Avatar the movie

smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Avatar the movie

I saw Avatar opening night and was completely blown away. I highly recommend it.

I thought you folks might find this editorial interesting, as I did, because it discusses somewhat briefly some of the things I see going around in these forums:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?th&emc=th

Ryan


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
while the movie was indeed

while the movie was indeed entertaining, the humans made me -headdesk- a little to much

i also havent been this thoroughly impressed by movie graphics since the first Final Fantasy movie

What Would Kharn Do?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I saw it a few days ago in

I saw it a few days ago in 3D in a theatre with digital projection and a reasonably big screen.

I enjoyed it quite a lot, I would like to see it again.

I thought I noticed occasional flickering speckles of light around some fast action which didn't seem to be part of the action, but otherwise the 3D worked well.

I found the story reasonably engaging.

It was visually spectacular, even discounting the 3D.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:while

The Doomed Soul wrote:

while the movie was indeed entertaining, the humans made me -headdesk- a little to much

i also havent been this thoroughly impressed by movie graphics since the first Final Fantasy movie

I agree with you, the corporate greed thing was a little too over-the-top infuriating to be entirely believable.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I saw it a

BobSpence1 wrote:

I saw it a few days ago in 3D in a theatre with digital projection and a reasonably big screen.

I enjoyed it quite a lot, I would like to see it again.

I would too, if for no other reason but that I've heard that the 3D effects when seen on DVD are a bit disappointing at best.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I thought I noticed occasional flickering speckles of light around some fast action which didn't seem to be part of the action, but otherwise the 3D worked well.

You noticed that, too? What was that? It looked sort of like a lens flare to me but I couldn't figure it out.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It was visually spectacular, even discounting the 3D.

Really, the special effects were downright mind-boggling, IMHO.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 LMAO! Who changed the name

 LMAO! Who changed the name of my post? It is a Sci-Fi movie, is it not?

 

Why yes, yes it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm about to watch it

I'm about to watch it myself. Just needs to buffer. I'll comment after. No 3d, obviously, but I don't have the money for theatres right now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
It's just more bullshit

It's just more bullshit about how humans are an environmental liability. It's just enemy propaganda telling you that you're evil because you don't live in a tree like the fucking keebler elves and worship gaia. But environmentalists will eat as much shit as you put in front of them and beg for more "Oh, I want to die for the earth. Where do I sign up to be sterilized and live in a cave?" I think these videos sum it up quite succinctly:

 

 


Humans- Cool Cartoon!

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 I'm no radical raging

 I'm no radical raging environmentalist, but I thought the story was very nice anyway. Besides, even if you don't buy global warming, against all credible evidence, I fail to see how taking care of the planet we inhabit could ever be a BAD idea.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm about to

Vastet wrote:
I'm about to watch it myself. Just needs to buffer. I'll comment after. No 3d, obviously, but I don't have the money for theatres right now.

The 3D was one of the best things about it!


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: I'm no

smartypants wrote:

 I'm no radical raging environmentalist, but I thought the story was very nice anyway. Besides, even if you don't buy global warming, against all credible evidence, I fail to see how taking care of the planet we inhabit could ever be a BAD idea.

Yeah, it all sounds very reasonable until you find out what "taking care of the planet" means.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:smartypants

Gauche wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 I'm no radical raging environmentalist, but I thought the story was very nice anyway. Besides, even if you don't buy global warming, against all credible evidence, I fail to see how taking care of the planet we inhabit could ever be a BAD idea.

Yeah, it all sounds very reasonable until you find out what "taking care of the planet" means.

One small step at a time, Gauche. It's better than the possible alternatives.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Gauche

smartypants wrote:

Gauche wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 I'm no radical raging environmentalist, but I thought the story was very nice anyway. Besides, even if you don't buy global warming, against all credible evidence, I fail to see how taking care of the planet we inhabit could ever be a BAD idea.

Yeah, it all sounds very reasonable until you find out what "taking care of the planet" means.

One small step at a time, Gauche. It's better than the possible alternatives.

Well, thats your opinion. You have a right to think that, and beyond that you have a right to reject industrial society and go live nude in the forest if you want and die when you're 30. I have nothing to say to that except adios muchacho.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:smartypants

Gauche wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Gauche wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 I'm no radical raging environmentalist, but I thought the story was very nice anyway. Besides, even if you don't buy global warming, against all credible evidence, I fail to see how taking care of the planet we inhabit could ever be a BAD idea.

Yeah, it all sounds very reasonable until you find out what "taking care of the planet" means.

One small step at a time, Gauche. It's better than the possible alternatives.

Well, thats your opinion. You have a right to think that, and beyond that you have a right to reject industrial society and go live nude in the forest if you want and die when you're 30. I have nothing to say to that except adios muchacho.

Your powers of extrapolation and hyperbole are truly astonishing.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
If they wanted to make the

If they wanted to make the movie realistic the evil humans would have propagandized the navi and told them they were destroying their own planet by breathing and they all needed to be sterilized. The navi would have believed it too because they weren't scientists, they were just ignorant blue giants. The humans could have wiped them all out and got the kryptonium in a lot less than 160 minutes I'll bet.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:If they wanted

Gauche wrote:

If they wanted to make the movie realistic the evil humans would have propagandized the navi and told them they were destroying their own planet by breathing and they all needed to be sterilized. The navi would have believed it too because they weren't scientists, they were just ignorant blue giants. The humans could have wiped them all out and got the kryptonium in a lot less than 160 minutes I'll bet.

"Unobtainium." It's much funnier.

And I'm ignoring your JFK-assassination-esq conspiracy theory.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
smartypants

smartypants wrote:

"Unobtainium." It's much funnier.

And I'm ignoring your JFK-assassination-esq conspiracy theory.

No matter what bizarre environmentalist cult beliefs you subscribe to you have to admit it was base propaganda. I mean it wasn't even slick and sophisticated it was 'in your face' as they say. Can you at least admit that or does gaia forbid this?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's unfair to the movie to

It's unfair to the movie to compare it to life on Earth and our crises in any way. The plants are libraries and the creatures can literally be communicated with. All life on that planet is biochemically connected. Dragging global warming and other Earth specific concerns into discussion on this movie misses the point I think.

I found it fascinating and enjoyable. I'll definitely have to buy this movie. The effects were just part of how good the movie was.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think it's unfair to have

I think it's unfair to have actors in films pretending to be scientists while proselytizing and making people feel guilty about the environment. You're supposed to be atheists. If there was a movie where scientists where saying "there really is something to this christianity thing we can't explain blah, blah, blah..." you'd come in here and shit a burrito, but when it's gaia worship, neo-paganism you're strangely silent on the issue. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I think it's

Gauche wrote:

I think it's unfair to have actors in films pretending to be scientists while proselytizing and making people feel guilty about the environment. You're supposed to be atheists. If there was a movie where scientists where saying "there really is something to this christianity thing we can't explain blah, blah, blah..." you'd come in here and shit a burrito, but when it's gaia worship, neo-paganism you're strangely silent on the issue. 

The film's premise appears to be that Humans see a resource they want to have. Meanwhile, natives are in the way. So, the humans attack the natives to get them out of the way and open access to the resource. However, one of the soldiers comes to appreciate the natives and recognizes their right to be.

"Dances With Wolves" in space!

But humans would never actually do that, right?

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's unfair to

Vastet wrote:
It's unfair to the movie to compare it to life on Earth and our crises in any way. The plants are libraries and the creatures can literally be communicated with. All life on that planet is biochemically connected. Dragging global warming and other Earth specific concerns into discussion on this movie misses the point I think. I found it fascinating and enjoyable. I'll definitely have to buy this movie. The effects were just part of how good the movie was.

Well, yes, I didn't mention anything about that because it's kind of a spoiler, but that was what really pushed it over the edge for me.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I think it's unfair to have actors in films pretending to be scientists while proselytizing and making people feel guilty about the environment. You're supposed to be atheists. If there was a movie where scientists where saying "there really is something to this christianity thing we can't explain blah, blah, blah..." you'd come in here and shit a burrito, but when it's gaia worship, neo-paganism you're strangely silent on the issue. 

The film's premise appears to be that Humans see a resource they want to have. Meanwhile, natives are in the way. So, the humans attack the natives to get them out of the way and open access to the resource. However, one of the soldiers comes to appreciate the natives and recognizes their right to be.

"Dances With Wolves" in space!

But humans would never actually do that, right?

 

I agree with you, I think the film's themes come much closer to the analogies you made than with any kind of religious issues. Robert Moses is another great example, although I suspect the atrocities he perpetrated (and what made them atrocities in the first place) are largely unknown outside of NYC and urban theory circles. What at first glance might appear like a type of worship ends up actually being a planet-wide communication network. < /spoiler >


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: LMAO!

smartypants wrote:

 LMAO! Who changed the name of my post? It is a Sci-Fi movie, is it not?

 

Why yes, yes it is.

 

I changed it to "Avatar the movie"

Your original title wasn't very specific.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I think it's unfair to have actors in films pretending to be scientists while proselytizing and making people feel guilty about the environment. You're supposed to be atheists. If there was a movie where scientists where saying "there really is something to this christianity thing we can't explain blah, blah, blah..." you'd come in here and shit a burrito, but when it's gaia worship, neo-paganism you're strangely silent on the issue. 

The film's premise appears to be that Humans see a resource they want to have. Meanwhile, natives are in the way. So, the humans attack the natives to get them out of the way and open access to the resource. However, one of the soldiers comes to appreciate the natives and recognizes their right to be.

"Dances With Wolves" in space!

But humans would never actually do that, right?

 

Maybe you should actually know what gaia hypothesis is and read Lovelocks' book before you comment on it. But I guess seeing a movie with Kevin Costner and reading a wikipedia page is the next best thing.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Maybe you

Gauche wrote:
Maybe you should actually know what gaia hypothesis is and read Lovelocks' book before you comment on it. But I guess seeing a movie with Kevin Costner and reading a wikipedia page is the next best thing.
Maybe you should read for comprehension.

I know what "Gaia" is. I know how it is used in the movie. I know that in the movie, "Pandora"'s Gaia is 'real'. 'cuz it's a story. A fun work of fiction. A soldier "goes native" and learns something about the planet that makes it more important to him than the 'unobtanium'. (Didn't they use that term in "the Core"? Hilarious name.) Lesson: In haste to get to what you do understand, you might be wrecking what you don't understand. Perhaps this is more in parallel with the deforestation of "rain forest" land... dunno.

You're just doing your usual "black-n-white" thing. You think the movie's message is one thing, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. No one can say anything to change your mind, on this or any other subject. You have appointed yourself arbiter of truthiness.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I suppose the LA times

I suppose the LA times should have consulted you guys before they billed the film as:

Quote:
a neo-pagan, anti-technology film that touts the healing powers of nature

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-avatar17-2009dec17,0,7823079.story

Pagans  seem equally confused in  a review on paganspace.net titled
Quote:
Filmmaker James Cameron's "Avatar" underlying Neo-Pagan message


Cameron himself, had he read this forum probably would have realized that there's no underlying environmentalist message in the film or any parallels to be drawn between it and perceived environmental crises on earth before he did an interview with the sun titled:

Quote:
My film reflects destruction of life on earth


Where he is quoted quite candidly saying:
Quote:

"We are causing a global climate change that's going to be absolutely devastating to the coral reefs.

"Science is unable to keep up with our industrial society. We are destroying species faster than we can classify them.

"We are destroying the food chain faster than we can understand it.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/2767357/Interview-with-Avatar-director-James-Cameron.html

 

Believe whatever you want to believe. That's what you're going to do anyway. But don't act like your religion isn't a religion.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:Maybe

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Maybe you should read for comprehension.

I know what "Gaia" is. I know how it is used in the movie. I know that in the movie, "Pandora"'s Gaia is 'real'. 'cuz it's a story. A fun work of fiction. A soldier "goes native" and learns something about the planet that makes it more important to him than the 'unobtanium'. (Didn't they use that term in "the Core"? Hilarious name.) Lesson: In haste to get to what you do understand, you might be wrecking what you don't understand. Perhaps this is more in parallel with the deforestation of "rain forest" land... dunno.

You're just doing your usual "black-n-white" thing. You think the movie's message is one thing, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. No one can say anything to change your mind, on this or any other subject. You have appointed yourself arbiter of truthiness.

Are you wrong or ill-informed? It seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Had you actually addressed the point of my post about presenting neo-pagan beliefs in the film as if they re science instead of talking about dances with wolves then I would have taken you seriously. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:smartypants

Sapient wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 LMAO! Who changed the name of my post? It is a Sci-Fi movie, is it not?

 

Why yes, yes it is.

 

I changed it to "Avatar the movie"

Your original title wasn't very specific.  

Picky, picky.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Are you wrong

Gauche wrote:
Are you wrong or ill-informed? It seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Had you actually addressed the point of my post about presenting neo-pagan beliefs in the film as if they re science instead of talking about dances with wolves then I would have taken you seriously. 

Are you stupid, or just... no, forget it, you're just stupid.

If folks want to walk away from this film thinking it's neo-pagan and anti-technology, what the fuck ever. I'm not falling for it. The "Gaia" bullshit a fantasy element in a fiction story separated from reality by many layers of abstraction. I saw no anti-technology in the film. Technology was never the enemy, the only enemy was blind greed, and represented by two wholly overblown caricatures. No intelligent person would walk away from that thinking it validates anything, never mind something supernatural.

Shit, the scientist, on the cusp of "meeting" this "Gaia" only wants to take samples. Yeah, that convinced me it was "real".

All the gauche little morons believe whatever they want anyway.

Your complaint is academic at best. Utterly irrelevant. If you choose to get all worked up about it, feel free to. I feel as worked up about "Avatar" as I do a bout "Angels and Demons", and for the same reasons. Nothing of interest to reality there. Just fiction based on fantasy.

Big. Fucking. Deal.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I think it's unfair to have

"I think it's unfair to have actors in films pretending to be scientists while proselytizing and making people feel guilty about the environment. You're supposed to be atheists. If there was a movie where scientists where saying "there really is something to this christianity thing we can't explain blah, blah, blah..." you'd come in here and shit a burrito, but when it's gaia worship, neo-paganism you're strangely silent on the issue. "

Gee, that never happened. At least, not in this movie. You must not have watched it. I'll stop paying attention to your irrelevant posts in this topic now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I saw it last night in 3-D

I saw it last night in 3-D and it was pretty cool. I'm surprised the 3-D glasses fit over my regular ones.

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Sapient

smartypants wrote:

Sapient wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 LMAO! Who changed the name of my post? It is a Sci-Fi movie, is it not?

 

Why yes, yes it is.

 

I changed it to "Avatar the movie"

Your original title wasn't very specific.  

Picky, picky.

 

FWIW: I didn't change it the first time.  I only changed it from the edited title to the more appropriate title "Avatar the movie"

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:Are

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Are you stupid, or just... no, forget it, you're just stupid.

If folks want to walk away from this film thinking it's neo-pagan and anti-technology, what the fuck ever. I'm not falling for it. The "Gaia" bullshit a fantasy element in a fiction story separated from reality by many layers of abstraction. I saw no anti-technology in the film. Technology was never the enemy, the only enemy was blind greed, and represented by two wholly overblown caricatures. No intelligent person would walk away from that thinking it validates anything, never mind something supernatural.

Shit, the scientist, on the cusp of "meeting" this "Gaia" only wants to take samples. Yeah, that convinced me it was "real".

All the gauche little morons believe whatever they want anyway.

Your complaint is academic at best. Utterly irrelevant. If you choose to get all worked up about it, feel free to. I feel as worked up about "Avatar" as I do a bout "Angels and Demons", and for the same reasons. Nothing of interest to reality there. Just fiction based on fantasy.

Big. Fucking. Deal.

The fact that it's a rip off of the Pocahontas story is pretty obvious. I'd say it's so obvious it doesn't require mentioning. It's nice that your perceptive abilities are such that you notice things that are apparent, but at the same time I'm not going to congratulate you. Not to minimize your achievement of course.

People are entitled to their own interpretation clearly. If you want to deny the rather transparent thematic elements despite the opinions of reviewers, neo-pagans and the film maker it makes no difference to me. Why don't you go on a letter writing campaign and tell the film makers, reviewers et al. that they are stupid because their interpretation of a film doesn't match up with that of a caustic, brain-damaged clown on an atheist chat board?
 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:smartypants

Sapient wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Sapient wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 LMAO! Who changed the name of my post? It is a Sci-Fi movie, is it not?

 

Why yes, yes it is.

 

I changed it to "Avatar the movie"

Your original title wasn't very specific.  

Picky, picky.

 

FWIW: I didn't change it the first time.  I only changed it from the edited title to the more appropriate title "Avatar the movie"

Either way, I wasn't really all that broken up about it.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Just out of curiousity

Just out of curiousity Gauche, what would your opinion be... if all the alien organisms were replaced by some mechanical counter part?

What Would Kharn Do?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Just

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Just out of curiousity Gauche, what would your opinion be... if all the alien organisms were replaced by some mechanical counter part?

Even if it wasn't about environmentalism I probably still wouldn't like the film, and I'm not a person who is against the environment or disagrees with the anti-militarism, anti-imperialist/corporatist message. I'm quite in favor of those things actually.

I don't agree with making emotional appeals attempting to persuade people below the level of choice and reason. Of course that's what propaganda and advertisement is and it's a necessary part of that but if Cameron wants to make a movie about the destruction of the environment and do good in the world then why not just present facts and let people make an informed decision based on those facts and not as he said, appeal to emotions.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The Doomed Soul

Gauche wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Just out of curiousity Gauche, what would your opinion be... if all the alien organisms were replaced by some mechanical counter part?

Even if it wasn't about environmentalism I probably still wouldn't like the film, and I'm not a person who is against the environment or disagrees with the anti-militarism, anti-imperialist/corporatist message. I'm quite in favor of those things actually.

I don't agree with making emotional appeals attempting to persuade people below the level of choice and reason. Of course that's what propaganda and advertisement is and it's a necessary part of that but if Cameron wants to make a movie about the destruction of the environment and do good in the world then why not just present facts and let people make an informed decision based on those facts and not as he said, appeal to emotions.

Um...it's called "Storytelling?"

 

=\


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Good movie.Could have done

Good movie.

Could have done without all the political propaganda and indoctrination.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Um...it's

smartypants wrote:

Um...it's called "Storytelling?"

 

=\

I know what it's called. If you only want to look at it on that superficial level then you're free to do that. I'm sure you think I'm making way too much of it even though all I said from the beginning was that it's an environmental guilt movie with neo-pagan religious overtones and I didn't like it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:a caustic,

Gauche wrote:

a caustic, brain-damaged clown on an atheist chat board

 

I'm sorry, I don't agree with the description, but this made me LOL.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Gauche

smartypants wrote:

Gauche wrote:

a caustic, brain-damaged clown on an atheist chat board

 

I'm sorry, I don't agree with the description, but this made me LOL.

The description is spot on, actually.

I am caustic, that much is obvious. I am a survivor of a minor brain injury. I am a clown by nature and twice by profession. This is an atheist chat board.

Gauche hit the clown on the head. Boing!

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The fact that

Gauche wrote:
The fact that it's a rip off of the Pocahontas story is pretty obvious. I'd say it's so obvious it doesn't require mentioning. It's nice that your perceptive abilities are such that you notice things that are apparent, but at the same time I'm not going to congratulate you. Not to minimize your achievement of course.
I feel the love. We'll smooch later.



Gauche wrote:
People are entitled to their own interpretation clearly. If you want to deny the rather transparent thematic elements despite the opinions of reviewers, neo-pagans and the film maker it makes no difference to me. Why don't you go on a letter writing campaign and tell the film makers, reviewers et al. that they are stupid because their interpretation of a film doesn't match up with that of a caustic, brain-damaged clown on an atheist chat board?
Dearest bumpkin, I don't deny the "thematic elements". I do deny the message you seem to think is there, however.

I disagree with the reviewers and the pagans that this film is anti-technology. If the creators are saying it is anti-technology, then they need to re-examine their creation, they may have left a piece out.

You may return to freaking out about being disagreed with.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anti-tech my left testicle.

Anti-tech my left testicle. The Na'vi tech was simply biological. Protecting THEIR environment was the PRESERVATION OF THEIR CULTURE AND COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. Drawing a comparison between their environment and ours is too stupid to classify as stupid, for fear of insulting stupid people. The next time you can plug yourself into a tree and hear your ancestors speak is the time you can compare our environment to theirs. They even said as much in the film!

"It's just a bunch of trees!"

Ugh, no, it isn't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Anti-tech my

Vastet wrote:
Anti-tech my left testicle. The Na'vi tech was simply biological. Protecting THEIR environment was the PRESERVATION OF THEIR CULTURE AND COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. Drawing a comparison between their environment and ours is too stupid to classify as stupid, for fear of insulting stupid people. The next time you can plug yourself into a tree and hear your ancestors speak is the time you can compare our environment to theirs. They even said as much in the film! "It's just a bunch of trees!" Ugh, no, it isn't.
I plugged myself into a tree once, and I did hear an ancestor.

It was my then-living grandfather, and he said "When the hell are you doing, you dim-witted cretin?"

Not quite the same, though. Grandad wasn't blue and 10 feet tall.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
Dearest bumpkin, I don't deny the "thematic elements". I do deny the message you seem to think is there, however.

I disagree with the reviewers and the pagans that this film is anti-technology. If the creators are saying it is anti-technology, then they need to re-examine their creation, they may have left a piece out.

You may return to freaking out about being disagreed with.

I'm freaking out so much I said you can believe whatever the hell you want. You seem to be doing plenty of denying, and disagreeing with lots of people. Perhaps if you do it loud enough the provincial hicks at the L.A. Times will retract the story. Maybe those rubes at the New Yorker will catch on as well. The New York Times may follow suit, probably not though. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Gauche wrote:

a caustic, brain-damaged clown on an atheist chat board

 

I'm sorry, I don't agree with the description, but this made me LOL.

The description is spot on, actually.

I am caustic, that much is obvious. I am a survivor of a minor brain injury. I am a clown by nature and twice by profession. This is an atheist chat board.

Gauche hit the clown on the head. Boing!

 

Are you a Cirque du Soleil type clown or a John Wayne Gacy type clown?


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Deadly

Gauche wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
Dearest bumpkin, I don't deny the "thematic elements". I do deny the message you seem to think is there, however.

I disagree with the reviewers and the pagans that this film is anti-technology. If the creators are saying it is anti-technology, then they need to re-examine their creation, they may have left a piece out.

You may return to freaking out about being disagreed with.

I'm freaking out so much I said you can believe whatever the hell you want. You seem to be doing plenty of denying, and disagreeing with lots of people. Perhaps if you do it loud enough the provincial hicks at the L.A. Times will retract the story. Maybe those rubes at the New Yorker will catch on as well. The New York Times may follow suit, probably not though. 

As for what Cameron himself intended, I don't know. But as for reviewers, have you ever heard the art world literati trying to interview Andy Warhol?

Interviewer: So you're making a very poignant statement about our corporate capitalist society and the way it affects art and culture...

Warhol: Okay, yeah, sure.

I'm not saying the reviewers don't know what they're talking about, if they didn't, they likely wouldn't be working for such major publications. Nonetheless, interpretation is often in the eyes of the viewer. Furthermore, the creator of a work is seldom able to grasp the full depth of meaning it can have in a larger context.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Are you a

smartypants wrote:
Are you a Cirque du Soleil type clown or a John Wayne Gacy type clown?
More a Pogo the Clown. I was Tartuffe, less homicidal, more of a humorous jerk. If you know the play, you get the name.

Those crazies at Cirque du Soleil actually work for a living. =(0.o)=

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I'm freaking

Gauche wrote:
I'm freaking out so much I said you can believe whatever the hell you want. You seem to be doing plenty of denying, and disagreeing with lots of people. Perhaps if you do it loud enough the provincial hicks at the L.A. Times will retract the story. Maybe those rubes at the New Yorker will catch on as well. The New York Times may follow suit, probably not though. 

Argument from authority. You're boring now.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
James Cameron didn't

James Cameron didn't describe a religion, just a deep and justified concern for the way we are fucking the biosphere.

EDIT: The damage to coral reefs is one of the most clearly established direct effects of increasing CO2 , as well as rising temperatures. So his mention of that was entirely appropriate.

The movie was inspired by these concerns in a poetic and allegorical way, to create a quite respectable work of art. Art is one of the bests places to go when you get beyond religion, to feed the urges for mystery and wonder. 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nicely put, Bob.

BobSpence1 wrote:

James Cameron didn't describe a religion, just a deep and justified concern for the way we are fucking the biosphere.

The movie was inspired by these concerns in a poetic and allegorical way, to create a quite respectable work of art. Art is one of the bests places to go when you get beyond religion, to feed the urges for mystery and wonder. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck