Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
tarheel91 said: I’m not going to lie. I really am annoyed with some people in this thread. So much of the criticism comes from people who looked at the movie far too shallowly. For instance:
“Man comes to appreciate the indigenous tribe and then witness how utterly evil and materialistic humans are.” A4Noob says this despite my explanation on the SAME F’ING PAGE explaining how it’s not that simple. It’s about imperialism. IMPERIALISM. This is not about humans or even capitalism in general. This is about imperialism.
Right. Because imperialism is such a current ordeal now a days that we need a huge budget film to revolve around it. This isn’t about capitalism? That’s pretty funny considering how the entire basis of the movie is on corporations exploiting the poor and impoverished, which seems to be the nucleus of all hollywood propaganda. Oh, and I laughed when they called it “unobtanium”, it’s real ironic. I already mentioned similar parallels like the Spanish invasion of the Native Americans. This is just beating the same dead horse like every other high budget film because script writers think it’s deep to be misanthropists.
tarheel said: “It’s imperialism, not ‘humans being super evil.’ As a member of what was the largest empire during the years of traditional imperialism, I’d expect you to know more about it. Imperialism was led by corporations like the one in the movie. They did what the corporation in the movie did to the Na’vi and Pandora to the native people of wherever and that land. See: Seminole Wars, West/East India Companies, Colonial Africa, etc. It’s something that still goes on in less direct ways (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, etc.), and it’s something that most of us seem to accept pretty easily. What a lot of the stuff in this genre (Avatar included) tries to do is get people to see how wrong what’s happening is.”For the life of me I don’t understand why you put Iraq and Vietnam in there. The only “imperialists” I would imagine were the Soviet proxies in North Vietnam trying to conquer South Vietnam. But putting that aside, why is the European expansion a couple centuries (and even earlier) a prevalent modern issue? It isn’t and to bring that kind of parallel to an advanced human society is just ridiculous. No one can take it seriously because of how facetious every moment is. Example: The Na’vi tree being burned to the ground with the general saying, “Good job boys”.
What would be realistic? The Na’vi tribes being at war with each other. Similar to how South American tribes committed atrocious sacrifices to their god, which honestly make your examples look like cannon fodder. Yes, we know about Colonial Africa, and British/American conquest of modern-day USA. But are people aware of the brutality that commenced between the Iroquois and the Algonquians? Are people aware of the Arab slave trade in Africa. Hell I bet even script writers of Avatar are completely ignorant of White Gold, yet they’re more than anxious to jot down the condemnations of North Americans / Europeans.
I’m not trying to marginalize what transpired to the indigenous in Florida or across N.A. But the story line was unrealistic and overused. Though, I’m sure that won’t stop the writers from earning an Academy award.
Gujju said: I dont think a played out story means it was crap.It is when it’s another thinly veiled political message from Hollywood to show their contempt for dictatorial Americans. Really, as if any corporation would have the balls to demolish a civilization over a rare commodity. It’s just stretching the notion how corrupt corporations are and (SURPRISE) the military is in on it.
The visuals were good, but the story line was utter crap. Man comes to appreciate the indigenous tribe and then witness how utterly evil and materialistic humans are. Come on, we’ve seen this kind of story play out so many times I could puke out a better plot. I’m not even sure if this was a parallel to the Conquistador or the French/British invasion of North America. Anyways plot wise, I could argue 2012 was more in depth, but visually it was stunning.
tarheel91 said:dee32693 said: Lol I don’t. My one major argument is WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).
Seriously people, discuss whether or not a fetus is living. That’s the assumption everything hinges on. Everything else is irrelevant.
Yes and no. The major proponent in legislating abortion is a woman’s freedom over her own body. Now the debate comes down to an even more abstract discussion: freedom versus life. It is the ongoing debacle in the justice system to decide which one is more sacred, and for God knows why, they chose viability to be the threshold. Assuming it is biologically imperative for the fetus to grow inside his mother (inviable), then the option for abortion should be available. Or at least, that’s how the justice system views it. And btw, while you say late term abortions are flat out murder, you should hold your tongue. There are countries as in Canada who allow women to commit abortions up until the moment of birth. Shocking isn’t it 😉
