Avatar

[BasketCase]

This post is despicable. How do you sleep at night?

Very comfortably. And, usually on my right side.

Perhaps you missed the part of my example where the U.S. and Haiti depart from the movie. If we'd been living in the movie, it would have been the Na'Vi (the U.S.) and the RDA (Haiti) coexisting peacefully, the RDA mining unobtainium without having to blow anything up, kill anybody, or chop down any trees. That's where we real humans, out here in the real world, put the movie to shame: the Na'Vi are helping the RDA fix their broken homeworld, an ending I'm perfectly happy with.

Another reason I loved it is because so much sci-fi recently has been dark and depressing. I love a good old fashioned adventure and a happy ending.

Avatar is dark and depressing from the viewpoint of the in-film humans. And it's only a happy ending for the Na'Vi.

A big corporation that has way too much power makes the perfect villain though - I still don't see an anti-business message.

In "Aliens", Burke was both of the above: a corporate executive who placed the bottom line before the well-being of the rescue operation.


Cameron himself said his whole theme was about an indigenous people under attack because of the resources they're sitting on. Because it's a little difficult to fit an entire corporation or nation onto the Silver Screen, movies tend to make use of symbols to represent such things; the movie uses people to represent ideas and nations.

There's a name for that, by the way: when you use a person to represent a non-physical idea such as a god. It's called, coincidentally, an AVATAR.

 

[aelf]

well, back to AVATAR for just a second.

it won Best Director and Best Drama at the Golden Globes last night.

it was so funny each time he won, because they cut to these other directors who made much more "art-house" type films, and the expressions on the faces of the 'losers' (the other directors, basically, in each category) ..

well, let's just say "sour grapes" is a nice way of putting how they looked!

Well, that's Hollywood nonsense for you.

 

[lovett]

I still don't see how they're the ones making the comparison.

How would they predict that people would make these comparisons without seeing the similarities themselves?

 

[aelf]

How would they predict that people would make these comparisons without seeing the similarities themselves?

Are you claiming that seeing that something could be done necessarily means doing it yourself?

And of course there are similarities. The issue here (aside from what is happening in China) is more subtle than saying whether we should see some similarities or not.

 

[Ecofarm]

And anyway, the people making the link are communists... poor prols.

So that kills the anti-capitalist BS.

Communist people are making links so significant that the film must be banned in China.

We can officially stop pretending that capitalism has something to do with seeing reality in film.

 

[BasketCase]

The director would disagree with you, Ecofarm.

Cameron himself said Avatar is about imperialist nations vs. indigenous peoples, and he cited a number of examples such as Iraq. Cameron does see reality in his film, and HE WROTE IT.

 

[Ecofarm]

Then he would agree with me. I think the film is full of symbolism and opportunity to compare it to reality.

Aelf says that is a product of or of similar derrivation to capitalism. He says that anyone trying to compare it to reality is a dumb capitalist, or is using logic similar to the foundations of capitalism.


Pointing out that communists are doing the same thing, to a much greater extent and impact, obliterates that anti-capitalist BS.


He should concede that his idea was absurd.

 

[BasketCase]

Heheh. Aelf and I already had an argument about that.

You can compare movies to reality. The problem is that the symbols within any movie can represent pretty much anything you want (beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder). Hell, already I've come up with two other scenarios that parallel the movie: the American Civil War, and the Haiti earthquake. Oh, and I've got a third, which matches the movie perfectly: North Korea (North Korea is the RDA and the Na'Vi, again, are the U.S.; North Korea is imploding and looking to the United States for aid, and delivering threats when its "requests" are not met--and, just as in the movie, if there's ever a shooting war, North Korea will get completely owned).

James Cameron has said he had specific symbolism in mind when he wrote this film. The RDA is intended to represent imperialist nations, and the Na'Vi are intended to represent indigenous peoples with oil. But Cameron cannot force me to view the events of the movie through his viewpoint. I will interpret the film as I wish.

So no: Cameron doesn't agree with you (and Cameron probably disagrees with Aelf as well).

Edit: the only real exception with regard to movie symbols is films such as Braveheart. In that film, there's no mistaking the fact that Mel Gibson IS William Wallace specifically. But such a film is more of a docudrama, and Avatar is no such thing.

 

[warpus]

well, back to AVATAR for just a second.

it won Best Director and Best Drama at the Golden Globes last night.

it was so funny each time he won, because they cut to these other directors who made much more "art-house" type films, and the expressions on the faces of the 'losers' (the other directors, basically, in each category) ..

well, let's just say "sour grapes" is a nice way of putting how they looked!

hahahah. you could just read exactly what they really thought about the "great James Cameron"

Avatar won for Best Drama?

Do the golden globes really have any credibility? I dunno, I don't really follow this stuff.. Is it just a pat on the back by actors? or what.. how the hell could avatar win for best drama? That's like Dark Knight winning for best comedy.

 

[BasketCase]

DUDE. Seriously. It's all about the looks.

The film LOOKS awesome, so awards are gonna fall on it like rain.

 

[Ecofarm]

So no: Cameron doesn't agree with you (and Cameron probably disagrees with Aelf as well).

But I say the same thing as Cameron. That there is alot of symbolism, it is quite specific and obvious. I have no idea where you see disagreement. I don't agree with Cameron's viewpoint, but I totally think it is present in the movie. I see what Cameron says about his intentions with the movie, and I 100% believe him. Where's the disagreement?

My only contention, and I don't know WTH you are getting a disagreement between Cameron and I, is Aelf blaming the "association of events in movies with events in reality" as a CAPITALIST thing. That's ridiculous. Once again, my only disagreement is with Aelf.

I support Cameron's explaination, I believe Cameron and I do not question his motives one iota. Once again, I am in complete and total agreement with Cameron's explaination and do not, in any way shape or form, question his explaination. Stop saying I disagree with his explaination.

Cameron and I may have different worldviews, but when it comes to this movie he and I are 100% in lock step regarding its motives and symbolism. There is no disagreement between him and I in this regard. None.


I'm gonna say this one more time so we do no have to go through it again. I agree with Cameron's explaination, 100%. There is NO disagreement.

 

[warpus]

Avatar getting 'best picture' or 'best graphics' I'd understand, but best drama?

What was so drama about Avatar?

 

[BasketCase]

I don't agree with Cameron's viewpoint, but

Did I misunderstand this part somehow? (your post was actually a bit confusing--or maybe there's a typo in it somewhere)

My take on the movie's symbolism: I am absolutely clear on the meanings Cameron intended to convey with the film, but I reserve the right to interpret the film in other ways.

Unrelated poser: are Avatar and Battle For Terra "copycat" films? I've seen a lot of that in the past, where two nearly-identical films would come out at almost exactly the same time..... (Antz and A Bug's Life, Armageddon and Deep Impact, Ed TV and the Truman Show)

 

[Ecofarm]

I haven't seen the film. I don't have my own interpretation. I do not disagree with Cameron's explaination, at all. I have no reason to question him and I won't hve any reason - because I don't go see Hollywood pop-movies.


I only disagree with Aelf's idea that capitalism has something to do with comparing real events with film.

 

[aelf]

And anyway, the people making the link are communists... poor prols.

The proletariat have to be communist?

So that kills the anti-capitalist BS.

Yeah, why waste time talking about anything when one or two liners are all that need to be said about complex issues about the world?

Communist people are making links so significant that the film must be banned in China.

What communist people?

We can officially stop pretending that capitalism has something to do with seeing reality in film.

It would be helpful if you'd stop conflating various things with what I'm talking about.

Aelf says that is a product of or of similar derrivation to capitalism. He says that anyone trying to compare it to reality is a dumb capitalist, or is using logic similar to the foundations of capitalism.

The last statement is much closer to what I said.

Pointing out that communists are doing the same thing, to a much greater extent and impact, obliterates that anti-capitalist BS.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by communists? The Communist party? The proletariat? And does it say anything substantive about Communism itself?

He should concede that his idea was absurd.

I might if you had actually dealt with the idea properly, rather than going off on a tangent and acting like any response is a sufficient answer.

I mean, let's get this straight, you don't have to be a capitalist to draw imaginary links between things and equating (ha!) things that are not the same. I'd personally bet that some people who profess to be Communists or who are indeed Communists do so as well. However, the basis of capitalist thought owes much to such a tendency. That does mean that capitalism has something to do with this, but not that it's a capitalist thing per se. I've actually said this a few times, and what the CCP does has little or no bearing on this issue.

 

[_random_]

Avatar getting 'best picture' or 'best graphics' I'd understand, but best drama?

What was so drama about Avatar?

In the Golden Globes, drama refers to anything that's not a comedy and a musical.

 

[Ecofarm]

I've actually said this a few times, and what the CCP does has little or no bearing on this issue.

Dude, just forget the CCP then.

Communist Chinese people are doing the same god damn thing... to such an extent that their communist government must ban the film.

Stop pretending it is a capitalist thing.

 

[aelf]

Dude, just forget the CCP then.

Communist Chinese people are doing the same god damn thing... to such an extent that their communist government must ban the film.

Stop pretending it is a capitalist thing.

Did you actually read my previous post?

 

[Ecofarm]

Of course.

But you cannot admit that communists are doing exactly the same thing, to an even GREATER extent. In fact, those communists are doing it SO MUCH that the government needs to ban the film to protect itself.

Not everything you dislike is the result of or similar to capitalism. Just stop it.

 

[aelf]

Of course.

But you cannot admit that communists are doing exactly the same thing, to an even GREATER extent.

Not everything you dislike is the result of or similar to capitalism. Just stop it.

Well, I've got to dispute what you think constitutes Communists and Communism. But even if that is not an issue, I think it's clear enough that what I said isn't what you think I'm saying (i.e. not that this problem is "the result (!*) or similar to capitalism", and especially not that everything I dislike is related to capitalism.)


*already explicitly denied, no less.