Cameron's "Avatar" Insulting to the Armed Forces?

[Dr. C]

Any opinions from SWC about the film Avatar and the portrayal of the Armed Forces, for those of you who have seen James Cameron's latest 3D film?

Ty Burr from The Boston Globe observed in his review of Avatar (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/12/17/avatar_is_an_out_of_body_experience/?page=1):



Yes, “Avatar’’ is the latest high-tech entertainment to lecture us that technology is wrong. Human civilization, too. The movie’s cultural politics are childishly two-dimensional, at times insulting (especially if you know anyone in the armed forces). Squint at “Avatar’’ the wrong way and it starts to look like a training film for jihad - not, I’m guessing, what Cameron had in mind.


For those of you who loathe any serious discussion about all things Hollywood, if you saw the film, you probably couldn't help notice how the military is portrayed. I couldn't tell if the armed forces were actually military or hired mercenaries working for the corporation exploring the planet Pandora for a valuable natural resource. The military and the corporation showed open disdain for the scientists on their team, even though they knew they needed the scientists to help with their mission.

Anyway, there was a long National Guard commercial during the previews at the theater where I saw the movie, so I doubt if the film producers had any intention of portraying the military in a negative light. But do they?

[Steve Blair]

Cameron has often had simplistic sub-texts in many of his movies, so I don't tend to take him seriously from that standpoint. That's one of the reasons Avatar hasn't interested me that much.

[Entropy]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but since it's fiction, I don't take it too seriously. We are all used to the stereotypes. I worry more about movies that are or claim to be based on "real events" but even there some of the portrayals become unintentially funny in their ignorant absurdity.

I still think "Three Kings" was one of the best even though it wasn't completely flattering.

[Adam L]

I couldn't tell if the armed forces were actually military or hired mercenaries working for the corporation exploring the planet Pandora for a valuable natural resource.

Take a look at Aliens. The "Colonial Marines" (I think that was what they were called) were basically controlled by "the company." Although, the marines, with the possible exception of Bill Paxton's character (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTifdoKXoxM&feature=related), were portrayed as good guys. Don't read to much into any of his movies.

Right now I'm more concerned that the man wants to redo Forbidden Planet! :mad:


Cameron has often had simplistic sub-texts in many of his movies, so I don't tend to take him seriously from that standpoint. That's one of the reasons Avatar hasn't interested me that much.

I agree with you one everything except the "sub-texts." Does Cameron ever do anything small enough to be called a "sub-text." I very much enjoyed the "sub-texts" of True Lies!

Adam L

[Steve Blair]

I agree with you one everything except the "sub-texts." Does Cameron ever do anything small enough to be called a "sub-text." I very much enjoyed the "sub-texts" of True Lies!

Adam L

True enough. He's had a couple of good ones, but on the whole he's not a director I go out of my way to see.

[selil]

I would point out that the Marines in Avatar were actually PMC's. They all came from the Marines but they worked for the company. This is very similar (but different) to Alien's where the government hired out the Marines to a corporation. The interesting sub-text (sic) that hasn't been discussed is that the paralyzed veteran could not get treatment, but the company would provide that treatment. NOBODY is looking at that little bit of the story line which has a huge impact on the story arc. I'm going to see it again before I decide if I'll fully review it.

[Adam L]

I should point out that I have not seen Avatar. Since we are talking about it now, I guess I will have to go see it.

Adam L

[Dr. C]

The interesting sub-text (sic) that hasn't been discussed is that the paralyzed veteran could not get treatment, but the company would provide that treatment. NOBODY is looking at that little bit of the story line which has a huge impact on the story arc. I'm going to see it again before I decide if I'll fully review it.

So does this support what Burr wrote in his Boston Globe review of Avatar, that it's insulting to the Armed Forces?

If you have an opportunity to see it an IMAX theater, that would be the way to go. :cool:

Most reviewers agree that the technology far surpasses the script and the plot. More "mature" audiences have seen the plot in films like Dances with Wolves. However, for younger audiences the message might be new. Will they view our military in a negative light after seeing this film?

[wm]

So does this support what Burr wrote in his Boston Globe review of Avatar, that it's insulting to the Armed Forces?

If you have an opportunity to see it an IMAX theater, that would be the way to go. :cool:

Most reviewers agree that the technology far surpasses the script and the plot. More "mature" audiences have seen the plot in films like Dances with Wolves. However, for younger audiences the message might be new. Will they view our military in a negative light after seeing this film?

I'd say the PMC/military stereotyping runs at about the same level as that found for the Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers. The "colonel" reminded me of characters played (caricatured?)by Robert Duval--the Cav LTC in Apocalypse Now and the Marine aviator in The Great Santini. Having seen it in IMAX 3D with my 12 & 13 year old boys, I can tell you that all they talked about was the "awesome" combat footage. It didn't negatively reframe their view of the military in the least.

By the way, I was less impressed with the similarity to Dances With Wolves and more struck by the affinity with the plot of a 1992 "classic" that starred Tim Curry, Christian Slater, and his former girl friend Samantha Mathis (both also of Pump Up the Volume fame), not to mention Robin Williams, Cheech Marin, and Tommy Chong, among others.

Of course, [forehead slap] you remember now--Ferngully, The Last Rainforest ;)

[Adam L]

By the way, I was less impressed with the similarity to Dances With Wolves and more struck by the affinity with the plot of a 1992 "classic" that starred Tim Curry, Christian Slater, and his former girl friend Samantha Mathis (both also of Pump Up the Volume fame), not to mention Robin Williams, Cheech Marin, and Tommy Chong, among others.

Of course, [forehead slap] you remember now--Ferngully, The Last Rainforest ;)

YOU'RE RIGHT!!!

Why didn't I remember that movie....Oh....I remember now.

Adam L

[Van]

I would point out that the Marines in Avatar were actually PMC's. ... This is very similar (but different) to Alien's where the government hired out the Marines to a corporation.

It wasn't explicit whether the 'marines' were a PMC or government forces, a la Aliens or the Latin American small wars of the 1920s and 1930s (United Fruit, the so-called Banana Wars, and the campaigns that caused the 1940 Marine Small Wars Manual). I saw it as government troops protecting economic interests (consistent with the Left's portrayal of Haliburton and the U.S. mil under Bush/Cheney). On reflection, I could see this as the East India Company combat units in the XXII century.



The interesting sub-text (sic) that hasn't been discussed is that the paralyzed veteran could not get treatment, but the company would provide that treatment. NOBODY is looking at that little bit of the story line which has a huge impact on the story arc.

The reprimand to the USG and the VAs treatment of veterans isn't quite explicit...


I'm surprised the mainstream (or at least those [redacted] Roberto Gonzalez and Max Forte) hasn't started to talk up the depiction of the relationship between social sciences and colonialism or SS and the military. In 'Avatar', the eggheads came across as woefully (or willfully) naive about the corporation's motives, oblivious to realities surrounding them, and sterotypically helpless and hand-wringing until a man of action was thrust into their camp. This goes back to the threads about the conflict between the active and contemplative lives.

The romantization of indigenous sentients was a great fictional device, but again, plays to a number of stereotypes.


Re:
The movie’s cultural politics are childishly two-dimensional, at times insulting (especially if you know anyone in the armed forces).
(source: Boston Globe Review (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/12/17/avatar_is_an_out_of_body_experience/?page=2))

It came across as more anti-corporation than anti-military to the AF LTC(sel) that I watched it with and myself. Yeah, they played to the worst liberal violence porn and sterotypes from Viet Nam, but the corporation gave the orders, and it was about the corporation's image ("genocide doesn't play well" or something like that). Although anyone who has been following the coverage of HTS would see this as propaganda against the employment of social scientists by the military.

[Dr. C]

In 'Avatar', the eggheads came across as woefully (or willfully) naive about the corporation's motives, oblivious to realities surrounding them, and sterotypically helpless and hand-wringing until a man of action was thrust into their camp. This goes back to the threads about the conflict between the active and contemplative lives.

I don't want to add any spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie yet. However, the "man of action," the former Marine Jake Sully, played a pivotal role in the work of the scientists when he mistakenly divulges too much information to the military/corporation side about the likelihood of the natives negotiating and leaving their land. He's really the one who comes across as woefully naive and even helpless about the corporation's motives. He believes he will walk again, thanks to the corporation. The lead scientist knows her mission for the corporation is about the minerals worth millions of dollars. She's also onto something else, that's even a bigger discovery for humankind, related to the environment of Pandora.

Some critics argue that the film is even racist, as it plays into the fantasy of the white man becoming a hero and saving the indigenous people from his own race.

I'd say a lot of that criticism is really over-analyzing what is a colorful and highly immersive film. I really didn't even make the connection with "Dances with Wolves" until I read that in a review. I did take note of how the military was portrayed.

[IntelTrooper]

I'll never understand the popular stereotype of PMCs where fighting on behalf of a government = okay, but fighting on behalf of an economic interest, especially a private company = bad.

[Uboat509]

I saw this the night it came out with my wife and two children. We all loved it and, in fact, my wife announced that it is easily one of her top five favorite movies of all time. I am not even going to address the claims about racism. If you really want to be offended by something, you will find a way. As far as how the military is treated in this film, it was pretty clear to me that they were mercenaries. Yes mercenaries get treated badly in this film and for that matter and there are a number of other stereotypes but it was a science fiction movie, not Saving Private Ryan. It was just supposed to tell an interesting story. Somebody had to be the bad guys and the plot dictated that be a military or paramilitary force, so you get mercenaries. It's hardly the first time mercenaries have gotten a bad wrap in a movie, corporations are always greedy and ruthless and they always manage to find the most cold blooded mercenaries known to man. Everybody knows that. Just the same, I enjoyed it. As far as I was concerned it was a retelling of Dances With Wolves with the huge bonus that I was not subjected to Kevin Costner for two and a half hours.

Oh, and I wouldn't read to much into the wounded vet thing. As far as I could see it was just a plot device. He needed to be a former Marine so that he would have a connection to the bad guy and he needed to be a paraplegic so that a) the bad guy would have a huge bribe to offer him and b) to create the huge contrast between the crippled human and the healthy alien. Of course I could be wrong but I don't think it was some kind of swipe at the VA system, especially given that Cameron apparently thought this script up years ago, before OIF/OEF.

SFC W

[selil]

I'll never understand the popular stereotype of PMCs where fighting on behalf of a government = okay, but fighting on behalf of an economic interest, especially a private company = bad.

Personally I think PMC's are great. We don't use them enough. However, I also think the United States uses them wrong. Mixing PMC's and national troops in a theater is simply ill conceived. Especially if the PMC's are not beholden to the local commander. Using the PMC's as primarily shock troops is wrong too. For a variety of reasons starting with risk entanglement and ending with diverging goals of the local commander.

One place PMC's are not used to good regard is naval operations. If we had put to sea some good old privateers with letter of Marquis piracy outside of Somali would have ended. But, that wouldn't be politically allowable just successful.

[Adam L]

I thought some people might want to see this (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/12/22/int.velshi.lang.avatar.cnn).

Adam L

[RJ]

I saw the movie and the troops were portrayed as former military mercenaries.

The hero a parapalegic former Marine ended up as the Hero of the movie and won the heart of the Princess and lived happily ever after.

It had a Cowboys and Indians slant and the Indians won becazuse they were connected to the essence of the planet.

Science Fiction at it's finest. Great special effects and a simplistic, straight forward story about greedy corporation types, cruel mercenaries and a lady doctor who dies defending the tribe and becomes one with the planet.

Bottomline,

The US Marines should get a slight up tick in their already swollen recruitmet stats because the hero beats the bad guys, unites all the tribes and leads them in a successful defense of their way of life.

The US military has broad shoulders and this flick will not cast a shadow on their reputation at all.


I'm predicting sequels ala Star Wars.

[AmericanPride]

I don't think it was insulting. It offered one explanation for the relationships between government, the armed forces, and private corporations. That explanation is neither fully historically inaccurate or insulting.

It should be noted that Weaver's character also sought to teach the locals English (and I'm assuming other human cultural behaviors) while simultaenously disguising herself as the locals. She also knowingly took part in the corporation's endeavor and profited both financially and professionaly from their patronage. What Avatar didn't explore was the the response of humanity (who apparently lived on a dying planet; aren't humans also fighting for survival then? If so, why is the survival of the natives more important than our own?) to being ejected from the planet.

[Dr. C]

It should be noted that Weaver's character also sought to teach the locals English (and I'm assuming other human cultural behaviors) while simultaenously disguising herself as the locals. She also knowingly took part in the corporation's endeavor and profited both financially and professionaly from their patronage.

I thought there were a lot of plot devices in the movie, like the scientists teaching the natives how to speak English, so audiences didn't get frustrated with sub-titles. University of Southern California Professor Frommer, a linguistics expert, created the Na'vi language, a functional language, working with Cameron on it for about four years. I subscribed to the Avatar Facebook fan page, so I'm privy to these things. ;)

So was Weaver's scientist one of the bad guys?

I thought the humans, including the corporate executive and excluding the colonel, were amicable to first trying diplomatic means with the natives. It was really the colonel who was hungry for battle. The youngish corporate exec guy was impatient with diplomacy, but he didn't appear to thirst for battle.

Compared to Star Wars, I didn't think the plot and the characters in Avatar were as deep. Star Wars wasn't as simple a story to understand as Avatar, but I first saw Star Wars at about the age of 8. I understood who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. In Avatar, would an 8-year-old view humans (aliens)= bad guys and Na'vi (natives) = good guys?

[AmericanPride]

Dr. C,

While contrary to what the director attempted to project, I do not think the corporation or any of its employees can be clearly argued to be 'bad guys'. The colonel was tasked with providing for the security of the operation. He had an extensive military background. His early experiences on Pandora (serious injury in his first several days, and having not been seriously injured in any previous operation) may have hardened his view and inflated the risk of the natives. He perceived coercion as the only effective method in removing the natives from the home tree (and he was right).

What undermined the decision-making process of the corporation was ignoring the scientific intelligence provided by Weaver's crew regarding the physical foundations of the local's culture.

The problem therefore is not one between diplomacy and coercion, but of uprooting the natives in the first place and destroying their environent with the follow-on economic exploitation. However, the film only hinted at the context of humanity's operations (calling earth a dying world), which can wildly alter the good/bad boundaries for everyone involved. Essentially, the main character condemned humanity to death.

[Boot]

and no being an active duty Marine, I didn't take it that way.
Pure SciFi.

Also in the movie they make it pretty clear that all the military were Mercs hired by the corporation, and were from the Army and probably other services too.

I started to nitpick and a friend reminded me "hey man, it takes place on another world and they are 10 foot blue aliens". Oh yeah thats right its fiction...


Boot

[gute]

First thing that came to my mind was "treason", but after watching the movie it was just the scifi version of Pocahontas. Movie was a disappointment.

[Fuchs]

To feel insulted by a sci-fi movie is to me on the same level as feeling insulted in your religious feelings by a caricature from another continent.

[Stan]

To feel insulted by a sci-fi movie is to me on the same level as feeling insulted in your religious feelings by a caricature from another continent.

I would have to agree. My better half and I watched it over the holidays because her 24 year-old son - stuck somewhere in dreamland - recommended seeing what US Military do while on foreign soil :rolleyes:

It reminded me of PMCs, but other than some great 3D special effects, overall a poor portrayal.

It requires an imagination to get emotionally involved in a sci-fi and I'm retired and too old to care :D

[yamiyugikun]

I saw Avatar last week. The first thing that came to mind were political themes such as calling the native Navi "terrorists" and critiquing American foreign policy in general. There was also an opinion piece on yahoo criticizing Avatar as "racist" because of the portrayls of the Navi as African/Native American. What I noticed about all of the criticisms of the movie on political/racial lines is that they came from a liberal perspective. To me, this reveals more about the leanings of the media that criticizes the movie that the movie itself:D

[Presley Cannady]

Essentially, the main character condemned humanity to death.

Actually, there was nothing on Pandora that was essential to human survival. The RDA was there to acquire the superconducting unobtanium, and the atmosphere hardly made it suitable for human life. Moreover, while Earth may be a dying planet, Avatar depicts Americans at the very least as having conquered economical nuclear fusion and antimatter (ISV Venture Star is a Valkyrie spacecraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie)). Presumably, this has to some very interesting implications regarding our home solar systems' development (see Pournelle, J., "Survival with Style," A Step Farther Out).

[Beelzebubalicious]

Just saw the film and read the thread. As a civvie, wanted
to offer a few observations.

- distinction bet PMC and military will be lost on most. They will just think military
- given above, that's another and very widespread and powerful negative message about the military.
- it's not just themiltary but corporate america
- read the anthro blogs. This was wrong in many ways, but the anthro in me was going nuts watching this. Navi is apparently a real language/dialect from Cameroon. David price's analysis (http://www.counterpunch.org/price12232009.html) links this (no way!) to the anthropologists and human terrain system project.
- I see dancing with wolves, but I think the real comparison is star wars. It's trying to be epic, special effects, simple architypical characters, popular spiritualism.
- we never learn our lessons. We keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
- it's always better to be native. Simple, natural, romantic, and morally righteous!

[Van]

Navi is apparently a real language/dialect from Cameroon.

Na'vi is a constructed language (as Dr. C mentioned). NPR did an interview with Paul Frommer, the USC professor who made it up, and was on call to create new words and phrases during production. The NPR piece is here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121350582). The use of glottals and clicks does make it sound similar to some African languages though.


David price's analysis (http://www.counterpunch.org/price12232009.html) links this (no way!) to the anthropologists and human terrain system project.

David Price has made an academic career of showing how 'evil' it is for anthropologists to have anything to do with the government. I'm surprised that he beat Gonzalez and Forte to the punch, but not at all surprised by his article. Price's stance has always been that anthropology is too special to be sullied by gov't or military hands, and noone but cultural anthropologists really understands the special ethics of anthropology.

I did see the humor in the allegations that Avatar was a 'how to' for jihadis (from the Boston Globe review).

[Wargames Mark]

I have not seen it and I will not pay any money to see it. I am unlikely to spend any time watching even if it didn't cost me any money, because from the previews and associated material it comes across to me as:


Environmentalist religious proselytizing
An anti-military, anti-American cultural slur


I work in a creative job and I am interested in the technological and artistic aspects of the leading edge of creative tools, but I won't subsidize something that attacks my personal values.

If my initial reaction to a movie I haven't even seen is a jump too far, then it is only because I have seen the same extreme-Left, self-righteous, condescending content flow out of Hollywood again, and again, and again. I am hearing Pavlov's bell.

With regard not only to Avatar, but also to the infection of the defense community by environmentalists of narrow interests (subs being used for marine biology, discussion of "climate change" as an aspect of global futures), I see radical environmentalism as a major component of the extreme Left's TO&E. I am reminded of a televised interview from the '90s with former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, in which he discussed the success the KGB had with revitalizing political activities in the West through radical environmental groups. This is not to say that there is some great conspiracy, but rather to say that there are a lot of elitist individuals in government and in certain industries who recognize environmentalism as a vehicle to achieve political goals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the environment. I won't support that.

Furthermore, when someone takes a swipe at the military for their own political agenda (Left or Right), it ticks me off. The political spectrum in uniform is more diverse than either major political camp cares to realize. When someone slanders our troops, they slander everyone from die-hard Democrats to ditto-head Republicans and a few members of the minor parties as well. The microscopic point that the bad guys in the film are supposed to be contractors does little to curb my criticism, for two reasons:


Who are our real-world PMC employees?
Who will notice such a small distinction anyway?


Most employees I know in the defense industry are veterans. Where else do you find someone who knows foxholes from other holes? I have heard of some bad apples, but I think they are the exception rather than the rule. In any case, the average viewer will not separate the characters in the movie from regular military in the real world. Sure, they will know intellectually that the characters on screen are fictional entities in a sci-fi movie. But, their emotional, gut-level reaction will be to link them with American military professionals: Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors.

I understand some things about storytelling. I know that drama means conflict. I know that events in plots must be inevitable, but not predictable. I understand that in many stories, the theme of betrayal and broken loyalty is the most natural way for the plot machinery to move in order to produce an intriguing tale. But again and again and again, Hollywood demonstrates an utter disdain for the American military that I believe is rooted in a pathological envy of the solid substance of character found in the American warrior.

Hollywood plays heroes. You guys are heroes.

Anyway, I'll now drop my magazine, lock my bolt to the rear and place my rant in the v-notch stake....

[reed11b]

Finally saw it. Great treat for the eyes and the story was not bad. It was however fairly offensive to soldiers via Colonel Miles Quaritch and the unthinking minions. I felt empathy for the main character trying to overcome the "dumb grunt" stereotype, and saw that most characters had at least moments of reflection and moral compass.
Colonel Quaritich probably reminds almost all of us of someone we have served with. My first thought was "Oh look, it's Colonel Steele" and reflected on some leaders I have actually served with that were of the aggressive/stupid variety and driven more for image and glory then anything else. On further reflection, I realized that these types of leaders were very rare over all. My question then is this; why do these poor leaders shape many people’s image of what soldiers and soldier leaders are like? I know many young soldiers that idolize these personality types. Any thoughts from the SWJ crew?

[Army5339]

Finally saw it. Great treat for the eyes and the story was not bad. It was however fairly offensive to soldiers via Colonel Miles Quaritch and the unthinking minions. I felt empathy for the main character trying to overcome the "dumb grunt" stereotype, and saw that most characters had at least moments of reflection and moral compass.
Colonel Quaritich probably reminds almost all of us of someone we have served with. My first thought was "Oh look, it's Colonel Steele" and reflected on some leaders I have actually served with that were of the aggressive/stupid variety and driven more for image and glory then anything else. On further reflection, I realized that these types of leaders were very rare over all. My question then is this; why do these poor leaders shape many people’s image of what soldiers and soldier leaders are like? I know many young soldiers that idolize these personality types. Any thoughts from the SWJ crew?

I wouldn't even say that. Military officers consistently rank as one of the most trustworthy professions in America:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=688

This is despite a constant attempt to smear that reputation through media portrayals showing the exact opposite.

[Cavguy]

I saw the IMAX 3D version this weekend. No issues here. Concur that it was a comment on many things from a liberal perspective, and played in stereotypes. That's fine with me, I respect people's intelligence to judge accordingly.

I have a lot of sympathy with the theme about trying to impose change on people who don't want it ... although none of their environments are Pandora-esque.

I concur with others that it's a story, well made and told, so lighten up. In general, scifi is one of the most military friendly fiction genres, with almost all space forces being pseudo-military and generally competent/respectable (Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (old and new), etc.)

[Rex Brynen]

I concur with others that it's a story, well made and told, so lighten up. In general, scifi is one of the most military friendly fiction genres, with almost all space forces being pseudo-military and generally competent/respectable (Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (old and new), etc.)

And then there is the best of the lot (IMHO)--Serenity/Firefly--in which the good guys are defeated insurgents :D

[William F. Owen]

I concur with others that it's a story, well made and told, so lighten up. In general, scifi is one of the most military friendly fiction genres, with almost all space forces being pseudo-military and generally competent/respectable (Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (old and new), etc.)

...and where are the Jews in Star Trek? "Star Schlep" - never got into production, and Hollywood is run by Jews!!
Any Jews in Avatar? - I DIDN'T THINK SO!!! :D

[denismurf]

My guess: Everybody who listens to talk radio every day will find some reason to hate this flick. Most of the rest will sit back and enjoy the ride. My wife and I everybody we know who's seen it loved it.

[Infanteer]

My guess: Everybody who listens to talk radio every day will find some reason to hate this flick. Most of the rest will sit back and enjoy the ride. My wife and I everybody we know who's seen it loved it.

Thank you - sounds like an over-academic attempt to "read" into things. The film obviously didn't offend too many folks as it just passed Titanic to become the highest grossest film of all time.

[Firn]

Thank you - sounds like an over-academic attempt to "read" into things. The film obviously didn't offend too many folks as it just passed Titanic to become the highest grossest film of all time.

Honi soit qui mal y pense? I enjoyed it, perhaps I was one of the - beati - pauperes spiritu. :D

Firn

[bellz]

I thought was movie was pretty good, especially visually. There were some obvious current references, especially the line where the head bad guy declares, "We will fight terror with terror!" Was I the only one very confused by this? But this review of it I found hilarious:

http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/12/23/in-which-we-teach-james-cameron-a-thing-or-two.html


But the more blatant lesson of Avatar is not that American imperialism is bad, but that in fact it’s necessary. Sure there are some bad Americans—the ones with tanks ready to mercilessly kill the Na’vi population, but Jake is set up as the real embodiment of the American spirit. He learns Na’vi fighting tactics better than the Na’vi themselves, he takes the King’s daughter for his own, he becomes the only Na’vi warrior in centuries to tame this wild dragon bird thing. Even in someone else’s society the American is the chosen one. He’s going to come in, lead your army, #### your princesses, and just generally save the day for you. Got it? This is how we do it.

[Cavguy]

Even in someone else’s society the American is the chosen one. He’s going to come in, lead your army, #### your princesses, and just generally save the day for you. Got it? This is how we do it."

Classic! :D:D:D

[Van]

... the American is the chosen one. He’s going to come in, lead your army, #### your princesses, and just generally save the day for you.

"Crush your enemies, see them scattered before you, and hear the lamentations of their wives and daughters as you clasp them to your breast."

To-MAH-to, To-MA-to. Hell, the quote from the review sounds like something Patton would say.

[Stan]

The Right Has Avatar Wrong (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11165) From the CATO Institute


Forget its left-wing themes. At its core, the movie is about defending property rights — something conservatives should embrace.

But conservatives have focused on the ideas that the film embodies. In National Review, Frederica Mathewes-Green mocked its dreamy vision of "the apparently eternal conflict between gentle people with flowers in their hair and technology-crazed meanies."

[Tukhachevskii]

"Even in someone else’s society the American is the chosen one. He’s going to come in, lead your army, #### your princesses, and just generally save the day for you. Got it? This is how we do it."

I haven't seen it, and more than likely won't (can't stand Cameron and never watch anything that has been so hyped up that I feel like I've seen it already anyway) but...sounds a lot like Last Samurai (in Space)!!:wry:

[Rex Brynen]

can't stand Cameron

You didn't like Aliens (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/)? :eek: (One of the) best science fiction movies. Ever.

[tequila]

And what's wrong with T2 or the original Terminator?

I haven't seen Dances with Navi and probably won't, but Cameron can shoot a good action film. Seriously, compare his stuff with crap like Michael Bay.

[Tukhachevskii]

Yes: loved T1, hated T2 (for a Terminator Arnie did precious little terminating:cool:)

Yes: loved Aliens.

No: Can't stand Cameron (too "schmalzy" for my liking especially with Titanic:eek:) but, OTOH, I have recently seen Transformers (1&2) and have to say that Bay did a good job in terms of action (on the narrative side, not so much).

As for the portrayal of the military in Hollywood I would like to see soemthing "righteous and hopefull" for a change:cool:

Anyway, I hear that one of my boyhood comic favourites is comming to the big screen soon (hopefully, not the disaster that Judge Dredd was).......i.e., Rogue Trooper.

regards

[Tukhachevskii]

Now I'm on my hobby horse....

I was struck by the "product placement" the military or the M-I-C manages to accomplish especially in recent films.

1. Die Hard 4 features an implausible chase sequence towards the end featuring the F-35 JSF (I had always favoured the Boeing model, if you were wondering, but scales of economy are as important I suppose)

2. In the rebooted Transformers Starscream in now as F-22 (previously an F-15 if I recall correctly) and in the final action sequence in the first film a group of squaddies or SOF operators desparately call for air support from an ... F-22 rather than A-10s which, IMO, would be perfectly adequate in the Transformer-busting role:D The SOF operators are also lavishly equipped with Milkor MGL-40s.

3. Similarly, I watched District 9 last night (IMO one of the best Sci-fi films I have seen in a long while). Yet, in the deleted scenes, there is a short segment, only 20 secs or so, where a PMC operator attached to MNU grabs a Denel-PAW20 20mm grenade launcher from his truck, oogles it appreciatively (or erotically if you're a gun lover), and then runs off to join the firefight with an alien "mech".

[Tukhachevskii]

As for the portrayal of the military in Hollywood I would like to see soemthing "righteous and hopefull" for a change:cool:



Although loath to quote myself an exampleof the above would be something like a faithful rendition of Heinlien's Starship Troopers rather than that abomination that Verhoeven turned it into. Or like those old WWII classics I grew up with..... I would love Vulcan 607 (a book about the famous long range bomber attack of Port Stanley by "antiquated" Vulcan bombers during the Falklands War)turned into a film for instance in the vein of the dambusters or Mosquito Sqn (you get the drift). (At the expense of turning into a reviewer form Empire magazine all rants are hereby expended...for now:D)

[Van]

As for the portrayal of the military in Hollywood I would like to see soemthing "righteous and hopefull" for a change:cool:

Tarentino could do a historically accurate flick about "Rogers' Rangers".
:D