-= Gametoast.com =-

Mav is right. While opinions about the film are based on preference, it's undeniable that this message has relevance. If you forget your past you are bound to repeat it. As for being beat over the head, you can't imagine how many videos against drugs have been played and created and shown, and guess what? People still use drugs. And if you argue that "it won't happen again", I can simply retort with the World Wars. You think they'd learn? There's always "that guy".

Grev wrote:Mav is right. While opinions about the film are based on preference, it's undeniable that this message has relevance. If you forget your past you are bound to repeat it. As for being beat over the head, you can't imagine how many videos against drugs have been played and created and shown, and guess what? People still use drugs.

That... is not what I'm saying either. I'm not going to take sides in a debate on the merits of degrees of environmentalism.

All I'm saying is:
This is clearly allegorical to a situation in this country's immediate past
It has a co-incident environmental message
It delivers its message in a heavy-handed matter

I enjoyed the movie. I thought that it could have been more subtle. I don't really think too much more about popcorn flicks like this, they either file into my "like" or "did not like" categories and I move on to the next one.

Wow, haven't checked this thread in a while.
The reason why I really liked this movie is because I feel it had very clear parallels with history. I think the connection with the plight of Native American is most apparent, but the movie also parallels the struggles of other cultures (for example, in south america and africa). Many have criticized the movie for the unoriginal story, and while I agree that the story is not new, I still think it is important.
As for the portrayal of the natural world in Avatar, which seems to be controversial, I think it is important. I am not a "hippie" or "anti-industry" by any means, but I do believe that the idea of respect for the natural world is important. It is interesting (or coincidence) that the movie was released on the last day of the Copenhagen Conference. Clearly, Avatar was made to be an entertaining film and also convey a message.

Having read reviews on other sites it seems that critics who agree with the message liked the movie, but those who don't didn't.

Maveritchell wrote:

Raptor522 wrote:They didn't start destroying the planet & killing the Na'vi simply for the sake of it...They killed Na'vi in quasi-self-defense, not because they set out for genocide

You have a strange understanding of U.S. history if you think we killed or relocated Native Americans "for the sake of it" or "for genocide."

Actually, that part was a reference to the "Save the Earth!" thing, such as the extinction of the dodo bird and other animals, not the indians.

Maveritchell wrote:Furthermore, read up on your American history. The movie literally depicted a Trail of Tears when they were forced out of their home.

While it was definitely a Trail of Tears, the Na'vi were never literally/physically guided somewhere else like prisoners, unlike in the Trail of Tears. They attempted to defend their home, failed, and when their home was destroyed, they moved somewhere else, like any survivors of an attack on their home in any war. The humans only knew where they were going because of the Avatars.

Maveritchell wrote:The story is simple. More-powerful group wants what less-powerful group has on their own land. More powerful group forces less-powerful group to leave their homes.

Didn't I say that?

Maveritchell wrote:The parallels are undeniable - the whole impetus for the main character's story was about forcing relocation!

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

Thematic elements are similar as well, like the tribalism of the Na'vi, the level of technology (bows, arrows, etc.), strong women leaders, spiritual connection with the land - but if the overt story elements don't smack you in the face then it is doubtful these will either.

Their goal wasn't relocation. They didn't consider the Na'vi as threats, it was never a matter of moving the Na'vi so they could use that land. They had plans to destroy Hometree and get to the unobtanium, not to relocate the Na'vi and then destroy Hometree, though that might be because they already knew the Na'vi wouldn't move. They only attempted to tell the Na'vi to relocate beforehand when Jake pushed the issue, which may have been for the same reason. Jake wanted them to move so they wouldn't die, because he knew they wouldn't care about any Na'vi in the way.

Also, I agreed (or meant to, I probably worded it wrong) that the "thematic elements" of it are the same, like their "level of technology..., strong women leaders, spiritual connection with the land". Sorry I was unclear about that.

Raptor522 wrote:

Maveritchell wrote:

Raptor522 wrote:They didn't start destroying the planet & killing the Na'vi simply for the sake of it...They killed Na'vi in quasi-self-defense, not because they set out for genocide

You have a strange understanding of U.S. history if you think we killed or relocated Native Americans "for the sake of it" or "for genocide."

Actually, that part was a reference to the "Save the Earth!" thing, such as the extinction of the dodo bird and other animals, not the indians.

Maveritchell wrote:Furthermore, read up on your American history. The movie literally depicted a Trail of Tears when they were forced out of their home.

While it was definitely a Trail of Tears, the Na'vi were never literally/physically guided somewhere else like prisoners, unlike in the Trail of Tears. They attempted to defend their home, failed, and when their home was destroyed, they moved somewhere else, like any survivors of an attack on their home in any war. The humans only knew where they were going because of the Avatars.

Maveritchell wrote:The story is simple. More-powerful group wants what less-powerful group has on their own land. More powerful group forces less-powerful group to leave their homes.

Didn't I say that?

Maveritchell wrote:The parallels are undeniable - the whole impetus for the main character's story was about forcing relocation!

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

Thematic elements are similar as well, like the tribalism of the Na'vi, the level of technology (bows, arrows, etc.), strong women leaders, spiritual connection with the land - but if the overt story elements don't smack you in the face then it is doubtful these will either.

Their goal wasn't relocation. They didn't consider the Na'vi as threats, it was never a matter of moving the Na'vi so they could use that land. They had plans to destroy Hometree and get to the unobtanium, not to relocate the Na'vi and then destroy Hometree, though that might be because they already knew the Na'vi wouldn't move. They only attempted to tell the Na'vi to relocate beforehand when Jake pushed the issue, which may have been for the same reason. Jake wanted them to move so they wouldn't die, because he knew they wouldn't care about any Na'vi in the way.

Also, I agreed (or meant to, I probably worded it wrong) that the "thematic elements" of it are the same, like their "level of technology..., strong women leaders, spiritual connection with the land". Sorry I was unclear about that.

Their goal was partially relocation. They set up the avatars to make the Na'vi appease and move.

As for the dodo bird, no one ever set out "to genocide" it. It was killed dye to overuse/ overhunting.

True, but again, they were planning on using the location anyways. Which, granted, is probably what we would've done...

And no, they didn't set out to kill every dodo bird, but it did go extinct when it was constantly hunted for sport.

Raptor522 wrote:True, but again, they were planning on using the location anyways. Which, granted, is probably what we would've done...

And no, they didn't set out to kill every dodo bird, but it did go extinct when it was constantly hunted for sport.

That's what I said.

Raptor522 wrote:

Maveritchell wrote:The parallels are undeniable - the whole impetus for the main character's story was about forcing relocation!

Their goal wasn't relocation.

It wasn't? See below:

Raptor522 wrote:

Maveritchell wrote:The story is simple. More-powerful group wants what less-powerful group has on their own land. More powerful group forces less-powerful group to leave their homes.

Didn't I say that?

Didn't you say that?

Raptor522 wrote:They didn't consider the Na'vi as threats, it was never a matter of moving the Na'vi so they could use that land.

They did consider them threats. That's why they had armed forces. That's why they had the whole lecture about them being dangerous and that the Colonel would try to keep them alive but he wouldn't succeed with all of them. That's why they were called savages and why they are referred to as "hostiles."

I am not sure whether you did or didn't say that you agreed with them being located since you are sending mixed messages, but it had to have been about relocation because that's what they gave the main character three months to do in the central plot. The main character didn't "push the issue" until the very end.

Maybe watch the movie again or maybe read some synopses online. I'm having a tough time seeing how something so clear to me (and a whole lot of other people) is something you don't see.

The Colonel may or may not have said he'd fail to keep every single person alive to keep 'em on their toes. Also, the Na'vi weren't the only dangerous creatures on Pandora, shown both near the beginning and at the end. Whether the Na'vi were threats or not, and considering how relatively cut-off from Earth they were (a 6 year space flight, I think?), going overkill on the security would've made sense.

Ahhh, yeah, I've gotten myself confused about some of this. I'm not completely sure what I've been saying either... sorry, I guess I'm not that great at debating movies I've only seen once. lol From what you've said, I've apparently forgotten or remembered most of the movie incorrectly. Sorry if I've disrespected anyone. Though now I need to see it again, I have a bunch of stuff to think about now. lol

I'm out.

I saw the movie and it was so cool
I'm not sure if this is a 'spam', but the movie took 14 years of planning!

Ooh, ooh! I know how they can make the message even more heavy-handed! After the na'vi are forced off their land, they start a cotton plantation and use enslaved prawns (the aliens from District 9) to pick it!

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Ooh, ooh! I know how they can make the message even more heavy-handed! After the na'vi are forced off their land, they start a cotton plantation and use enslaved prawns (the aliens from District 9) to pick it!

I take it you saw D9 recently and absolutely loved it?

Lord Bardar wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Ooh, ooh! I know how they can make the message even more heavy-handed! After the na'vi are forced off their land, they start a cotton plantation and use enslaved prawns (the aliens from District 9) to pick it!

I take it you saw D9 recently and absolutely loved it?

That's right. It's a movie about real aliens, not big blue monkey men.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:

Lord Bardar wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Ooh, ooh! I know how they can make the message even more heavy-handed! After the na'vi are forced off their land, they start a cotton plantation and use enslaved prawns (the aliens from District 9) to pick it!

I take it you saw D9 recently and absolutely loved it?

That's right. It's a movie about real aliens, not big blue monkey men.

Oh right! Because you and Peter Jackson saw real aliens, and based the D9 aliens off of the "real aliens". Thanks for letting us know!

Grev wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:

Lord Bardar wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Ooh, ooh! I know how they can make the message even more heavy-handed! After the na'vi are forced off their land, they start a cotton plantation and use enslaved prawns (the aliens from District 9) to pick it!

I take it you saw D9 recently and absolutely loved it?

That's right. It's a movie about real aliens, not big blue monkey men.

Oh right! Because you and Peter Jackson saw real aliens, and based the D9 aliens off of the "real aliens". Thanks for letting us know!

Well soooooorry, captain serious. I'd almost forgotten that no-one here has anything close to a sense of humor.

What'd you expect? The internet is a place for serious business. Very serious indeed. But really, if you say that you didn't like the blue people from Avatar in a sarcastic fashion, don't get mad when people disagree with similar sarcasm. I thought the aliens from D9 looked like Turians from Mass Effect with slight differences. Plus, if you don't think that anyone here had a sense of humor, you wouldn't try.

Besides, technically, the humans were the aliens in Avatar, seeing as the Na'vi were native to Pandora, not us.

I just thought I would share this short article by the Los Angeles Times about Avatar. It is basicly there predictions on how they think Avatar will do at the Oscars. Just my opinion here but I believe that after there success at the Golden Globes they may score big at the Oscars.

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_gol ... -news.html

Los Angeles Times wrote:"Avatar" has already won over film critics, fan boys and many Hollywood awards, scoring best-picture nominations from the Golden Globes and Critics Choice Movie Awards. But how will "Avatar" fare at the Oscars?

My guess is that "Avatar" can score up to nine Academy Award nominations: best picture, director, art direction, film editing, music score, song, sound editing, sound mixing and visual effects.

Forget screenplay. James Cameron wasn't nominated for "Titanic" when it reigned as king of the Oscars. Forget makeup. Radical facial changes are due to special effects instead of powder, paste, lipstick, eyeliner and hair dye. "Avatar" is also just a long shot for costume design.

I can see it winning everything except for picture/score/song. That should go to Inglourious Basters/Star Trek/idk.

Kind of foodfor thought: Future avatar games (there's supposed to e 2 more movies) with Natal? Especially the motion censor robots?

Hhm, lot's to read. I haven't seen it yet, but plan to at Imax sometime this month. I've heard it has a lame storyline but great effects.