Avatar.....Tonight

Off Topic
161

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
How is this film racist against white folks if the main character (who is white) is portrayed favorably and is the one who saves and leads the entire race of indigenous people native to the planet? [/quote]

Did you read the reasons posted? No.

Only white people who turn against technology/the West/science/corporations are good. Only those who want to crush the other white devils are good.

Why wasn’t the evil colonel a huge black dude like Prof X?

OT: Why is a world dying because it embraces technology? To squat in the jungle worshipping the God-tree is good, but building a water treatment plant or a hospital is bad?

I’m glad the blue creatures never get sick, food is there just for the plucking, on and on. Rename the planet Fanastyland.
[/quote]

stop ignoring my posts.

162

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
How is this film racist against white folks if the main character (who is white) is portrayed favorably and is the one who saves and leads the entire race of indigenous people native to the planet? [/quote]

Uncle Jim Bob…it’s the equivalent to Uncle Tom. [/quote]

I laugh every time I read this. Thanks.

163

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
How is this film racist against white folks if the main character (who is white) is portrayed favorably and is the one who saves and leads the entire race of indigenous people native to the planet? [/quote]

Did you read the reasons posted? No.

Only white people who turn against technology/the West/science/corporations are good. Only those who want to crush the other white devils are good.

Why wasn’t the evil colonel a huge black dude like Prof X?

OT: Why is a world dying because it embraces technology? To squat in the jungle worshipping the God-tree is good, but building a water treatment plant or a hospital is bad?

I’m glad the blue creatures never get sick, food is there just for the plucking, on and on. Rename the planet Fanastyland.
[/quote]

I’m sure they could have gotten Ving Rhames to play the colonel. I don’t see why you have to look for racism in a movie. It’s a fantasy/science fiction movie. It follows certain themes typical of the genre.

164

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
How is this film racist against white folks if the main character (who is white) is portrayed favorably and is the one who saves and leads the entire race of indigenous people native to the planet? [/quote]

Did you read the reasons posted? No.

Only white people who turn against technology/the West/science/corporations are good. Only those who want to crush the other white devils are good.

Why wasn’t the evil colonel a huge black dude like Prof X?

OT: Why is a world dying because it embraces technology? To squat in the jungle worshipping the God-tree is good, but building a water treatment plant or a hospital is bad?

I’m glad the blue creatures never get sick, food is there just for the plucking, on and on. Rename the planet Fanastyland.
[/quote]

I don’t see why you have to look for racism in a movie. [/quote]

I learned from Professor X.

And if someone made a movie of, say, native Americans attacking a bunch of peaceful white farmers and we got to see the natives rape and skin white people alive, or bash white babies against a rock, the people making the movie would have vigilantes after them. “How dare you portray the gentle natives in this way? And the white interlopers had it coming anyway.”

165

Obviously James Cameron wanted to make it a big white dude to be racist. Especially since Cameron is white. Makes perfect sense. I just had an epiphany.

166

[quote]FutureGL wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
How is this film racist against white folks if the main character (who is white) is portrayed favorably and is the one who saves and leads the entire race of indigenous people native to the planet? [/quote]

Did you read the reasons posted? No.

Only white people who turn against technology/the West/science/corporations are good. Only those who want to crush the other white devils are good.

Why wasn’t the evil colonel a huge black dude like Prof X?

OT: Why is a world dying because it embraces technology? To squat in the jungle worshipping the God-tree is good, but building a water treatment plant or a hospital is bad?

I’m glad the blue creatures never get sick, food is there just for the plucking, on and on. Rename the planet Fanastyland.
[/quote]

stop ignoring my posts.[/quote]

Say something intelligent (and intelligible).

167

Dances with wolves

168

After thinking about it for a few days, I came up with an idea that would’ve made the story more interesting AND shut up the people who claim this is some liberal propaganda film (which it ain’t):

Start the film with the battle scene where Jake gets injured.

This accomplishes a couple things. First, there’s action right at the beginning to draw in the viewers attention. It worked for Shakespeare and has worked for any action movie that’s used it. Second, it can show the difference between commissioned Marines and the mercs on Pandora.

Third, it could show just what kind of condition Earth is in and why we need/want the unobtainium, other than the $20 mil per kilo. Of course, that far in the future that could mean $50, but I digress.

If the unobtanium is necessary, there could be arguments that are actually interesting instead of “oooh, it’s worth a bunch of money so we’re taking it!” “Oh no, you’re just a mean doodyface!”

Of course they may do something simliar in a sequel, but it would be nice to get the whole story behind the situation on Earth and the unobtanium from the get go.

169

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
After thinking about it for a few days, I came up with an idea that would’ve made the story more interesting AND shut up the people who claim this is some liberal propaganda film (which it ain’t):

Start the film with the battle scene where Jake gets injured.

This accomplishes a couple things. First, there’s action right at the beginning to draw in the viewers attention. It worked for Shakespeare and has worked for any action movie that’s used it. Second, it can show the difference between commissioned Marines and the mercs on Pandora. Third, it could show just what kind of condition Earth is in and why we need/want the unobtainium, other than the $20 mil per kilo. Of course, that far in the future that could mean $50, but I digress.

If the unobtanium is necessary, there could be arguments that are actually interesting instead of “oooh, it’s worth a bunch of money so we’re taking it!” “Oh no, you’re just a mean doodyface!”

Of course they may do something simliar in a sequel, but it would be nice to get the whole story behind the situation on Earth and the unobtanium from the get go. [/quote]

I like the way you think.

170

I watched the movie tonight, review is coming tomorrow.

171

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
After thinking about it for a few days, I came up with an idea that would’ve made the story more interesting AND shut up the people who claim this is some liberal propaganda film (which it ain’t):

Start the film with the battle scene where Jake gets injured.

This accomplishes a couple things. First, there’s action right at the beginning to draw in the viewers attention. It worked for Shakespeare and has worked for any action movie that’s used it. Second, it can show the difference between commissioned Marines and the mercs on Pandora. Third, it could show just what kind of condition Earth is in and why we need/want the unobtainium, other than the $20 mil per kilo. Of course, that far in the future that could mean $50, but I digress.

If the unobtanium is necessary, there could be arguments that are actually interesting instead of “oooh, it’s worth a bunch of money so we’re taking it!” “Oh no, you’re just a mean doodyface!”

Of course they may do something simliar in a sequel, but it would be nice to get the whole story behind the situation on Earth and the unobtanium from the get go. [/quote]

Just saw it and those were my first thoughts. The geek in me also wanted to know more about the flight to Pandora and what type of technology they developed to get out there.

I’m sure it’s been echoed throughout this thread but, g’damn that was some good CG.

172

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

I don’t see why you have to look for racism in a movie. [/quote]

I learned from Professor X.

And if someone made a movie of, say, native Americans attacking a bunch of peaceful white farmers and we got to see the natives rape and skin white people alive, or bash white babies against a rock, the people making the movie would have vigilantes after them. “How dare you portray the gentle natives in this way? And the white interlopers had it coming anyway.”

[/quote]
Apocalypso.
Though they could not be portrayed as targeting peaceful ‘whites’ simply because the whites are the only tribe on earth who suffer from the delusion of superiority and the relentless pursuit of global supremacy at the expense of the land and its native people ( We have science and technology, therefore we are superior and must “share”/dominate/impose “our help” to these ignorant ‘savages’ ). Using technology to serve one’s greed is not smart. And taking from other people without asking is not ok. It is the mentality and the smothering nature of the superior people “We know what is best for you”, “you have disease - we have the pharmaceutical drugs that have long term side effects but don’t worry about that, we saved you.”
The problem of the “white race” is not their perceived superiority but their pride.
Oh, the smugness.

As for black people: They have always been portrayed in subservient roles to white people in the media; music and theater. Then Michael Jackson came along and began to change that. So, yes, black people have a history to fall back on. “White” people should just look at these portraits of themselves as an inferior “race” as : 'Oh my God, that is what it feels like to be portrayed unjustly."

In the end “white” people are no different from “black” people because when you are made to walk in their shoes, the behavioral pattern is the same.

173

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Houston07 wrote:
StateChamp, Cameron said there are two planned sequels. They are already written and are in development. [/quote]

Awesome! And imagine how much cooler they’ll be in the future with more 3D and better special effects. Plus, there’ll be more character development so people will stop complaining about that.[/quote]

In the future, you’ll have ‘the feelies’.

“The word feelie (or feely) also appeared in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, as a form of motion picture that provides the sensation of touch in addition to sight and sound. The word suggests a logical extension to the moving picture (“movie”) and the talking picture (“talkie”), and suggests an entertainment form with an incredible level of sensation but with minimal substance.”

174

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

I don’t see why you have to look for racism in a movie. [/quote]

I learned from Professor X.

And if someone made a movie of, say, native Americans attacking a bunch of peaceful white farmers and we got to see the natives rape and skin white people alive, or bash white babies against a rock, the people making the movie would have vigilantes after them. “How dare you portray the gentle natives in this way? And the white interlopers had it coming anyway.”

[/quote]
Apocalypso.
Though they could not be portrayed as targeting peaceful ‘whites’ simply because the whites are the only tribe on earth who suffer from the delusion of superiority and the relentless pursuit of global supremacy at the expense of the land and its native people ( We have science and technology, therefore we are superior and must “share”/dominate/impose “our help” to these ignorant ‘savages’ ). Using technology to serve one’s greed is not smart. And taking from other people without asking is not ok. It is the mentality and the smothering nature of the superior people “We know what is best for you”, “you have disease - we have the pharmaceutical drugs that have long term side effects but don’t worry about that, we saved you.”
The problem of the “white race” is not their perceived superiority but their pride.
Oh, the smugness.

As for black people: They have always been portrayed in subservient roles to white people in the media; music and theater. Then Michael Jackson came along and began to change that. So, yes, black people have a history to fall back on. “White” people should just look at these portraits of themselves as an inferior “race” as : 'Oh my God, that is what it feels like to be portrayed unjustly."

In the end “white” people are no different from “black” people because when you are made to walk in their shoes, the behavioral pattern is the same.
[/quote]

Here in the states, the movie was called ‘Apacalypto’.

Do you believe in the practice of suttee? I also remember reading the memoirs of a British General who encountered a SE Asian culture where the king made a yearly concotion (to drink) of 6000 human hearts. He had the whole royal family killed (good riddance). But I digress…

If you want to judge cultures comparatively, just ask yourself where you would rather live; or perhaps where the average person is better off. If you don’t say Northern Europe or North America above the Rio Grande, you’re lying to yourself.

You could say Australia and New Zealand too.

Now, what do all those places have in common…hmmmm…?

175

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Do you believe in the practice of suttee? [/quote] I was unaware of it until you mentioned. Why do you ask?[quote]
I also remember reading the memoirs of a British General who encountered a SE Asian culture where the king made a yearly concotion (to drink) of 6000 human hearts. He had the whole royal family killed (good riddance). But I digress…

If you want to judge cultures comparatively, just ask yourself where you would rather live; or perhaps where the average person is better off. If you don’t say Northern Europe or North America above the Rio Grande, you’re lying to yourself.

You could say Australia and New Zealand too.

Now, what do all those places have in common…hmmmm…?
[/quote]

HH, I took a long break from reading and posting on T-Nation. When I posted here a long time ago I used to really really like your expressions because I saw you as an educator who taught by being an antagonist. It takes a strong character and skilled ( astute ) mind to do so.
Those who see it can learn valuable lessons and benefit greatly from the role of the antagonist.
Now that I revisit the shores of the nation I find your expressions have gone from being a purposeful antagonist to simply stirring up contention.

What happened?

Forgive me if I am reading you wrong and maybe I am too dense to see how you are trying to reach us now and perhaps it is my failure that I am missing your point.

I agree with you that there is evil in all cultures, and I perceive evil exists side by side with good.
I am a person not a color.
I attribute this identification to a siege mentality of “Them x Us”. I find it unfortunate that people have to cling to their skin color ( ethnic heritage ) to support claims about themselves whilst failing to see the underlying unity of human nature ( unity/sameness in the sense we are all broken, all capable of good and evil expressions, not that the ways our expression are all the same ).

In this uniform ( as opposed to united ) system there are only two races as far as I can see:
The dominator and the dominated.
Color, creed, tribe is irrelevant is this equation.

So why the smugness and self-delusional pride? ( this is not directed at you, I mean it as an underlying attitude in our psyches, myself included )

Human beings are deficient, insecure and lost by nature, not by color.

And having lived both north and south I honestly an not lying when I tell you I see no fundamental difference. It is all matter of which style of expression do I want to violate and to be violated.

The intrinsic values of dignity and honour, authenticity, wisdom, courage, joy, innocence, integrity and every virtue that makes for a core of steel and a magnanimous heart and an expansive mind has been replaced by futility, vanity and pride in owns own “accomplishments”.

We have accomplished nothing.

I remain unimpressed by humanity.

176

Alpha F,

You’re judging humanity by too gray of a standard, and are then disappointed when humans don’t live up to such. But a foggy standard can’t be lived up to any more than one can be approximately rich or approximately brilliant.

Most humans are pleasure-oriented. Give them plenty of drugs, sex, alcohol, and entertainments, and they will happily laze about like cattle munching on grass on the plains of Patagonia. It is NOT to them that I choose to speak. Doing so is pointless. Look at how many here happily swilled down this concoction (Avatar) from the limosine liberals.

If that comes across as smugness or elitism, well I guess I can live with that. But lurking out there amongst the cattle are actual people like John S. I want him and others like him to know that he is NOT alone in a sea of mindless drug-crazed, sex-crazed cattle.

Its the teacher in me.

177

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alpha F,

You’re judging humanity by too gray of a standard, and are then disappointed when humans don’t live up to such. But a foggy standard can’t be lived up to any more than one can be approximately rich or approximately brilliant.

Most humans are pleasure-oriented. Give them plenty of drugs, sex, alcohol, and entertainments, and they will happily laze about like cattle munching on grass on the plains of Patagonia. It is NOT to them that I choose to speak. Doing so is pointless. Look at how many here happily swilled down this concoction (Avatar) from the limosine liberals.

If that comes across as smugness or elitism, well I guess I can live with that. But lurking out there amongst the cattle are actual people like John S. I want him and others like him to know that he is NOT alone in a sea of mindless drug-crazed, sex-crazed cattle.

Its the teacher in me. [/quote]

Wow…that was some serious masturbatory,better-than-all bullshit.

178

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alpha F,

You’re judging humanity by too gray of a standard, and are then disappointed when humans don’t live up to such. But a foggy standard can’t be lived up to any more than one can be approximately rich or approximately brilliant.

Most humans are pleasure-oriented. Give them plenty of drugs, sex, alcohol, and entertainments, and they will happily laze about like cattle munching on grass on the plains of Patagonia. It is NOT to them that I choose to speak. Doing so is pointless. Look at how many here happily swilled down this concoction (Avatar) from the limosine liberals.

If that comes across as smugness or elitism, well I guess I can live with that. But lurking out there amongst the cattle are actual people like John S. I want him and others like him to know that he is NOT alone in a sea of mindless drug-crazed, sex-crazed cattle.

Its the teacher in me. [/quote]

Perhaps the difference between us is that I am not judging humanity, I am discerning our reality and expressing how it affects me. A virtue in my eyes is quite a clear and concrete standard. For you to qualify it as “grey” and “foggy” just confirms my perceptions.

My life preferences do not put me on a higher moral ground than my fellow. I do believe I said we are all broken as a “race”, the human race. And when I say I am not impressed with humanity is simply saying this system we live in fails to stimulate me, fails to excite me. I am not aroused.

As a teacher who used to speak to me, I just have to say, the way you are expressing yourself now does not incite me to love. Because there is no alternative reality to the human condition I am struggling here, imperfect as I am, not to go from apathy to hatred and the way you are expression yourself is not helping me with that.

For example, I could say I discern in your “cattle” qualifying ( judgement ) comment, a hatred for mankind.

By all means chose your audience but must you put down those you already consider to be a lower form of life?

Is that necessary for teaching? And most of all, what does that teach the ones you are trying to reach?

You will, of course, do as you will. Which differs you not from “the cattle”.
They, like you, have a choice of expression in this system.

179

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]FutureGL wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
How is this film racist against white folks if the main character (who is white) is portrayed favorably and is the one who saves and leads the entire race of indigenous people native to the planet? [/quote]

Did you read the reasons posted? No.

Only white people who turn against technology/the West/science/corporations are good. Only those who want to crush the other white devils are good.

Why wasn’t the evil colonel a huge black dude like Prof X?

OT: Why is a world dying because it embraces technology? To squat in the jungle worshipping the God-tree is good, but building a water treatment plant or a hospital is bad?

I’m glad the blue creatures never get sick, food is there just for the plucking, on and on. Rename the planet Fanastyland.
[/quote]

stop ignoring my posts.[/quote]

Say something intelligent (and intelligible).
[/quote]

K. Position shift: you’re a jerk.

180

Don’t worry about it FutureGL and Alpha. You’re trying to teach an old dog new tricks.