Have You Watched "Avatar" Yet? It's AMAZING!

[leroyjenkens]

I'm afraid I'm not following your train of thought.

You said cruelty for the sake of cruelty is an excellent description of humans. That's a generalization. Is it an excellent desciption of you, as one of those humans?

Every person doesn't have to fit the description for it to be accurate.
Huckleberry said they aren't cruel, but you had no problems with that. You're not holding him to the same standard. For what he says to be true, no human could be cruel or else saying humans aren't cruel is just as inaccurate.
You also didn't address the point I was making. Evil humans in a movie represent all of humanity, but evil humans in real life do not. Why?

 

[DaveC426913]

Every person doesn't have to fit the description for it to be accurate.

But it does mean you consider yourself to be above the average.

In fact, very above average. If cruelty is an "excellent" description and an "accurate" description, then there are correspondingly few outliers who do not fit that description (else it would not be an excellent or accurate desciption of humans). You then assign yourself this elite position among the very rare non-cruel humans.

Huckleberry said they aren't cruel, but you had no problems with that. You're not holding him to the same standard.

Of course I am. I'll bet if I asked Huck if we were an average person who is "not cruel", he would say yes. i.e. Huck falls within his own generalization of humanity.

By contrast, you put humanity in a box, but believe you stand outside the box.

You also didn't address the point I was making. Evil humans in a movie represent all of humanity, but evil humans in real life do not. Why?

You were the one who made the generalization that humans (in general) are cruel for the sake of being cruel.

 

[leroyjenkens]

But it does mean you consider yourself to be above the average.

In fact, very above average. If cruelty is an "excellent" description and an "accurate" description, then there are correspondingly few outliers who do not fit that description (else it would not be an excellent or accurate desciption of humans). You then assign yourself this elite position among the very rare non-cruel humans.

So in the lifespan of every human being, only a relatively few number of them have ever acted in a cruel manner in their entire lives?

Of course I am. I'll bet if I asked Huck if we were an average person who is "not cruel", he would say yes. i.e. Huck falls within his own generalization of humanity.

By contrast, you put humanity in a box, but believe you stand outside the box.

Why is he getting a free pass at interrogation?
And where did you get the idea we were talking about the average person? You're holding us to something you made up.

You were the one who made the generalization that humans (in general) are cruel for the sake of being cruel.

But you called me on it without acknowledging the hypocrasy of what Huckleberry was saying. That has nothing to do with my generalization. The hypocrasy exists independent of me.

 

[Lateralus.]

Are you saying that they were undeserving of that label? Your statement does not invalidate turbo's post. There are plenty of movies that portray military personnel as heroes; you said that "military personnel are always portrayed as bad guys."



Can you name a few, or is this just your opinion?

So you have time to post here eh?

 

[jgens]

I said this before, but I would have liked the movie better if it depicted a desperate struggle for existence instead of a black-and-white story about colonialism. Make unobtanium something that humans need to prevent extinction. Make the tree of life something that the no lifeforms on Pandora can survive without, both physically and emotionally. Get a cute girl on the human side and show her suffering and fighting desperately for the survival of the human race. That would have made for a much more exciting and morally ambiguous story. It's a plot that will keep movie-goers philosophizing for a long time after seeing the movie rather than thinking "oh yeah, it's one of those movies".

While this might be nice to make the movie more realistic, I think that it would inevitably convolute the anti-colonial theme that Cameron's trying to convey. For example, there are an astonishing number of people that still support Andrew Jackson's treatment of the American Indians because it was in the interests of the United States' development as a whole. On a more contemporary issue, people still support the American government's decision to intern Japanese Americans during WWII because "all's fair in war." Although issues are rarely as black and white as Cameron depicts them in Avatar, he also has a duty to make sure that his intentions/themes are ardently clear, something which I think that he does a pretty good job doing.

 

[Huckleberry]

What makes you think the film wants us to believe that? It's the fans who are saying it and that's who I'm addressing.

I've already answered why I think the story teller is directing the audience and not the story, more than once.

Humanity does have the potential to be cruel. Cruelty is not the sole descriptor of humanity. To portray humans as cruel and nothing else is innacurrate. Because the humans in Avatar are depicted this way the audience is directed to sympathize with the Na'vi and humanity looks like a sock puppet. I prefer filmmakers to direct movies and not audiences.

 

[DaveC426913]

So in the lifespan of every human being, only a relatively few number of them have ever acted in a cruel manner in their entire lives?

I'm not saying that. You are claiming cruelty for the sake of cruelty is "the most excellent" and accurate description of humans. For this statement to be excellently accurate, there have to be very few outliers, if any.

If a sample population were cruel once in their lives and otherwise not cruel, then "cruel" would not be "the most excellent descripton ever heard" of the group; it would only be an excellent description if virtually all of them were cruel virtually all the time.

And where did you get the idea we were talking about the average person?

From your generalization.

But you called me on it without acknowledging the hypocrasy of what Huckleberry was saying.

Where exactly does Huck claim they are not cruel?

Note: your claim is quite strong. It is "the most accurate description of humans [you've] ever heard". Is Huck's claim as aggressive?

 

[DaveC426913]

Look, this is wasting photons. You had an opinion, you stated it with excessive hyperbole. I took it at face-value and called you on it.

Let's call it a wash for the sake of the thread.

 

[MotoH]

So, how about when he rides that colourful pterodactyl?

 

[jgens]

You mean Toruk?

In the event that no one has posted this, there's a special website dedicated for those wishing to learn the Na'Vi language: http://www.learnnavi.org/

I think that the obsession over Avatar has probably gotten a little bit out of hand . . .

 

[russ_watters]

I think that the obsession over Avatar has probably gotten a little bit out of hand . . .

Agreed, but I don't think it is any worse than teenage girls seeing Titanic over and over and over.

 

[ideasrule]

Ever watched Saving Private Ryan? Guess not.

Saving Private Ryan was kind of like Avatar. The Americans were depicted as good, brave, honorable, and everything else, while the Germans were ugly and ruthless. I really don't think the typical German soldier in the real WWII was any less brave or compassionate than the typical American soldier.

 

[MotoH]

Agreed, but I don't think it is any worse than teenage girls seeing Titanic over and over and over.

Or the 501st.

I have no right to make fun of avatar obsessers. I have made my own mandalorian armor, and plan on an ARC trooper when I turn 18. . .

 

[leroyjenkens]

Humanity does have the potential to be cruel. Cruelty is not the sole descriptor of humanity. To portray humans as cruel and nothing else is innacurrate.

But they didn't portray humans as cruel and nothing else. Several of the humans were good guys. Why do they get to be ignored?

I'm not saying that. You are claiming cruelty for the sake of cruelty is "the most excellent" and accurate description of humans. For this statement to be excellently accurate, there have to be very few outliers, if any.

If a sample population were cruel once in their lives and otherwise not cruel, then "cruel" would not be "the most excellent descripton ever heard" of the group; it would only be an excellent description if virtually all of them were cruel virtually all the time..

I don't know why you keep quoting "excellent"; I never said that. I just said it was accurate. It is. Just like calling humans greedy. I doubt you nitpick about that generalization.
You're right, I was using hyperbole to prove a point. Huckleberry was making his point that his problem with the movie was that humans were portrayed as being cruel for no reason. My argument was that that is a perfect way to portray humans since they are cruel for no reason and we have countless examples of them being cruel for no reason.

My point to you was that it's apparently alright to say that a few humans in a movie represent all of humanity, but it's not alright to say a few humans in real life represent all of humanity, since you called me on it, but not him.

Where exactly does Huck claim they are not cruel?

Well, saying that it's inaccurate to portray humans as cruel for no reason pretty much says that humans aren't cruel for no reason.

Look, this is wasting photons. You had an opinion, you stated it with excessive hyperbole. I took it at face-value and called you on it.

Let's call it a wash for the sake of the thread.

Ok.

 

[Chi Meson]

Saving Private Ryan was kind of like Avatar. The Americans were depicted as good, brave, honorable, and everything else, while the Germans were ugly and ruthless. I really don't think the typical German soldier in the real WWII was any less brave or compassionate than the typical American soldier.

Movies such as Das Boot, "Hunt for Red October," and Eastwood's "Iwo Jima" movie are good examples of showing the complexities of war while maintaining the dignity of the people who are following orders and/or doing what they believe to be right. Full metal jacket showed this complexity (which was deliberately thrust in our faces). The first half of that movie, asa well as "Officer and a gentleman", and "Biloxi Blues" depicted the training cycle of recruits, where the "evil master sergeant" is dignified by the movie's end (go Christopher Walken!). All of these movies were not "anti-military."

Even Bill Murry's "Stripes" is a primarily dignified representation of the Army, as much as an absurd comedy can be. President Bill Pullman, in "Independence Day", was the military hero. The military in the not so great remake of "War of the Worlds" was absolutely dignified, helpful, courageous, heroic, etc.

These are movies I came up with off the top of my head. Also, they kind of show my age. With a little research, I'm sure I can come up with many more.

 

[Brian_C]

Movies like Avatar won't stand the test of time. I thought Jurassic Park was incredible when it first came out, but now it's just an average sci-fi flick. These films should not be mentioned in the same breath as Gone With The Wind or Unforgiven.

 

[DaveC426913]

Movies like Avatar won't stand the test of time. I thought Jurassic Park was incredible when it first came out, but now it's just an average sci-fi flick.

That depends on your criteria. If you judge a film merely on the bleeding-edgeness of its CGI, then sure.

Jurassic Park is in my top 20.

It is a great movie - not because its graphics are cutting-edge (its graphics are great, but they are merely great enough to accomplish what they need to accomplish) - it's great because it is a well-conceived well-written and well-executed story.

 

[Huckleberry]

But they didn't portray humans as cruel and nothing else. Several of the humans were good guys. Why do they get to be ignored?

The only ones that were good were the ones that sided with the Na'vi. By the end of the movie they were killing the bloodthirsty humans. I didn't ignore them, but saying they represented humanity wouldn't be accurate. They represented Na'vi interests. The good, Na'vi loving humans were allowed to stay on Pandora and live in peace, and the cruel, hateful humans were sent back to Earth to suffer and probably die.

My point to you was that it's apparently alright to say that a few humans in a movie represent all of humanity, but it's not alright to say a few humans in real life represent all of humanity, since you called me on it, but not him.

The few humans in the movie represent all of humanity because there are only a few humans in the movie. We can't hear the voices of people that don't speak. I can't jump into that world and travel back to Earth to ask the opinions of its inhabitants. I have to rely on the director to show me these things. What he showed was that humans were motivated by cruelty. There was only the barest glimpse of a more convincing reason.

A few humans in real life don't represent all of humanity because everyone has a mind of their own. If you want to hear an opinion direct yourself to the nearest human and ask for it. Sometimes just getting people to stop shouting long enough to agree on anything is more of a problem. My point is that gathering information to make a decision that we feel comfortable with is our own responsibility in real life. We are the directors of our own perception.

Well, saying that it's inaccurate to portray humans as cruel for no reason pretty much says that humans aren't cruel for no reason.

As a general rule I would say that is correct. In real life I would definitely say that the average Marine does not represent all of humanity. I would also say that the average Marine would not be gung-ho about wiping out native civilizations to the last man, woman and child for no reason besides a desire to inflict suffering. Self preservation is a motivation I could believe. Cameron alluded to it, but he didn't show it in his film.

In the movie there is a line or two about some stuff that the humans need for their own civilization that happens to lie beneath the stuff that the Na'vi need for theirs. The importance of the Na'vi stuff to their civilization is well described. No importance is given to describing humanities need for stuff. Cameron's portrayal of humanity goes something like this, "Floaty rocks is cool! When can we we kill worthless natives for cool, floaty rocks?" The need for ill-defined stuff is a poor use of the MacGuffin in this case, unless the point is to make the audience unsympathetic towards humanity through omission of character motivation. I consider directing the audience in such a way to be poor storytelling.

 

[Speldosa]

Avatar...What can I say? One of the most overrated movies ever. I mean...This film is so extremely bad that I don't even know where to begin.

I'll let Spoony do the talking for me. I agree with him on pretty much every single point, and that's just the beginning of all the crap I could give this movie if I had the time.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2009/12/20/vlog-12-19-09-avatar/"

 

[turbo]

"Dances with Na'vi" would have been a more appropriate title for the film.