Quoted from leitskev 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.

I don't think he could have done that though.  Could Michael Bay have made such complex changes to Transformers?  Verbinski with Pirates?  Look at what J.J. Abrams had to turn Star Trek into to make it commercially viable.  Avatar's just another blockbuster in a film climate where the only way to keep attention is constant input and the only way to convey a message is with a sledgehammer.  Most films don't even bother with the message these days.

Cameron set out to make a point with the film.  Whether or not you agree with his message, he successfully communicated his opinions in a way the general movie-going populace could understand.  However, he still delivered a perfectly reasonable, average, fun blockbuster in my opinion.  I see what you mean, that it got in the way for you, but do you think it still would have gotten in the way if you agreed with his point of view?  Or if you had never really thought seriously about environmental conservation, capitalism, etc (which I think it's fair to say that a lot of youth in the last few generations haven't)?

What I am saying, Heretic, and said previously, was that while I disagree with much of his message, the problem I really have is the predictable nature of it: The Americans(humans) driven by their greedy corporate interests spend all their energy ruthlessly colonizing and exploiting native peoples, peoples that otherwise would live in wonderful harmony with nature. Yeah, ok, we get it: Americans = capitalists = the root of all that's wrong in the world.

But am I sick of the message? Yes, because I happen to know my history, and don't get it from Michael Moore. Do people have even the foggiest idea what the world would be like if these Western concepts had not developed: rule by constitutional law, private property, individual rights, and yes, capitalism and the corporation? We would all still be serfs living in filth.

Hollywood produces stuff that makes the rest of the world feel good about itself. But its real goal is to make Lefties feel good about themselves. That's what modern liberalism is all about at its heart. The result is a distorted view of reality that leads to the suffering of the innocent. Such as the peasants in the Ukraine in the 30s. They didn't fair so well under Leftist thinking.

I am an environmentalist too. A commons sense one though. And I would not wish to see native peoples exploited for a resource. But this movie is making a much larger point than that.

Did Avatar do an excellent job with its message? Yes. Absolutely. Like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore he should be proud of the false notions he puts in less informed people's heads.

If you want to teach youth about these various ideologies, fine. I am all for the spread of ideas and information. But they need to be taught the whole story. Lenin's ideas sounded like they would be pretty nice for the working man and the peasant. But read the history. These idead led to decades of misery, millions of deaths, political repression. It was just as bad under Mao. And look at what Chavez is doing. These ideas are seductive. They sound good. and they heart innocent people. And with all of the lessons of the last hundred years there's no reason for us to be walking this path again, but many want us to.

Kevin, obviously, you're a smart guy, well educated, well schooled, and well aware of history, politics, and probably lots more.

But I seriously think you're taking this way too far for no real reason.

Why are you so upset about the message here or the message that you claim Hollywood routinely spews out?  How is it affecting you?  Why would it affect you?

It's a movie...it's entertainment...it doesn't matter what anyone is saying here...does it really?

Oh, I'm not upset at all, Jeff. This is just jousting for me! Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly the things I am saying, but I love hearing the contrary opinions. Intellectual debate, about movies or whatever, just something to do. I stop if someone gets mad or upset.

That's cool, and I'm all for jousting, etc.  I really am...

BUT...

Seriously, I just don't get it.  Movies, novels, TV shows, everything...it's the way it is and it's that way for a reason.

Everyone likes rooting for the little guy...the underdog.  That's really, in a nutshell, what's going on here, isn't it?  Is Braveheart or Rocky any different, when you get down to it?

It's about setting up likable characters that have to overcome insurmountable odds to win...or even to survive.

"The world is full of kings and queens, who'll blind your eyes and steal your dreams, it's Heaven and Hell...Oh Well."

The masses want the little guy to win...cause the masses are the little guy.

RIP, RJD...

Yes, true, and there are different ways that could be done. For example, there could have been two warring tribes on the planet, one trying to dominate and destroy the other, and humans take sides. Maybe one human civ or country sides with the "bad guys" the other with the "good guys." There are different ways of doing these things.

Hey Kevin,

I understand where you're coming from.  I think, all politics aside, it may break down to this then: that you found the structure (including but perhaps not limited to the ideological aspects inherent to that structure) to be overwhelmingly and distractingly formulaic, and that I found it to be comfortably so.  I think that that's probably in part to do with the fact that I am more inclined to agree to some extent with that ideology than you are.

I think it's a stretch to call a technically sound, visually impressive movie that you think did a good job with its message "terrible".  But that's just on paper.  If you reacted that strongly to the content then of course it's reasonable to have that opinion.  I have definitely had a similar reaction to movies that completely disagree with my ideology.

Chris

Hey Chris

I can agree with that. As I said in most of my early posts, I liked a lot of the movie. I did not think it was terrible. I do disagree with the ideology behind it, so that causes problems, but it's the cliche aspect to the ideology that gives me the biggest problem,

I actually would not want my ideology transparently and shallowly displayed on the screen over and over either. I enjoy movies that stimulate thought and debate on issues from a variety of angles. Let me give you an example.

A Few Good Men. Clearly the actions taken on that military base under Jessup(I think that was his name) were wrong. And that is the position taken by the movie. But the movie is great because it displays the argument to not be cut and dry. When Jessup says that "deep down we want him on that wall," there is much truth to it. It's easy to make rules of conduct for war when you sit in seminars and conferences, but things are different when you have to work on a field of combat.

So while we root for Tom Cruise, and we cheer when Jessup goes down, and Jessup is repulsive, there is a part of us that knows Jessup is right. He was doing the things he did in order to make his men stronger, which meant less of them would die in battle.

That's what it's a great script. It shows the complexity of the issue involved, the difficulty of the moral dilemma.

There's no attempt at that in Avatar. But there easily could have been, and it would have been a more memorable movie. I am not an authority on Shakespeare by any means. But those plays do what A Few Good Men does. They explore difficult questions. They have a point of view, they grapple with moral issues, but they show that these are difficult issues, not cut and dry. And that's why they're great drama.

Movies like Avatar are just trying to hammer you with a simplistic ideology. Yes, as you say, they are effective making their point, but that's called propaganda. Who wants to see propaganda? Movies should not be propaganda, and when they do that, they lose much of their power, and are no longer really an art form.

There was a silly movie in the 80s with John Candy and Tim Hanks, I forget the name, about the peace corp. They go to some unnamed poor Asian company, and their job is to build a bridge for a little village. In the end, they come to realize the villagers don't even want the white man's bridge, and are better off without it.

This is just a comedy, but at least it wrestles with some issues. The white people mean well, in a sense, but they are really not helping, and in the end, their real motivation is the need to feel good about themselves. The point is that even in a comedy like this, the complexity of issues is recognized.

Someone with Cameron's talent and his gigantic budget is doing a movie about an alien world, I am excited to see it! Why can't he do it without including agenda ideology? You can have the issues of environmentalism explored, and even colonialism. But in this script the Americans(humans) are all greedy thug like buffoons, who think nothing of destroying worlds. They're more like silly cartoon characters.

Think about this too. Why is it a consortium of corporations mining Avatar? Why couldn't it be a mission from a dictatorship like communist China? Any idea what types of atrocities against the environment were committed by Communists China and the Soviet Union?

Here's a quick look how things really would have happened with the Na'vi. When their world was exposed to our civilization, factions would have emerged, some wanting new technology and knowledge, some wanting to preserve old ways. Humans would have had a varied approach as well. Some would have exploited for their own benefit, some would have been protective of the natives. And that in itself would be complicated. Often those with "pure" motives would have caused more harm, as in the Tom Hanks movie. And even those wanting to secure the resource would not have wanted to see wanton destruction. Most would want to see a mutually beneficial relationship develop.

Now one might interject that all of this would be too complicated for a movie. To that I point to A Few Good Men. It can be easily done if one is not creating propaganda.

what is my ideology you might wonder? Well, I want the environment protected, I place a premium on individual liberties, I believe peoples should have the right to rule themselves. I also understand that until recently, in the long span of history, the overwhelming majority of people lived in brutal conditions, with few liberties, and almost no way to rise out of their desperate conditions. So I value a system that allows us to do that, gives the maximum number of people the chance to do that.

We hopefully agree on that stuff. Here's where we probably move apart. Strong governments have a tendency to suppress individual liberty, and eventually do so in brutal fashion. ANY strong government, I don't care what the ideology. They also tend to serve the interest of the ruling class, whether that is an aristocracy or a communist politboro or huge government employee unions, and that means eventually they destroy the interests of everyone else. That means everyone else sinks back to the days of no economic opportunity.

I also understand that certain concepts are what made it possible for us to rise out of the desperate conditions we lived in for thousands of years: rule by law, property rights, liberty, and capitalism.  And when we don't understand those things, we risk losing the gains we've made. Let me tell you, if we slip back into a state of desperation, it ain't gonna be good at all for the environment.