Wonka and Elmer...listen...I do understand where you're coming from.  I really do.

BUT...(you like how I keep writing like this...or hate it?)

A movie is an experience that we pay for to be entertained...maybe that entertainment is merely visual, but it's still entertainment, cause we can't get it anywhere else.

Elmer, yeah, you're right in a weird way...things can be beautiful and terrible at the same time, but, IMO, that doesn't pertain to movies, at least not this one.

You can order an entree at a restaurant and it can arrive looking "beautiful", but taste terrible - different animal completely.

A person can be very beautiful, but a picture of them can be terrible - different beast completely again.

A movie that's beautiful to the point that Avatar was cannot be terrible, because if nothing else, you enjoyed "looking" at it...as it was beautiful.

If you didn't see it on the big screen, in 3D, you missed out monstrously.  You really did.

I highly doubt anyone is saying what a grand story and plot was put together.  It didn't need to be. It didn't intend on re-inventing any wheels.  It didn't care of it offered cliche characters.  It didn't give a fuck if it was a story we've all seen time and time again.

It worked. It was beautiful.  It was cutting edge.  It's something we may never see again in terms of success and innovation.

It's not terrible in any way and using that word is just flatout wrong IMO, especially with all the fucking dreck that Hollywood and the Indies throw out on a weekly basis.

Quoted from leitskev The thing about Avatar is that even before you have a story, you have a top director using the latest technology and a huge budget to create a 3d world of another planet. That alone is going to bring a huge audience, before the story. I was excited to see Avatar. Then I was turned off when I saw a trailer online and I knew it was going to be more political/ideological indoctrination. I was like, man, give it a break Hollywood. Not too surprising, I guess. Much of that ideology is built on fantasy, just like Hollywood. You see, because of its ideological blinders, Hollywood misses the great debates that could be the source of great movie making. Let's take Iraq. The Bush people led the US to war on Iraq because 1) they understood in the era of mass weapons of terror, even small nations are a threat to large ones; 2) the believed that oppressive regimes and lack of liberty in the Middle East is the major source of those motivated to terror; 3) we had the opportunity to do in Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan after WW II, that is create stable democracies that become a source for peace and freedom in the world; 4) we legal and moral justification to war with Iraq, who was in violation of the UN agreement ending the first war; and 5) Iraq was doable on the cheap(compared to other wars historically). My skepticism from the outset was that stable democracy could be created here. No need to risk offending people going into that too much, but this is a tribal area, not a people with one culture like in Germany or Japan. I also knew that this notion that the Iraqis would see us as liberators is a naive misunderstanding of human nature. No matter how well behaved the troops were, no matter how generous, they would be seen as foreign conquerers. All of this creates a great opportunity for movies! And yes, that would include the inevitable misbehavior of troops in some cases, human nature being what it is. This notion of war for oil or war for empire is a fantasy. It has not even the slightest basis in reality. None. The oil was a factor because it was seen as a way of rebuilding the country. Do people think this is like some video game and we took the oil? Silly. And an American empire? Please. Open a history book for God's sake if you want to know how empire's act. So when Hollywood makes movies about Iraq where this is the premise, it is a missed opportunity to make a film about a complex issue filled with real intrigue. And it misinforms a very gullible public. Sorry if I hate that, but I do.

You don't still believe all that, do you?

We're in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and plans are already on the table for Iran and Syria.

Maybe it's oil (protecting the right to trade barrels in dollars, not the substance itself..Saddam was going to start trading oil in Euro's and Iran, Libya, North Korea agreed to follow suit...that would have ended the US's magic chequebook overnight).

Maybe it's a simple strategic move to get within blasting distance of Russia and China because they're pushing for a currency war, stockpiling US dollars and buying commodities like they're going out of fashion...they're going to push for a new currency based on the value of Gold which will end the power of the Western nations whose wealth is built on fiat currency.

There's no way the US is going to allow China to simply take control of the world...it goes against the very grain of what America considers itself to be. Your collective egos couldn't take it.

Anyway it's certainly not as simple as just going in for the good of Iraq. No way, there's a long term plan for the Middle East...whatever that may be.

As for the Empire thing...they looked at the British model and saw the only flaw...that they tried to hold it with military might. Instead the US basically guarantees the protection of countries in exchange for certain rights. Us troops are in almost every country of the world. If it's not an Empire it's not far off.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films You don't still believe all that, do you? We're in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and plans are already on the table for Iran and Syria. Maybe it's oil (protecting the right to trade barrels in dollars, not the substance itself..Saddam was going to start trading oil in Euro's and Iran, Libya, North Korea agreed to follow suit...that would have ended the US's magic chequebook overnight). Maybe it's a simple strategic move to get within blasting distance of Russia and China because they're pushing for a currency war, stockpiling US dollars and buying commodities like they're going out of fashion...they're going to push for a new currency based on the value of Gold which will end the power of the Western nations whose wealth is built on fiat currency. There's no way the US is going to allow China to simply take control of the world...it goes against the very grain of what America considers itself to be. Your collective egos couldn't take it. Anyway it's certainly not as simple as just going in for the good of Iraq. No way, there's a long term plan for the Middle East...whatever that may be. As for the Empire thing...they looked at the British model and saw the only flaw...that they tried to hold it with military might. Instead the US basically guarantees the protection of countries in exchange for certain rights. Us troops are in almost every country of the world. If it's not an Empire it's not far off.

I agree, I just think it's hilarious that people were calling for the impeachment of Bush and calling him a war criminal, but when Obama does the same thing in Libya, they're blind to it. "Oh, he's a humanitarian hero."

Quoted from Elmer I agree, I just think it's hilarious that people were calling for the impeachment of Bush and calling him a war criminal, but when Obama does the same thing in Libya, they're blind to it. "Oh, he's a humanitarian hero."

People, including many people worldwide, were desperate for a different kind of leadership and just seemed to assume he'd be the guy. People just lap up the whole "change" thing...change is a neutral word..you can have bad change just as much as good, but voters love that kind of thing. "We're going to move forward!" "Time for change". Just meaningless phrases that sound like you've got the best plan ever.

I think the problem is that people still think Presidents and Prime Ministers run the world. In a global village with multi-national companies who are unaccountable to anyone and exist indefinitely, it's silly to think temporary administrations have any real say in what goes on.

Political leaders can maybe fiddle with a few tax issues or pass a few laws about health care, education, but the long term strategies are in other hands.

I have not know you long Rick, but I always read your posts and welcome your thoughts because they are invariably interesting and thoughtful. In the area of film, they are also inherently sensible.

In this area, all I can really do is encourage you to 1) keep absorbing relevant facts, as I know you do; 2) try to weed out the stuff that's out there that is not credible, which I am not confident you do as well as you need to; and 3) try to weigh all this without emotion.

Your comments always suggest a very powerful current of anti Americanism on an emotional level. I would just hope that you don't let that color your thoughts to the point where you can't think things through clearly.

Let's start with the oil. America owns quite a bit of it within our own borders. The less of it that is on the world market, the more it is worth, at least for those that own those wells. Texas skyscrapers grew like weeds in the early 80s when OPEC started their embargos. Keeping Iraq closed, as it was, was good for business if you owned oil wells.

This notion of getting within blasting distance of Russia or China is pure fantasy. I'm sorry. I mean that respectfully. Let's assume the US wanted to attack those nations. It would never ever never have the manpower. And we are talking nuclear powers. The only way for the US to attack them is with our own nukes, destroy them. And that would be done with ICBMS, long range bombers, and subs stationed close by. Iraq would be useless. This isn't a game of Risk.

If you put aside the idea of American egos, do you really prefer Chinese power? You will be making films for the state then. China is not a free country. They just arrested an artist today for his revolutionary work.

But that aside, the US is not going to invade China for many reasons. One, it could not. They have over a billion people! We're having trouble with Afghanistan for God's sake!

As far as there being a long term plan for the Middle East. Rick, this conspiracy stuff is better left to movies. The simple fact is that large conspiracies are not really possible. We're not smart enough. Why do you think who is in power changes so much? Why do you think so much fails, whether its the economy, wars, or disaster relief? Human organizations are rife with petty ambitions and other inefficiencies. Planning doesn't work. That is the fundamental lesson of the 20th century. And conspiracies are just secret planning.

Americans are parochial, don't know much about the outside world, and they say bombastic things all the time, like 'we're number one at this or that.' It must annoy the crap out of people outside the US!

But America is not an empire, not a country bent on conquest. The world is a much better place with the influence of first the British Empire and then American power. China and India will take their place on the stage soon. But America will not go away. I will tell you why, and one word sums it up: freedom. Freedom means in the long run people will still want to come here, with their ideas, their energy, their dreams. That is the source of American power.

People said Japan would overtake. No one says that now. Japan is free, but it's culture is closed, and essentially its doors are.

China's growth will grind to a halt soon. It is not built on freedom. It is built on exploiting hard working people, but they will want their share at some point.

India...could be a different story. They could be the future.

The key for the US is to retain 18th century liberalism, built on liberty, law, and property values. 19th century marxist liberalism, which is what the Left is today, will be the only thing the bring the US down, as it has brought every system down it has exercised power in.

Back to Hollywood: I think you will see a BIG change in the next 20 years. Leftist leanings will not die, but I think more diversity will come. You know why? Because Indians and Chinese and others who come here, and other similar free places, really see the value in these things. That's why I LOVE immigration. Most of these people that have struggled and overcome laugh at modern liberalism. And they will change the film industry, both by their direct contributions, and by their effect as an audience.

I know I didn't change your mind, but if we both at least keep an open mind hopefully the truth will prevail! Enjoyed your post though, as always.

Wow! Seems like some serious debating broke out while I was away. The recent developments don't concern me so I'll respond to what started it all off.

Quoted from Dreamscale Yes, rick, Kev, and James, it's more than fine to voice your opinion about anything, anywhere.  I'm actually all for it. But, it always does strike a chord with me when people go off on perceived ideas within something, that, usually, comes from somewhere else. Here's a bad analogy... So, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the notion about horror movies always killing off the sluts, perverts, and deviants, but letting the virgin survive, proving sex is bad and when you're bad, you're gonna die.  You really think there's any reality to that? How about this spin on it... Horror movies often involve killing and teens/20 somethings.  Teens and 20 somethings like to and get to fuck alot, based solely on their age and disposition in life...they do perverted things because they can.  They're slutty cause they wanna be and can be.  Any and all movies need a protag, and most prefer it to be a liable character, thus, in a world populated by sexed up, perverted characters, it makes sense to have your survivor be more likable...and probably have less onscreen sex. Again, a bad example...but my point being, who gives a fuck?  Horror movies are not preaching about the evils of having pre-marital sex.  They're about delivering a good thrill ride, filled with jolts and scares, and lots of violence. No need to read anything into them at all.

First off, I hate that template for horror movies. Whether its moral propaganda or marketing, I don't care. They're tedious cliches to sit through and more often than not, cheap writing, no matter how many academic essays you can squeeze out of it.

Second, I'm the one paying for the movie. I'm the one whose putting up those 1-2 1/2 hours of my life. I can expect or read into whatever the fuck I want, whether it's necessary or not. The average joe who's trying to escape the daily grind can enjoy the movie all he wants. Or get stuffed. Either one. I couldn't care less. They're not me and if I'm going to shovel out $10+ at the theater, I expect more than just pretty visuals and if I'm not satisfied, why should I have to appreciate anyone else's standards for entertainment. I just wasted my time and my money.

And for the record, I'm not part of this political debate. Your horror movie analogy might apply to me but your overall point does not. But if it did... see above.

Quoted from leitskev I have not know you long Rick, but I always read your posts and welcome your thoughts because they are invariably interesting and thoughtful. In the area of film, they are also inherently sensible. In this area, all I can really do is encourage you to 1) keep absorbing relevant facts, as I know you do; 2) try to weed out the stuff that's out there that is not credible, which I am not confident you do as well as you need to; and 3) try to weigh all this without emotion. Your comments always suggest a very powerful current of anti Americanism on an emotional level. I would just hope that you don't let that color your thoughts to the point where you can't think things through clearly. Let's start with the oil. America owns quite a bit of it within our own borders. The less of it that is on the world market, the more it is worth, at least for those that own those wells. Texas skyscrapers grew like weeds in the early 80s when OPEC started their embargos. Keeping Iraq closed, as it was, was good for business if you owned oil wells. This notion of getting within blasting distance of Russia or China is pure fantasy. I'm sorry. I mean that respectfully. Let's assume the US wanted to attack those nations. It would never ever never have the manpower. And we are talking nuclear powers. The only way for the US to attack them is with our own nukes, destroy them. And that would be done with ICBMS, long range bombers, and subs stationed close by. Iraq would be useless. This isn't a game of Risk. If you put aside the idea of American egos, do you really prefer Chinese power? You will be making films for the state then. China is not a free country. They just arrested an artist today for his revolutionary work. But that aside, the US is not going to invade China for many reasons. One, it could not. They have over a billion people! We're having trouble with Afghanistan for God's sake! As far as there being a long term plan for the Middle East. Rick, this conspiracy stuff is better left to movies. The simple fact is that large conspiracies are not really possible. We're not smart enough. Why do you think who is in power changes so much? Why do you think so much fails, whether its the economy, wars, or disaster relief? Human organizations are rife with petty ambitions and other inefficiencies. Planning doesn't work. That is the fundamental lesson of the 20th century. And conspiracies are just secret planning. Americans are parochial, don't know much about the outside world, and they say bombastic things all the time, like 'we're number one at this or that.' It must annoy the crap out of people outside the US! But America is not an empire, not a country bent on conquest. The world is a much better place with the influence of first the British Empire and then American power. China and India will take their place on the stage soon. But America will not go away. I will tell you why, and one word sums it up: freedom. Freedom means in the long run people will still want to come here, with their ideas, their energy, their dreams. That is the source of American power. People said Japan would overtake. No one says that now. Japan is free, but it's culture is closed, and essentially its doors are. China's growth will grind to a halt soon. It is not built on freedom. It is built on exploiting hard working people, but they will want their share at some point. India...could be a different story. They could be the future. The key for the US is to retain 18th century liberalism, built on liberty, law, and property values. 19th century marxist liberalism, which is what the Left is today, will be the only thing the bring the US down, as it has brought every system down it has exercised power in. Back to Hollywood: I think you will see a BIG change in the next 20 years. Leftist leanings will not die, but I think more diversity will come. You know why? Because Indians and Chinese and others who come here, and other similar free places, really see the value in these things. That's why I LOVE immigration. Most of these people that have struggled and overcome laugh at modern liberalism. And they will change the film industry, both by their direct contributions, and by their effect as an audience. I know I didn't change your mind, but if we both at least keep an open mind hopefully the truth will prevail! Enjoyed your post though, as always.

As I said nothing to do with oil as a substance, but possibly to do with the dollar as the currency for oil. Every time a barrel of oil is traded in the world it has to be done in dollars. That notion ensures the US a continual income. Saddam was apparently going to start trading in Euros. Others would have followed suit. It could have bankrupted the US pretty much overnight.

The fact is the Western Nations are in three Middle Eastern countries and they are already "selling" conflict with Iran.

There is a long term goal for the Middle East. Don't know what it is, but it's not a conspiracy theory, just an obvious fact.

You seem to have missed my point about China. I'm not suggesting for a minute they are going to invade.

China and the US are gearing up for a currency war. Every dollar that is spent in China, the Chinese are keeping. They are also stockpiling gold and other commodities.

The G20 countries are in "discussion" about the situation, but the West has nothing to offer the Chinese...they have everything they need.

The Chinese want to repalce the US Dollar with the Yuan as the reserve currency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency

That's their long term strategy...and gives them control of the world if they pull it off.

Western money is mythical. It is fiat money. The Chinese, Russians and Indians want to create a "hard" currency based on the value of Gold. In the West money is loaned out by the likes of J P Morgan to the value of 100 times the value of one piece of gold. (By law it should be a maximum of 24 times).

Russian and Chinese Banks are full to the brim with Gold. Western money is all electronic.

In response the West needs some leverage over China.

That much is established fact.

The rest is speculative, I agree, but as far as I'm concerned there was never any justification for going into Iraq. I knew, as did millions of other people in Europe that they had no WMD's. Even people in the administration knew (a guy called David Kelly was hounded to his death for saying the document had been sexed up).

So once you realise the obvious fact that they were no threat, you have to look for the real reason for going there (not so much as a Gameboy...Hans Blix UN Weapons Inspector). The only weapons they had were the ones our respective nations had sold to them to fight the Iranians.

Look at a world map..Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan represent a singular line of supply from Turkey (an ally Nation) to the border of China. With the oil in those countries, you've got a perfect supply line to get the Allied Military onto the borders of China.

They would never invade, but Politics is about leverage. Build a load of missiles pointing into China, or just threaten to and you have some political sway.

With Allied Nations surrounding them with their Navies, you've got a perfect theatre for war. Russia and China basically a sitting target to continuous bombardment.

You then say we'll remove the Military bases/missiles from the Middle East in exchange for a compromise over the currency issue. Normal service is resumed.

A bit like the Cuban Missile crisis. US puts long range Nuclear missiles in the UK, Turkey etc pointing at USSR, US tries to overthrow Cuban Government, USSR puts Nuclear missiles in Cuba in response. After secret talks they get rid of them all...back to the status quo. It's like a constant game of Chess.

Now as I say, it's speculative, but the history of the world shows that Nations are continually looking to get strategic advantage over their rivals.

This isn't a question of being anti-American, the very notion of that is absurd to me. It's just a recognition that countries have their own agendas...and they are hardly EVER about freedom. Money, power, strategic advantage maybe.

Britain, the US, France, Russia and China are the biggest arms dealers in the world. The Bank of England controls places like the Cayman Islands (all the officials are appointed directly by the Queen) and this is where Blood Diamonds, drugs money etc that is used to fund wars ends up. Wars are funded by different groups with their own agendas. The West support rebels opposed to their "enemies", the Saudi's support Islamist groups, the Chinese supply the group they want in power in places like Sudan, the West arm the other side....such is the merry go round of real world Politik.

BTW it's rarely been Marxism that has brought down left-leaning countries...often it's been the active involvement of the United States. Look at Nicaragua etc.

The US and their allies have removed perfectly legitimate democracies when it has suited its agenda. This is a matter of historical fact. So when people start talking about freedom and democracy...have a look between the lines. It's something else they want.

As for the Hollywood thing. Ask yourself why it is that you feel so threatened by a different political point of view. Almost all American films glorify capitalism...Elmer makes a good point that their very nature is an exercise in capitalism. When you say you want to see more diversity..what you are actually saying is that you want to see LESS. You want films to be even more right-wing than they already are...which is very.

For every Avatar there are about 3,000 capitalist films because that's the default position of the art form.

There's not been political diversity in US films for decades. There's not even political diversity in US politics...of the entire spectrum of Political thought from the Extreme Left to Extreme right, political discourse in the US inhabits just a tiny segment to the Centre right.

A good thing to do is to use the Freedom of Information Act to request info on episodes of US history..Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuban missile Crisis etc. See for yourself what the CIA was up to. (You can probably do this online). Then look up what the Politicians said in PUBLIC at the time. The differences between the official media version and the truth are HUGE. Do this for the UK as well and MI6. ...try and get as many versions as your language skills will allow for.

The President will come out and condemn someone like Pinochet in Chile for Human Rights Abuse whilst secretly funding his operations behind the scenes.

That's the way the real world works. Anyone who believes anything their leaders say...whatever country they are from...is a fool.  

Ok, I will start with Hollywood, since that is relevant to the thread.

Hollywood is capitalist to the core. It is a commercial enterprise, and with big studios there is a huge capital investment. So it looks to find new markets(Turkey) and expand older markets. If it doesn't make money, people lose their jobs.

And yet as an art form it has become dominated by left leaning thinking. I don't think I can expend much energy arguing that point. There are certain cultural institutions that lean strongly left: universities, journalism, literature, and yes, film. Now, if one draws the center line way to the left, then almost anything looks "right wing". The fact is there is no official drawing of this line, so no real way to settle it.

If one tends to break the world down this way: the world consists of oppressors and the oppressed, that is the Left view, and common to movies. Exploiters verse the exploited, as in Avatar. This is just one way of breaking it down, but it is a big them in the arts world.

Now, to your view of the global situation. It is very intelligent and well thought out. I think this is what is leading you astray. You are using kind of a game like view of the world. It's very much how the world worked in 19th Century Europe. You had well developed nation states that were run by their aristocracies and were playing a game of empire.

But this has little bearing on the world today. Countries act in their interests, yes. But within democratic countries there are factions battling for power. And their power is based on local politics, not global machinations. In most cases the people making the decisions could care less about the US long term position. They just want to get elected and reelected.

Certainly that is the case in the US. You may thing both parties are the same, but is a misreading of the situation, though an understandable one. Here's what happens in a two party system: the electorate over time becomes more or less evenly split. So either side needs some votes from the other to win. So when they run against each other, they run to the center. That makes them look almost alike. But before they run against each other, they have to win their party's nomination. During that time, they have to appeal to their base, which means they run left or right, depending on the party.

This has positive and negative aspects compared to a multiparty system. To those who want dramatic change, they will be frustrated. The tug of war between the two parties will not easily allow that. The advantage is that you avoid the risk of extremist parties coming to power, like the Nazis did in 32.

So in European countries you will see the Green Party and other fringe parties, and they can ally with one party or another to become a factor. Because you don't see that in the US, you reach a false conclusion that there is little difference between them.

Are they both Right Wing? Well, if you're waiting for a communist revolution, I guess so. It depends where your center line is.

Planned economies, and planned societies, don't work. That really is the lesson of the 20th century, and many millions died because of that false idea. Hundreds of millions more have toiled in misery. It really saddens me to think we have not learned that lesson. Our not understanding human nature is a major cause of that, but I think the main cause will always be the kids of successful parents who come to consider themselves an elite, and think they should be allowed to design the world. Why trust the market? We're smarter, we can plan a better world, just give us the power, we'll do it for the good of everyone.

If you study planned economies in the USSR or in China, you will see clear evidence of this, and it has nothing to do with the West. Even European style socialism was a disaster.

And what about China today, you might say? A successful communist country? Mark my words, no one will be saying this about China in ten years. They have problems on the horizon that, like everything with China, are too difficult for us to comprehend.

They are growing rapidly now, but it is on the backs of cheap slave labor. They own huge amounts of US dollars, but that also means they can't afford to let the US collapse either. Their people are soon going to want a piece of the pie, and they don't know how to do that. And when they do, they will no longer have the cheap labor. Their biggest problem though, is their aging population. Demographics is going to destroy them. There won't be enough young people to support the old.

China will be a force because of its size, and because of the intelligence of its people. But as long they remain communist, they are doomed to eventual stagnation at best, and possible revolution.

India is a different story. I would look there for a future super power.

WMD in Iraq: every intelligence agency thought they were there. But you have to understand, the argument they used was a simplified version of what I explained in my other post. The idea is that the Middle East was going to be a source of terrorism, and sooner or later a WMD will get through. Whether that WMD was developed by Saddaam or someone else, didn't really matter. Iraq was an opportunity to try to create a base for democracy in the Middle East.

Something you may not have been aware of: it was around the time of the 2nd Iraq war that movies like Saving Private Ryan came out. Several books came out celebrating the "Greatest Generation," the people who fought WWII. Bushes father was a war hero, a pilot who spent several days in the Pacific Ocean. Also, when the Cold War ended, there were many thinkers who longed for a cause similar to that of their fathers. WWII became the model to aspire to. And that war ended with the successful rebuilding or Japan and Germany, which are now democratic allies.

That is the vision the neo-cons had for the middle east. And after 9/11, they were able to sell it to Bush. In  their minds, we had an opportunity to do what we did in WWII, to walk in the path of their fathers.

I never trusted the idea. Sorry to say this, but I am skeptical that Islamic societies can develop into Western style democracies. Their institutions are built around the idea of submission, which is what Islam means. I hope I am wrong.

Bush and the neo cons had a more idealistic view of things. Naive in my opinion, but well intended.

You mention how the Western economies is based on paper money, and you are correct of course. The money is built on our institutions, our economic system. Any paper money is built on magic, even if backed by gold, as ours used to be. But keep in mind: war with China or Russia would destroy that system. It just won't happen. Powers that be have to much at stake in that system, if nothing else.

You're trying to connect too many dots, Rick. The world is actually much more random. It's kind of like the JFK assassination for Americans. Everyone wants to believe it was a conspiracy. It's human nature. We want to connect the dots, think we have a handle on things. But it turns out it really was just a nut acting on his own.

CIA abuses? Yes, they happened. You need to understand them in their context however. Lets look at the modern dilemma in Libya. On the one hand, Kaddafi is a brutal dictator suppressing his people. You have an opportunity to support those trying to overthrow him. But, those people trying to overthrow him are likely allied with Islamic fundamentalists, who are likely in the future to become a threat to the US. So what do you do as President? Glad it's not my job. These are hard decisions when you have to make them in real time.

One of the bigger crimes committed by the CIA was Iran in the 50s when they established the Shah. This was probably the worst thing they did, and it was motivated by a desire to keep the Soviets out. It was wrong, but you have to understand the context. Other situations have been even grayer. The sandinistas in Nicaragua were brutal.
Finally, it is not that I am threatened by Hollywood's leftist fantasy view of the world. It is more that I am bored by it. Maybe in the 1920s you could argue for some of this stuff, make a case for Leftist thinking. But history since then has clearly proven those ideas to be foolish. The people espousing them are kind of antiquated, relics who haven't moved on. Sometimes they almost seem cute. But then I realize these ideas do still influence people.

But I am not for suppressing those ideas. I would just like to see more nuance. For example, the cowboys and Indians. As I said, they used to be the bad guys, then they were the good guys who did no wrong. I prefer to their culture for its strengths and weaknesses, its beautiful and its ugly. Some lived in harmony with nature, some were slash and burn. Some were peaceful, some were in fact savage killers, of whites and of other natives. There are great stories there.

Edit: I will try to make this my last post, and give you the last word if you want it. One, the mods are probably annoyed, two, I respect your opinion on this and other stuff, and I'd rather not risk creating friction. But I enjoyed the exchange!

It's a good post Kev. Obviously in the time we have available here, arguments are bound to be a little simplified.

I think we mainly agree on most points.

The key issues we would disagree on would the reasons of going into Iraq in the first place. I can't in all honesty believe that they thought Iraq had WMD's...all information available at the time dismissed that idea, so for me the real truth lies else where...whatever it may be.

The other issue we would disagree on is the importance of local politics. Although I agree with what you say, for me the decision makers are rarely elected officials. It's the people who remain behind the scenes as consultants, civil service etc that are responsible for long term policy. Elected officials as you say spend their time getting elected and re-elected. The actual long term planning is left to people who can be there permanently.

Obviously long term business/banking interests etc play a huge role in that as well, but that's another story.

Anyway, what do you think Avatar 2 will be like?

I didn't know there was another Avatar. What are the rumors?

Let's take a stab, trying to stay consistent with the metaphor they are already using.

I will guess the natives begin to slowly be conquered by our "toys". They will develop a taste for video games, ipods, running hot water, sneakers and sliced bread. Factions will emerge within the natives. Some will want to return to the old ways. The Americans...oops, I mean the humans...will try to exploit this. They will take sides in a civil war to try to regain their foothold.

Sound like a good guess?

It seems like Avatar 2 will be underwater which would be awesome IMO. I've been fascinated by marine life ever since I was a kid. That world is as different from our terrestrial life as space is. It's also easier to burn down a forest than it is a coral reef so maybe they'll have to scale back the politics as well.

I can't speak for the story but I'm pretty sure it will be an even better film visually speaking and if it is underwater, of much greater interest to me.

Underwater, I like it!

What will they do that is similar to the floating mountains? How will they do speech? Will there be a bubble underground?

It's all rumors at this point, but they seem to make sense...

I'm always surprised when people complain about Avatar being cliche.  Isn't that just kinda the film climate that we're in?  It's not like Avatar was an unreasonably huge success in a film market filled with unique, original, well-plotted movies.  As a script, it didn't strike me as being better or worse than average at today's theatres (not that that's okay); as a film, it was a heck of a lot more interesting to watch.

As to the ideology of the of the film, well, what do you expect?  Cameron is heavily involved in environmental activism, and I think it was pretty clear from the get-go what the point of the film was.  The excessively obvious ideological elements in the film just display Cameron's admittedly unfortunate but entirely prudent assumption that the vast majority of people that he's trying to reach are too clueless to get the message without being hit over the head with it.

Hey Heretic. You say you're surprised, then it sounds like you agree with those of us that say the movie is too predictably political. That Avatar is so did not surprise me at all. That's what I've been saying. It's what one expects out of Hollywood. I'm just saying it's too bad.

Think of what he could have done with this world he created. He could have had conflict and rivalries between cultures and tribes on that world, representing different philosophies and attitudes. Humans could have got involved for a variety of reasons. Some just wanted the resource. But some were just trying to do what they thought was the right thing, and perhaps caused more harm. Maybe some really helped.

Cameron's view of the world is Lefty cliche: you have the noble exploited and the evil exploiters. Just like American go to war in Iraq just to steal the oil from these simple victims. If he made his world more complex, there could be a limitless number of sequel plots.

Star Wars has a simple plot as well, but at least(the original) it is not trying to make some modern political point.

I like Avatar for the experience of journeying into another world. It has a value. But it's also a dramatic waste of an opportunity. The plot is terrible. And as proof, I suggest that people are looking forward to a sequel not because of the story, but just for the 3d experience of a new world. Whereas Star Wars people wanted the story to go on.