy which is borrowed must eventually be repaid: Why doesn't James Cameron set up a scenario where the Na'vi agree to allow limited mining? It makes sense in the context of their cultural beliefs of balance in life. If the humans then said "no, we don't want a fraction of your ore: We want it all" and proceed to destroy the Na'vi, then I could understand and accept the anti-human message. But as it stands, it is the Humans who tried desperately to come to a diplomatic solution with the Na'vi, yet they staunchly refused to negotiate at all. However, the movie sweeps this under the carpet: It never treats the Na'vi's stubbornness as a potential issue worth considering, when it could present an insight on the perils of being too stubborn vs the potential benefits of sticking to ones beliefs. im not sure how the navi's circle of life approach applies to technologically advanced aliens landing on their planet. i thought the path they took was the one of least resistance, isolating themselves and turning a blind eye. the navi's stubbornness led them to losing their home, numerous violent deaths and into all out war with the humans. they did realize that they screwed themselves over - but it took the fall of home tree to do it. the shaman-lady navi cut jake and grace free, why, because she had forgiven them? she could have killed them on the spot, and left with her people and not given them a second thought. she cut them free because isolationism was not working and had obviously proved to be far too dangerous an ideal to embrace. her home was burning, and these human-navi people kept saying they wanted to help, but no one had listened. it was as much the navi's fault as the humans. if she hadn't seen the error of her people's ways, she would have killed the traitor-demons on the spot, instead she asked for help, and from some sky people. perhaps the first time a navi had done so? in the end you can look at what you didn't see on screen and assume it's not there, or you can apply a little logic and what comes out is a story that is more complex than people who criticize it like to admit. i'm not saying you have to like this movie, but while you may see it as a simple story with simple characters and a simple good vs evil message, that's not what everyone took away from it. you can be as critical as you want of the people who were wowed by the visuals and took little time to apply critical thinking to the story, but i'm not one of them. the visuals benefitted the movie of course, 3d was fun to look at, but i thought the story was better and more complex than people give cameron credit for. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
People are debating over what Cameron was thinking with this movie, which race did the 'right' thing and what the effects of their actions are. The real problem isn't his vision or beliefs (If he really had any) but the fact that there are too many RIGHTS and WRONGS in his movie, intentionally or unintentionally. And what's even worse, as LilClinkin was saying, it doesn't offer any explanation or perspective on ANYTHING despite being 3 hour. It's basically a long red line that doesn't change at all from its original pattern even once during the whole movie. I'm not talking about minor dialogues hinting that the home world is in bad shape, I'm talking about a real perspective upon the people, the different worlds, the aliens, the nature and everything. For that to work, it'd have to kill all the stereotypes that harm this movie. And if he doesn't want to offer that, why would he even include morals into the movie at all? On December 28 2009 21:40 Ganfei wrote: I think you got far larger problems than your overinflated head if you are "ashamed to be human" because some people like this movie, Shauni. I'm ashamed to be human, not because people like what I do not but because a majority of people who has seen it say it's one of the best movies they've seen and an obvious masterpiece. By saying that the people are literally throwing shit at the film industry. If I was a director I'd have killed myself by now. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
YOu think Starwars is perfect? No ofcourse not, you think lord of the rings is perfect? Hell no(especially the last movie ... Full of mistakes) YOu think the GODFATHER PART 1 WAS PERFECT? :o nope some plotlines there... Don't make sense. But that doens't take away from the fact that these are all movies considered, "must-see" etc etc It's a friggin movie... With THE NICEST FILMING I'VE EVER SEEN :o | ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
On December 29 2009 02:12 Shauni wrote: That the Na'vi were ignorant racists was expected due to the nature of this film. If they were welcoming or understanding from the start this movie would look completely different. Even a 3 year old would have expected this due to it being their home and not the human. Of course you could try to see 'good' sides in the human corp an 'evil' sides in the Na'vi, nobody argued that the Na'vi were perfect beings, but that they have the rights to their own home is very clearly portrayed in this movie. mainerd, your essay was long and interesting but it still hovers over the same simple subject which could have been summed up with just one of those paragraphs. People are debating over what Cameron was thinking with this movie, which race did the 'right' thing and what the effects of their actions are. The real problem isn't his vision or beliefs (If he really had any) but the fact that there are too many RIGHTS and WRONGS in his movie, intentionally or unintentionally. And what's even worse, as LilClinkin was saying, it doesn't offer any explanation or perspective on ANYTHING despite being 3 hour. It's basically a long red line that doesn't change at all from its original pattern even once during the whole movie. I'm not talking about minor dialogues hinting that the home world is in bad shape, I'm talking about a real perspective upon the people, the different worlds, the aliens, the nature and everything. For that to work, it'd have to kill all the stereotypes that harm this movie. And if he doesn't want to offer that, why would he even include morals into the movie at all? can you elaborate on the rights/wrongs? previous posters have been saying that the rights and wrongs in avatar are set in stone, and im not sure thats really true. there is moral ambiguity in both the humans and the aliens. i don't think you either have to have no morals and familiar characters/story, or a new story with very conceptual characters and morals. they are not mutually exclusive. widening the scope of the movie would have taken away from cameron's main focus, which was taking the audience out of familiarity. he did an excellent job of making a visually immersive film that at this point is quite unique in that sense. if he had included more back story about earth, the corporation, selfridge, the colonel and other characters & the aliens, it would have detracted from his main focus. did this make the movie a spectacle more than a thought provoking film, YES, but what you are asking for is a totally different movie with a totally different goal in mind. that said i don't believe you have to "shut of your brain" or go with the idea that the story will disappoint. if you read the numerous critical interpretations of cameron's story and his motives, you could go in to it expecting some liberal diatribe propaganda having to do with colonial guilt, american imperialism, or as some people would like you to think, racial guilt (ref. hotbid's post). the story is straight forward, and all i was really pointing out is that the characters on both sides were both guilty the crimes committed. it is not a clear cut case of good vs evil, tech vs nature, man vs alien as some people think. yah i wrote a lot to try to get that point across >.< | ||
|
TealLurker
United States791 Posts
On December 29 2009 02:42 DwmC_Foefen wrote: You people overanalyse... YOu think Starwars is perfect? No ofcourse not, you think lord of the rings is perfect? Hell no(especially the last movie ... Full of mistakes) YOu think the GODFATHER PART 1 WAS PERFECT? :o nope some plotlines there... Don't make sense. But that doens't take away from the fact that these are all movies considered, "must-see" etc etc It's a friggin movie... With THE NICEST FILMING I'VE EVER SEEN :o Nobody is saying those movies are perfect. I agree that those are must watch movies. If you think that Avatar is not without fault, then you are mistaken. It looks visually stunning, but it doesn't absolve it from any fault elsewhere in the movie. There is more to a movie than just the visuals like the cinematography, direction, acting, plot, etc. I like the movie, but I'm not going to go into hyperbole and claim this is the greatest movie ever. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
As for the villains of the movie, the two big ones are Miles Quaritch and Selfridge (what names!) The main villain is Quaritch, who had a military force and itched to use it and justify his existence or whatever. He showed visible disgust that Sully even mentions the idea of a diplomatic solution. This is a natural phenomenon of paying for a standing army. Sooner or later it gets used. When you have a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail. Everything started to look like it could use a military solution. Selfridge is singularly focused on mining the ore. He doesn't have any moral quandaries about violating the territorial rights of the natives. Nor does he try to understand the value of the stuff that he is bulldozing. It's not isolationism but the constant destruction of territorial property that drives the natives to reject the "sky people." This simple act in ignorance or in malice is wrong and the reason for the conflict. To blame the Navi for isolationism is simply crazy. Technology is not entirely negatively portrayed. The interstellar ship was beautiful. The technology of the avatar program was also depicted positively. It's everything else on Pandora that is portrayed negatively - the huge bulldozers, all of the military equipment, and the gas masks. It screamed that all those humans and all those machines didn't belong. | ||
Twisted
Netherlands13554 Posts
| ||
|
hixhix
1156 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.coderjournal.com/uploads/2008/05/duty_calls.png) | ||
|
GW.Methos
United States249 Posts
On December 29 2009 03:11 hixhix wrote: You kids have too much time arguing shit for nothing. this | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On December 29 2009 04:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Still think it's funny how retards are trying to argue their opinions as facts. I think you should try to see things from other people's perspectives before you name them 'retards'. Yes, basically everything in this thread is opinions and your counterarguments to almost any criticism of the movie is that ITS JUST OPINIONS RETARDS. How is that constructive, understanding or enlightening at all? Yes, all we have is our opinions and it's no use stating the obvious (the plain facts). Do we have to write 'I think' in every sentence not to offend you? | ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
On December 29 2009 02:57 TanGeng wrote: You imagined up some of your stuff, mainerd - made some assumptions that could not be made and ignored some factors to create the false idea of Navi isolationism. As for Avatar, its kind film is a high budget blockbuster. What production company is going to risk that kind of money on a creative, provocative, but untested script? As for the villains of the movie, the two big ones are Miles Quaritch and Selfridge (what names!) The main villain is Quaritch, who had a military force and itched to use it and justify his existence or whatever. He showed visible disgust that Sully even mentions the idea of a diplomatic solution. This is a natural phenomenon of paying for a standing army. Sooner or later it gets used. When you have a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail. Everything started to look like it could use a military solution. Selfridge is singularly focused on mining the ore. He doesn't have any moral quandaries about violating the territorial rights of the natives. Nor does he try to understand the value of the stuff that he is bulldozing. It's not isolationism but the constant destruction of territorial property that drives the natives to reject the "sky people." This simple act in ignorance or in malice is wrong and the reason for the conflict. To blame the Navi for isolationism is simply crazy. Technology is not entirely negatively portrayed. The interstellar ship was beautiful. The technology of the avatar program was also depicted positively. It's everything else on Pandora that is portrayed negatively - the huge bulldozers, all of the military equipment, and the gas masks. It screamed that all those humans and all those machines didn't belong. what is the alternative here? humans on expedition bring guns and tools to protect them from the environment. this is not negative, this is human nature. it's been true about explorers for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. you don't just sail to a new world with good tidings to keep your ass alive. even if the navi were peaceful, there were still giant alien tiger things that looked like they'd probably love to snack on a human. ive said it before, but ill say it again: james cameron chose the name unobtainum deliberately. it is what the humans need. you're right that selfridge's singular mindset was to get it. but it was not like he was an emotional husk of a man, and i don't agree he was a villain. if he had no moral quandaries, why was quaritch meeting him in his office and telling him he'd be humane? why did he look shocked at the the strike on the home tree? but if you felt his actions were without merit for SOMEONE (humanity), then i guess you could construe him as villainous. yes he talked about profits, but whats the alternative, having some crusade to acquire the mineral at out of pocket costs for his company to save the earth? that's nothing like human nature. if it's not isolationism, what is it? their territory is being destroyed, but they make no attempt to drive the humans from their land, not until jake joins their cause. they just get rid of their only way of communication with the humans, and slink around in the jungle basically pretending the humans weren't a problem while they were carving giant holes in pandora. they had an opportunity to learn from another sentient alien race and they tossed it aside in favor of hiding in the trees. turning a blind eye to your problems, especially as a people, is an isolationist view, and even more so when the problem is an "invasion" by someone. in the long run negotiations would have been counter productive. the humans would mine the precious mineral and keep moving/destroying whatever was on top of it. but the navi exacerbated the problem by ignoring it. more humans died, and more navi died, because they did not seriously consider the consequences of their actions. this wasn't some different, alien way of thinking, the film showed that the navi had a very humanlike concept of logic at times. were the humans wrong in going after the mineral in the first place? i don't think so, but that's just opinion. are the policies the humans adhered to to get unobtanium really that surprising and inconsistant with human nature? On December 29 2009 04:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Still think it's funny how retards are trying to argue their opinions as facts. anything that wasn't spelled out directly on screen is of course speculation. however i don't think i'm pushing a very unreasonable series of points here. and yes it is my opinion. :D | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On December 29 2009 04:45 Shauni wrote: I think you should try to see things from other people's perspectives before you name them 'retards'. Yes, basically everything in this thread is opinions and your counterarguments to almost any criticism of the movie is that ITS JUST OPINIONS RETARDS. How is that constructive, understanding or enlightening at all? Yes, all we have is our opinions and it's no use stating the obvious (the plain facts). Do we have to write 'I think' in every sentence not to offend you? I see things from your perspective, being an opinion of course. One isn't retarded for having an opinion that disagrees with mine, one is retarded when they believe their opinion to be factual and everyone elses to be "retarded". It's true most of this thread is opinion but I'm not arguing with opinions. I have no problem with people sharing opinions, whatever they may be. If anything, you're being hypocritical again calling me out on my lack of understanding or being constructive when you've been the one to insult others for having a different opinion than that of your own. Regarding my behavior, it's constructive and enlightening to those who view their opinions as facts because I'm hoping they can realize their errs and fix them, and stop being complete douchebags to anyone with a different opinion. Win-win situation for everyone. No you don't have to write "I think" in every sentence, you just don't have to write "I'm certain X", x being entirely subjective, and at least once in your thread something along the lines of "these plebians are completely retarded for believing Y" (y being an opinion). Also try not to stereotype against an entire country for starters, if you want to be constructive/understanding/enlightening that is. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 29 2009 04:47 mainerd wrote: what is the alternative here? humans on expedition bring guns and tools to protect them from the environment. this is not negative, this is human nature. it's been true about explorers for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. you don't just sail to a new world with good tidings to keep your ass alive. even if the navi were peaceful, there were still giant alien tiger things that looked like they'd probably love to snack on a human. ive said it before, but ill say it again: james cameron chose the name unobtainum deliberately. it is what the humans need. you're right that selfridge's singular mindset was to get it. but it was not like he was an emotional husk of a man, and i don't agree he was a villain. if he had no moral quandaries, why was quaritch meeting him in his office and telling him he'd be humane? why did he look shocked at the the strike on the home tree? but if you felt his actions were without merit for SOMEONE (humanity), then i guess you could construe him as villainous. yes he talked about profits, but whats the alternative, having some crusade to acquire the mineral at out of pocket costs for his company to save the earth? that's nothing like human nature. if it's not isolationism, what is it? their territory is being destroyed, but they make no attempt to drive the humans from their land, not until jake joins their cause. they just get rid of their only way of communication with the humans, and slink around in the jungle basically pretending the humans weren't a problem while they were carving giant holes in pandora. they had an opportunity to learn from another sentient alien race and they tossed it aside in favor of hiding in the trees. turning a blind eye to your problems, especially as a people, is an isolationist view, and even more so when the problem is an "invasion" by someone. in the long run negotiations would have been counter productive. the humans would mine the precious mineral and keep moving/destroying whatever was on top of it. but the navi exacerbated the problem by ignoring it. more humans died, and more navi died, because they did not seriously consider the consequences of their actions. this wasn't some different, alien way of thinking, the film showed that the navi had a very humanlike concept of logic at times. were the humans wrong in going after the mineral in the first place? i don't think so, but that's just opinion. are the policies the humans adhered to to get unobtanium really that surprising and inconsistant with human nature? anything that wasn't spelled out directly on screen is of course speculation. however i don't think i'm pushing a very unreasonable series of points here. and yes it is my opinion. :D That's isolationism? You mean consistently firing arrows the incoming bulldozers and forcing the mining expedition to deploy escort forces is isolationism? That's pretending humans aren't a problem? What do you expect natives to do in that situation? Keep diplomatic channels open, maintain normal relationship? Isn't that more pretending nothing is happening? Or perhaps the non-isolationist path would be all-out-war on first evidence of systematic trespassing and property destruction. Given what happened in the movie, the Navi might have been wiser to try something like that, but you're given the benefit of hindsight. As for Selfridge, do you really expect to walk onto somebody else's property, destroy what is there and then extract the resources that you want? Is it even plausible to deny that it isn't invading and stealing? That's what Selfridge is doing. He's invading and stealing. The only benefit of doubt that he gets is that he knows not the value of the trees he is destroying. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g6033 FrodaN2371 tarik_tv1112 elazer248 RotterdaM161 Pyrionflax116 ViBE84 Trikslyr64 Sick62 PPMD12 Liquid`Ken5 |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
WardiTV European League
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
