EPTJames Cameron's AVATAR series - Page 75
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Dave[9]
United States2365 Posts
| ||
|
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
On January 20 2010 06:58 Dave[9] wrote: NO ITS REAL, DONT LIE TO ME </3 I want ShcShc to Tell me How Good and Powerful avatar is!!!!!! | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 20 2010 07:00 Romance_us wrote: I want ShcShc to Tell me How Good and Powerful avatar is!!!!!! I think its one of Cameron's weaker movies from a cinematic viewpoint. I think this is one of most powerful propaganda film in decades from a cultural phenomenon viewpoint. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
On January 20 2010 11:49 ShcShc wrote: I think its one of Cameron's weaker movies from a cinematic viewpoint. I think this is one of most powerful propaganda film in decades from a cultural phenomenon viewpoint. I don't see how a movie can be bad from a cinematic viewpoint and then good in changing peoples minds on a certain issue. Usually people aren't swayed by something that doesn't look very good. | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
On January 19 2010 18:01 Seraphim wrote: Not when there's a bunch of other stuff to make up for it. A bunch of other stuff being one thing: Awesome effects. That's all Avatar has: absolutely amazing special effects and 3D. Some people just really aren't awed by that, so it's actually perfectly understandable that Avatar has next to nothing to offer them. | ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
| ||
|
SR423
United States15 Posts
| ||
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 20 2010 11:56 Ecrilon wrote: A bunch of other stuff being one thing: Awesome effects. Incredibly fleshed out world. Scientific accuracy. Meaningful message. Great pacing. Engaging and conflicted characters. Alien sex etc.... | ||
|
iloahz
United States964 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 20 2010 11:52 Saturnize wrote: I don't see how a movie can be bad from a cinematic viewpoint and then good in changing peoples minds on a certain issue. Usually people aren't swayed by something that doesn't look very good. Shc's been trying to peddle the theory that because the movie is immensely simplistic (and moronic) in its rhetoric, it becomes much easier for the masses to swallow. Hence, its propaganda value. Except, there is never anything good about propaganda. The ends don't justify the means. Saying that it's ok to use propagandist tactics because it's for a noble cause is the epitome of evil. | ||
|
TealLurker
United States791 Posts
On January 20 2010 11:52 Saturnize wrote: I don't see how a movie can be bad from a cinematic viewpoint and then good in changing peoples minds on a certain issue. Usually people aren't swayed by something that doesn't look very good. And yet this is the reasoning he gave me for why Avatar is a better film than Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, and The Hurt Locker. It's a weak cinematic film, but it's effectiveness in propaganda nullifies that and therefore makes it's somehow better than the aforementioned films I listed. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 20 2010 11:52 Saturnize wrote: I don't see how a movie can be bad from a cinematic viewpoint and then good in changing peoples minds on a certain issue. Usually people aren't swayed by something that doesn't look very good. Lol. Don't you get it? Don't you get why the message was so "in your face"? In 10-15 years, we're going to be facing the problems that Avatar is trying to expose at the moment. This is obvious to James Cameron, to most of the scientists in the world, etc... And here we are still debating whether climate change is real when there are just so many other problems that will come not too long from now. What we are living now is not sustainable. Avatar is trying to help get the pro-environment group moving faster or at least influence the next generation. For "just a movie", it has wonderfully succeeded. I'm going sound a little pretentious, but we're going go through major major changes in our lifestyle for better or worse in 5-10 years. Take what my word is worth (whether you think what I say is bs or not, I don't really care), but the evidences seem a tad' overwhelming by now. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 20 2010 11:56 Ecrilon wrote: A bunch of other stuff being one thing: Awesome effects. That's all Avatar has: absolutely amazing special effects and 3D. Some people just really aren't awed by that, so it's actually perfectly understandable that Avatar has next to nothing to offer them. not true for some people the story, plot, and whole experience was amazing for others it wasn't simple as that | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 20 2010 13:13 TealLurker wrote: And yet this is the reasoning he gave me for why Avatar is a better film than Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, and The Hurt Locker. It's a weak cinematic film, but it's effectiveness in propaganda nullifies that and therefore makes it's somehow better than the aforementioned films I listed. First, that's just my opinions (other people will argue otherwise). I give my truthful assessment of it. Second, Avatar has the most relevant message out of all of them. Talk to your high school teachers or even elementary, the message is reaching out to them. We just say "oh we've seen this story a thousand times", but truth is, nobody seems to care about the environment. Heck, even I don't care enough to truly make a dramatic lifestyle change. The industry follows the public- the public gets influenced by the media such as Avatar. Influence the public and you'l influence the industry. Who is Avatar truly targeting in terms of its message? The younger generations. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
and really is anyone really going to choose to go live in the forest like a bunch of aborigines? And how many people in the world will be able to live like that - maybe 100 million at most? I rather thought that Avatar is using the environmental movement to make money rather than acting as a good objective promotion of it. Having an exaggerated portray is probably going to end up hurting the environmental movement in the long run because none of the ideas portrayed as the ideal are remotely feasible, and the backlash to that will be in the opposite direction. It's unfortunate but it might get some people to try jump into really stupid unsustainable green investments when a more steady, methodical, and prudent approach would be better. But such is the world we live in. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 20 2010 13:32 TanGeng wrote: lol, climate is achangin' and really is anyone really going to choose to go live in the forest like a bunch of aborigines? And how many people in the world will be able to live like that - maybe 100 million at most? I rather thought that Avatar is using the environmental movement to make money rather than acting as a good objective promotion of it. Having an exaggerated portray is probably going to end up hurting the environmental movement in the long run because none of the ideas portrayed as the ideal are remotely feasible, and the backlash to that will be in the opposite direction. It's unfortunate but it might get some people to try jump into really stupid unsustainable green investments when a more steady, methodical, and prudent approach would be better. But such is the world we live in. Try this one. Turn off the lights when not using them. Or recycle. Or bike to work. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 20 2010 13:32 TanGeng wrote: lol, climate is achangin' and really is anyone really going to choose to go live in the forest like a bunch of aborigines? And how many people in the world will be able to live like that - maybe 100 million at most? I rather thought that Avatar is using the environmental movement to make money rather than acting as a good objective promotion of it. Having an exaggerated portray is probably going to end up hurting the environmental movement in the long run because none of the ideas portrayed as the ideal are remotely feasible, and the backlash to that will be in the opposite direction. It's unfortunate but it might get some people to try jump into really stupid unsustainable green investments when a more steady, methodical, and prudent approach would be better. But such is the world we live in. heh I think that's how a lot and a lot of people are thinking. This isin't about living in a forest, but having a society that is at least sustainable in the medium-term. We are using 120-140% more resources than nature can replenish and we are using more resources every year (I believe the 80s were around 95-100%). What its trying to say is "Be smart when using the resources". or the whole shareholder part of the movie. Its true. Corporation CEOs are not all bad, but the shareholder system forces corporations to make these sometimes hainous decisions. Anyway, again, take my word for it. You're still going think "its all bs" because it takes more than just a TL post to truly convince someone. But I did think like you probably 3-4 years ago; the whole "the green movement is stupid". And as someone who is studying in Business, I do agree there's a lot of questionable moves, but the hard fact is that we can't live the way we are now for another 10-15 years. Heck, oil is already soon peaking and would have peaked if it wasn't for the economic meltdown. What the hell do we do if oil demand goes up? | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 20 2010 13:34 Archerofaiur wrote: Try this one. Turn off the lights when not using them. Or recycle. Or bike to work. ha. unfortunately, its much much more than that. If we were truly want to help the environment for real (and not just feel better for ourselves), its going to imply dramatic lifestyle changes such as cutting air traveling to a strict minimal. If things like oil can't meet its demand, there's also talks about having domestically grown resources than the globalization trades we are having. No idea if that is effective at all, but we really don't have a plan if we run through an oil crisis. I don't think we are going to make any dramatic lifestyle changes until we feel an actual catastrophe happens. But its going to be big. We don't have any alternative energy sources. The projected 20% wind-power by 2025 is really optimistic because we can't even freaking get the right infrastructures correctly. Anyway, again. Take my words what its worth (if you think its worthless, that's fine). Edit: And one last thing: Scientists have been wrong in the past about some of their "catastrophic" predictions. In the 70s, it was predicted that we were entering an ice age. Definitely laughable from today's viewpoint. So who knows, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
On January 20 2010 13:22 ShcShc wrote: Lol. Don't you get it? Don't you get why the message was so "in your face"? In 10-15 years, we're going to be facing the problems that Avatar is trying to expose at the moment. This is obvious to James Cameron, to most of the scientists in the world, etc... And here we are still debating whether climate change is real when there are just so many other problems that will come not too long from now. What we are living now is not sustainable. Avatar is trying to help get the pro-environment group moving faster or at least influence the next generation. For "just a movie", it has wonderfully succeeded. I'm going sound a little pretentious, but we're going go through major major changes in our lifestyle for better or worse in 5-10 years. Take what my word is worth (whether you think what I say is bs or not, I don't really care), but the evidences seem a tad' overwhelming by now. Just my 2 cents. Well the movie was so "in my face" because it was a good movie in the first place. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
| ||
