Avatar

The disaster in Haiti made me think about this movie in a completely different light.

Yeah, I know. You're wondering what the bloody hell Haiti has to do with Avatar. Stick with it. Read this through to the end and you'll get it.

Haiti is a dying world; they have suffered a devastating environmental disaster and must look to the outside in order to survive. (Is this starting to sound familiar yet?) So Haiti looks to another world, a world living in (by comparison) palatial splendor and uncountable wealth. And the inhabitants of that other world share willingly--even though, several years ago, one of their most sacred holy places got blown up.

The Na'Vi are the United States. The Haitians are the RDA. Actually, the RDA represent many poor nations of the real-world Earth; many are always asking the United States/Na'Vi for help, and sometimes threatening (or occasionally even ATTACKING) the United States/Na'Vi when the latter refuse to share. Out here in the real world, the United States is expected to share.


The following is something that never seems to come up in discussions about this movie (though I have not read many): why is it the U.S. should share its unobtainium and the Na'Vi should not??? Perhaps the Na'Vi should have simply accomodated the RDA, considering that the dispute is over a mineral the Na'Vi have no use for and will never need.
 
The disaster in Haiti made me think about this movie in a completely different light.

Yeah, I know. You're wondering what the bloody hell Haiti has to do with Avatar. Stick with it. Read this through to the end and you'll get it.

Haiti is a dying world; they have suffered a devastating environmental disaster and must look to the outside in order to survive. (Is this starting to sound familiar yet?) So Haiti looks to another world, a world living in (by comparison) palatial splendor and uncountable wealth. And the inhabitants of that other world share willingly--even though, several years ago, one of their most sacred holy places got blown up.

The Na'Vi are the United States. The Haitians are the RDA. Actually, the RDA represent many poor nations of the real-world Earth; many are always asking the United States/Na'Vi for help, and sometimes threatening (or occasionally even ATTACKING) the United States/Na'Vi when the latter refuse to share. Out here in the real world, the United States is expected to share.

The following is something that never seems to come up in discussions about this movie (though I have not read many): why is it the U.S. should share its unobtainium and the Na'Vi should not??? Perhaps the Na'Vi should have simply accomodated the RDA, considering that the dispute is over a mineral the Na'Vi have no use for and will never need.

Tell me when the Haitians go to the USA with some major fireworks to rival the brightest 4th of July, then you can tell me about them "threatening" and trying to take something by force.
 

Seriously.



P.S. I saw it again with my sisters last night, it was pretty cool - again.


P.S.S. - Side story : Me and my sisters went to yougurtland (a frozen yogurt shop where you put different flavors and toppings in your cup then pay by weight at the counter.) They don't give you a spoon until after you pay.

Well we 4 and another 20 people are sitting there waiting because the guy is in the back searching for spoons, after about 5 minutes he came out and said they ran out of spoons and it's all on the house :clap:

Everyone there acted like he was a heart surgeon who declared the transplant a success :lol:

We then all went over to starbucks and raided their spoons and had free yogurt :lol:
 
:lol: only you basketcase...
See? Hypocrisy in action. The U.S. is required to give of itself. The Na'Vi are not.

You're right. Only me. I'm the best there is. :king:

Tell me when the Haitians go to the USA with some major fireworks to rival the brightest 4th of July, then you can tell me about them "threatening" and trying to take something by force.
Nope. I already told you about it.

Edit: You are aware, I take it, that many terrorist cells already list American selfishness as one of their motives....? Yes, Haiti does depart from the movie in that they ask nicely, but if I recall from the synopsis I accidentally read,
Spoiler :

the RDA does ask (though not very nicely) before the shooting starts. Moving a holy site in order to save 20 billion people? Not much of a head-scratcher there.
 
Am I right or not? Should the rich share, or not? Whatever rules you choose: these rules must apply to everybody, or they mean nothing.
 
Am I right or not? Should the rich share, or not? Whatever rules you choose: these rules must apply to everybody, or they mean nothing.

So you're saying rules can't differentiate between people? Then why jail criminals and not everyone or no one? :lol:
 
Ehhh....you kinda worded that wrong.

ALL CRIMINALS should, indeed, be jailed. All PEOPLE? No. The reason we don't jail all criminals is because we can't find all of them.

On the topic of charity: no. The rules should not differentiate. Oh, and my personal rule is this: nobody should be expected (or, particularly, required) to be charitable. Not the United States and not the Na'Vi. Charity is nice if it's offered, but it shouldn't be expected of anyone. The reason I'm causing a problem in this thread right now is because charity is expected of me, just for being an American.
 
Ehhh....you kinda worded that wrong.

ALL CRIMINALS should, indeed, be jailed. All PEOPLE? No. The reason we don't jail all criminals is because we can't find all of them.

On the topic of charity: no. The rules should not differentiate. Oh, and my personal rule is this: nobody should be expected (or, particularly, required) to be charitable. Not the United States and not the Na'Vi. Charity is nice if it's offered, but it shouldn't be expected of anyone. The reason I'm causing a problem in this thread right now is because charity is expected of me, just for being an American.

But you are implying in the same post that the rules should differentiate between ordinary people and criminals and give them different treatment.

I think the point is rules and principles are generally contingent on the relevant facts, meaning sufficient details are needed for them to be meaningful. In this case, what do you mean by rich? Who, consequently, is rich and who isn't? Who is in the position of power?

If you examine these questions in any way that is honest and intelligent, you'd see that there is no comparison between what happens in the movie and Haiti asking the US for aid.

I know nothing will convince you. Nevertheless, that's all I'm going to say about this, and I think it's enough.
 
Avatar is 1 to 5 to win best picture.

Not 5 to 1, 1 to 5.

Edit: I had heard this from a friend, and after doing a little searching of my own it doesn't seem to be true :p

But maybe it was 1 to 5 on the website he uses? I dunno.

Hurt Locker seems to be the favorite, I really want to see that.
 
I saw Hurt Locker. Awesome movie. Really fantastic. It really deserved to do better in the box office, and deserves a lot more press. More movies like hurt locker are what we need. Not this Avatar nonsense.
 
If you examine these questions in any way that is honest and intelligent, you'd see that there is no comparison between what happens in the movie and Haiti asking the US for aid.
Mmm. Sooooo.......if I'm intelligent, then I will reach the same conclusion as you.

Complete bullcrap. If you can't grasp the idea that other intelligent people will not always agree with you on things, you really should not be participating in debates.

So we have our very own Pat Robertson here huh?
Ha! Not even. I'm an atheist. :lol:
 
Complete bullcrap. If you can't grasp the idea that other intelligent people will not always agree with you on things, you really should not be participating in debates.

Well, of course intelligent people don't always agree with me, but they tend to agree with me about things that are obvious.
 
I was talking about this:

WASHINGTON: US evangelical preacher Pat Robertson has laid the blame for the devastating earthquake on the Haitians themselves, saying the country "swore a pact to the devil" to escape French rule in the 18th century.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...il-pat-robertson/story-e6frg6so-1225819420988

But maybe this would be a better comparison:

As people by the thousands turned up dead in Haiti, Rush Limbaugh returned to his racist "us versus them" "white versus black" white supremacist stance when he said this about President Obama's call to action to help Haiti:

"use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, in the… the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It’s made to order for them."

But Rush Limbaugh didn't stop there. The Huffington Post and Digital Journal report Limbaugh worked to discouarge aid to Haiti, saying...

"We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."
 
Well, of course intelligent people don't always agree with me, but
Thanks. A "yes, but--" does just fine for me.

Karalysia said:
US evangelical preacher Pat Robertson has laid the blame for the devastating earthquake on the Haitians themselves, saying the country "swore a pact to the devil" to escape French rule in the 18th century.
Mmm. Yeah, Pat Robertson is full of crap there.
 
Did anyone else think of Dune when you watched this movie. There were certain scenes I remember where I was thinking of the Dune universe.

And now when I think about the entire premise reminded me a lot of the development of Paul Atreides to Muad'Dib in the first Dune book. And the following deliverance of Arrrakis...erh Pandora through Dese...jungle power and the native freme... Na'vi.

Im not saying i didnt like it, I did, but I just kept thinking of Muad'Dib all the time.

This x100.

Everything seemed to line up with it in a basic sense, or so it seemed.
 
Its amazing how many different movies its supposed to copy.
 
Top Bottom