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.
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
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.
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
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
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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
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). Presumably, this has to some very interesting implications regarding our home solar systems' development (see Pournelle, J., "Survival with Style," A Step Farther Out).
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
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!
Last edited by Beelzebubalicious; 01-10-2010 at 09:30 PM. Reason: Added link
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. The use of glottals and clicks does make it sound similar to some African languages though.
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.David price's analysis (http://www.counterpunch.org/price12232009.html) links this (no way!) to the anthropologists and human terrain system project.
I did see the humor in the allegations that Avatar was a 'how to' for jihadis (from the Boston Globe review).
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....
There are three kinds of people in this world:
Those who can count, and those who can't.
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/har...ex.asp?PID=688
This is despite a constant attempt to smear that reputation through media portrayals showing the exact opposite.
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.)
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
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/...ng-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.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-26-2010 at 08:05 PM. Reason: Add quote marks
Bookmarks