*** Official AVATAR Discussion Thread - Page 10

I think that’s self evident, since government is defined as that which governs, exercises authority over, etc. (in other words, rules) a political unit.

This is an astounding statement.  Governments have police forces, the purpose of which are to enforce laws.  If one violates those laws, those forces don’t come to you and say “please voluntarily do what we say”.  They use force.  The very name “police force” states what their purpose is.  In addition, governments spend billions raising armies, navies, and air forces (none of which is done by corporations).  Yet somehow an air force (as well as an army and navy) does not exist to exercise force.

So a government can only be called that if it’s “legitimate”?   An imposed military/communist/fascist dictatorship (including a “corporation” that behaves like one) or a monarchy is not a government?  Where is it stated that the exercise of authority must be “legitimate” in order to BE such?

You define governments as “acting for the public good or commonweal”?  Really?  That would be news to the people who were governed by, say, Jim Crow laws.  That would be also be news to the people who were governed by Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, the government of Pol Pot, Franco, Milosevic, Mao, etc. etc. etc.  I do agree that the staggeringly immense acts of theft and murder they committed “for the public good or commonweal” are very much distinguishable from the acts done by corporations (such as voluntarily marketing, selling, hiring, producing, etc.) to increase shareholder value.  History shows that the acts committed by the humans in Avatar are far, FAR more likely to have been committed as the result of a "national leader" exhorting people to act for "the public good" than by a profit making enterprise.

I'm glad you qualified your previous statement, where you said:


implying that ALL corporations wish to engage in such behavior.   Of course, to say that there are "some bad people" in corporations (maybe even at 20th Century Fox?) isn't really saying anything more than "some people are bad", since one could say the same thing about doctors, lawyers, politicians, postal workers, and even (gasp!) people working in the movie industry.  But my original point was that Hollywood doesn't depict things that way.  The portrayal of businessmen/corporations as evil is near universal, a point which no one has disputed.

There is nothing inherent in the pursuit of profit which compels one to behave unethically
(even though I'm aware that some people believe that the pursuit of profit is inherently unethical), and there is nothing inherent about the nature of government that compels it to behave ethically.
Edited by RobertR - 12/31/09 at 10:56am

Saw this last night, and as Kang and Kodos might say, "Holy flurking snit!"

I thought it was just stunning. Visually just an amazing experience from beginning to end (i saw the 3D version). I like Cameron's movies but I am not much a fan of him and his incredible arrogance (he once said that his movies should be shown for a higher price than others because of their spectacle), but he has created something here that will stand the test of time.

And hey, I also liked the unapologetic liberalism of the movie, and I like that the serious nature of the sci-fi allegory is back. Thought Zoe Saldana was terrific even if we never see her human face. Thumbs up on Sigourney Weaver reprising roles from Aliens and Gorillas In The Mist.

Several years ago, George Lucas tried to encourage theater owners to re-fit or retro-fit theaters for digital projection and/or 3D. Most of them balked. Turns out he was right. Cameron gives people a reason to go back to the movies, buy super-expensive popcorn and endure morons who turn on their cell phones in the show.

Movies just took a quantum leap forward, in terms of how they are made and how they are viewed. This is like the jump from black and white to color.

I agree.  Unfortunately, the corporation  that is willing to do anything for a buck, has an advantage.  This tends to favor the dishonest and unscrupulous.

A corporation that was dishonest and unscrupulous could gain a short term advantage, but it stands to reason that they would suffer the consequences once the dishonesty was discovered.  People gravitate towards companies that treat them well.

Saw it again (3rd time) but it was a RealD 3D showing, and from what I could tell, it looked like the 2.35:1 AR of the 2D and RealD 3D is reflective of chopping off some of the top and bottom portions of the frame to achive the 2.35:1 AR, while IMAX-3D is simply the entire frame opened up at the top and bottom of the frame.  The reason I suspect so is because you can barely see Jake scratch his t-back heinie in the 2.35:1 version, while it's much more obvious in the IMAX-3D version (at 1.85:1 AR).  But then again, the 2.35:1 framing could have had more manual framing help per scene (like pan/scan, but up-and-down instead of side-to-side) and not strictly been matted the same amount on the top and bottom throughout the film's running length.

My audience also applauded at the end of the film, and I even overheard a teenager say "that was an awesome movie!".  There was another teen sitting on my row with his father, and the teen was sitting forward with a straight back at attention throughout most of the film, instead of the normal slouchy seated position for passive viewing.  That teen was really into the film.  This is the kind of film that elicits such active viewing, and once the film gets going, people can't help but get drawn into it.

 A sequel could go anywhere. With Avatar tech, you could presumably grow any body and transfer into it. You'd be close to the Dollhouse world. Maybe the Na'vi could try out human bodies. And we never saw a Na'vi bonding with an Avatar, even during the sex scene. What might happen during such a bonding? I'm sure it would be grist for a sequel!

Navatar!

From www.boxofficeguru.com:

What a week it's been for James Cameron and the folks that do business with him. His mega-priced sci-fi smash Avatar cruised out of its second weekend with a stunning $212.7M in a mere ten days and then followed it up with a sizable $19.4M on Monday and $18.3M on Tuesday. That's more than double what the top films were grossing on the same holiday-fueled days last year.

The Fox hit shattered the $250M mark on Tuesday after only 12 days in release tying Spider-Man 2 to become the fifth fastest film to reach the quarter-billion mark. The record is still held by The Dark Knight with eight days followed by Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with nine days, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest with ten days, and Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith with eleven days. Avatar looks to break the $300M mark on Friday after just 15 days and will become the third fastest to hit that level after Dark Knight and the Transformers sequel which needed ten and fourteen days, respectively.

Moviegoers are still lining up for the 3D epic and urging friends to join the masses so another muscular gross will result this weekend. Spider-Man holds the record for the biggest third weekend gross with $45M, but Avatar should have no problem crushing that. Ticket sales may fall from the Christmas numbers by about 25% leading to a Friday-to-Sunday tally of around $56M. That would propel the 17-day cume to a staggering $341M.

Third viewing with my wife.  Still a spectacular film.  Some of the shots are so incredibly gorgeous.  I still can't get over how well directed this film is.  About what an immersive experience it is.

Anyways, the script made a big deal about the Na'vi bonding during mating.  And watching the film today, they are connected through their link.  They don't show them doing it, but they are clearly connected in the shots.

Saw it two days ago in a 2D projection with a woefully poor sound system that seemed to be ~15-20 dB too low.  Both of these factors combined kept me from getting immersed in the film to the level that many of you have reported, so my basic experience would echo the complaints that the story was highly predictable and the characters were unoriginal and cartoonish (in motivation, not appearance).  I think it's important that you are fully engaged in the film or have a well-exercised suspension of disbelief for the film to work from beginning to end.  Otherwise my brain has too much time to question things and the skepticism and eye rolling tends to creep in.

There were two things that I felt the film really needed to provide a better depiction of:
1.  An indication that more than half a dozen of all the human residents of the planet were actually troubled by the actions of the corporation, OR something to explain why all the others might feel that they were actually acting ethically in attacking the Na'Vi.  Show them numbing themselves to the evil with drugs or show that the indigenous people had viciously attacked someone who was otherwise benign and helpless... anything to give them an understandable motivation beyond "greed".  Having so many participate dutifully in the destruction of something so beautiful without question is what makes the "villains" seem like black hat wearing cartoon characters.
2.  How do you study a moon for (I'm guessing here given the duration mentioned for travel to the place) for many more than 10 years and yet only come to discover and articulate the true "neural" nature of the flora and fauna and the presence of a global consciousness during the events depicted in the film.  It seemed like they had a very unsophisticated understanding of the overall biology of the moon (despite having bioengineered a surprisingly successful hybrid of human and Na'Vi DNA, lived with the native species, learned their language and customs - a species that ritualistically interacts with the other species symbiotically) given their inability to properly communicate to the powers that be that heavily attacking the sacred sites of such an enemy would be a REALLY STUPID IDEA?  I was actually surprised to see human survivors being led away to a peaceful exit at the end because I was expecting the Ey'wa consciousness to have summoned everything available to violently destroy the enemy invaders completely.  If it was somehow able to absorb and understand Augustine's consciousness then it certainly would have known the nature of its enemy based on her view of them.

I guess I'm just bothered when the only sustained motivation that I can devise for the poorly strategized actions of the humans is that it will lead to a really nice effects sequence.

Brad

1. Quaritch's security briefing at the beginning of the film served as intro 101 to the perceived Na'vi threat to humans.  Plus, it was shown that the Na'vi were hunter-killers, but humans were never privvy to their customs and beliefs of hunting/killing until Jake was given access to their ways in return for the Na'vi to be able to interface with a humankind's warrior class of the Jarhead clan.

And then there's the Quaritch briefing in the 3rd act of the film when he riles up the troops/mercenaries once they realize the Na'vi are gathering forces to nuke the sacred Tree, primarily, the humans on RDA's payroll viewed the Na'vi as an obstacle to what they were there for: the Unobtanium.  Time after time, the corporation's rep (Selfridge) would reduce the Na'vi to blue monkeys and other sub-species in order to minimize their claim to the land and what was underneath it.  But once the carnage of Home Tree occurs, it is only then the crew viewing the events come to realize they weren't doing something humane or good.  Also, Quaritch sold Selfridge on the use of gas to drive out the Na'vi, but then it escalated and that's when the military option became too horrific to the onlookers in the control center.

2. The very idea of a planet being able to retain the memories of all those who have passed on wasn't on anyone's radar when observing the planet's ecology.  All that Grace uncovered up to this time of her research was transfer of energy from tree to tree (Norm offered that it was electrical in nature, but not before salivating at such a discovery), that's not something easily discovered when you are faced with all the new and different species of plant-life on this moon.  And then add on the outreach project to the Na'vi, and then the Avatar project, it's not like this revelation of a moon-wide botanical network was something easily ascertained, it's the "surprise" reveal that no one thinks is a big deal, but it is.

I'm sure Jake negotiated the human-Na'vi relations at the end of the film, which allowed for some of the scientists and human sympathetic to the Na'vi to remain, while the corporation's human resources infrastructure was predominantly sent home.

1.  I would presume that the company picked people of like mind.  They're not going to select a bunch of "tree-huggers" to be their mercenaries.  The group sympathetic to the Navi are the scientists and they are being tolerated by the company only so long as they can derive benefit from them.     Early on we see Grace's anger at being pushed around by the company.  Jake is there only because his brother died and the company did not want to lose their investment in his avatar.

2.  The company people did not want to accept any concept that would interfere with their thinking the Navi were nothing more than animals.  They were actively ignoring data that did not fit their preconceived notions.  It was also hard for the scientists to study the flora and fauna considering the hostile environment.  They were probably kept busy developing the avatars and the Navi did not give them access to any inside info.  It's not clear in the movie how long they've had avatars to study the environment and the Navi.

3.  No surprise to me.  Early on we see the Navi dislike killing for killing's sake.  Remember how angry Neyteri was when she had to kill to save Jake?  "They did not have to die!"  The Ey'wa conciousness was stated to not like intervention and interceded only to maintain the balance of life.  It's easy to believe the Ey'wa would not kill when it's not necessary.


I don't think a proper presentation of the movie will change your mind, though I'm sorry you didn't get one.  I was watching a preview in HD on my home theater and I realized I'm still going to like this movie very much on blu-ray.

I don't disagree with your interpretations, I just find it difficult to accept that all of those preconceived notions about the Na'Vi being a lesser species would not be changed during the three plus months that Jake is spending with them on a daily basis, or during the months or years that Grace spent teaching them English and learning to negotiate with them.  When Jake first tried out his Avatar body it seemed like there were a few dozen other avatars there as well, but we don't seem to see their drivers later in the film.  To require that all but the scientists were just too stubborn and dull to recognize what they were destroying makes them precisely the type of villain that generally bothers me the most - simply evil for the sake of the plot.  At least that was what it seemed like to me during my single viewing.  I wanted more humanity in the humans.

You have to realize that the mission mining Unobtanium was the driving force for human's presence on Pandora.  The presence of all the scientists and drivers for the Avatar project were a subset of trying to forge better relations with the Na'vi, but years of efforts failed because all of the recruited scientists were trained too much to truly comprehend the way of the Na'vi, their cups were already full, so the Na'vi didn't much see the point in trying to come to some understanding between humans and Na'vi in all those years.  Grace was the closest, but she also had too much book-learning inside of her to truly embrace the Na'vi.  Then comes Jake, the one guy without any scientific or Avatar training,  he was an "empty cup", with a gorgeous brain that seemed open to learning and accepting of whatever was thrown at him, even the floating air-borne jellyfish-like creatures gave him the "thumbs up", which is why Neytiri led Jake to her parents, she trusted ey'wa's sign to give Jake a chance.

Couple this with the RDA consortium picking the humans with the "proper" outlook for their corporate beliefs (you can't assume the humans at the camp shared a cross-section of different beliefs in terms of their mission as they were hand-selected to go on this mission), the humans were not "evil" for evil's sake, they were simply ignorant of how integrated life was on Pandora (and refused to acknowlege the damage they were doing to the "databanks of memories" by tthe destroying and clearing sites of the trees), and just saw the mining operations as a nice personal payday and adventure. 

Selfridge had to answer to his superiors, so his judgment was clouded by corporate pressure, while Quaritch was a mercenary who was tired of seeing men under his command being plundered by the Na'vi and other creatures surrounding their camp, he saw the Na'vi as the enemy combatant whose presence jeopardized the mining mission for his employer.  In war-like combat, to do your combatant fatal harm, you have to de-humanized them, or accept a "kill or be killed" attitude.  Quaritch just wanted to move the Na'vi off the richest deposit of Unobtanium on Pandora, whether the humans had rights to it is a wholy different ethical matter, but in Quaritch's mind, might makes right, of course from an outsider's perspective, that might not hold water in terms of the humans being the illegitimate strip-miners of this moon, and the vanquishing of the indigenous shouldn't be seen as solely collateral damage for a consortium's pride and greed, but actual damage of Pandora's biodiverse ecology. 

So in the decades that the settling hordes spent experiencing the American Indian, how did that work out for the Indians?  Sure there were some who realized the Indians were not sub-human, but most did or would not accept that.  I'm sure it would not be difficult to mentally subjugate another species.  Also, these soldiers were not fighting for country or even the earth.  They were fighting for money and the human species will do anything for money.  There's be no problem recruiting plenty of mercenaries with the same mindset.

My English are terrible!

100+ things I learned from Avatar

http://www.100thingsilearned.com/view.php?id=142

Some funny (and very much on the mark) stuff there.

Calling this "Cameron's" view seems a bit disingenuous. Isn't this really just the commonly accepted view, the default view of corporations? Or to put it another way, can you think of any business that does not act in its best interest, without regard to anything at all?

I recall back in the late 1970s or maybe it was the early 1980s when Nike was the biggest sneaker company, as sneakers were just emerging as name-brand items, and they were famously confronted with the slave labor conditions of their (subcontractor) Chinese factories, and forced to start paying their workers more.

And it has been that way ever since, and probably ever before.

This is not some radical idea, nor is it some rare point of view. It is the way business is conceived and how businesses operate (because it is the most effecient way to operate) -- and if there are any exceptions, they are exceptions, intentionally acting against the very concepts of incorporation in order to make a humanitarian point.

I guess I can think of one -- Ben & Jerrys ice cream. There's probably a few others that act contrary to the standards of business. But Cameron's view is just an honest look at the nature of the structure, and yes it is judgmental, but it is not a skewed look. It is a judgmental look at a structure which by its very definition lacks humanitarian elements, and as such possesses an innate conflict that makes for good drama.

Sure, some of the mercenaries and workers may have liked some elements of the Na'vi, but their jobs would not have given them any leeway to act on their feelings. The film made clear that the company held people's lives in their hands -- benefits, including health benefits*, were at the will of the company. So people knew to keep their thoughts to themselves and to just do their jobs. 

*The head mercenary spoke of how he could get his scars fixed by the company, and how the company could get Jake's legs repaired... And Jake had some narration in which he talked about how it was impossible to afford such health care on one's own. So the film was portraying a society in which people's health care -- or at least the best health care, the care people would really want -- was tied to jobs with large corporations. (How alien!) And to be without it, would be to have very little.

Indeed, look at Jake. He is presented as wheelchair bound, his legs wasting away, "half a person", unless he works for the company and receives their good graces by being a good boy.
Edited by Will_B - 1/2/10 at 1:22am

I think this focus on corporations is completely missing one of the points of the film.  Cameron's films have always been pessimistic towards humanity.  Terminator, Terminator 2, The Abyss.  His films typically showcase individual humanity versus collective human failings.

The corporation is a process, not a set of values.  And based on the dialogue in the film, Cameron doesn't "blame" the RDA for the failings on the planet (just as it wasn't corporations in the 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s).  So this focus on how "evil" corporations are is tangential.

You believe it’s the “default view” that corporations behave (or wish to behave) without regard to any morality at all?  That they’re perfectly willing to engage in slavery, mass theft, even mass murder?   And as a corollary, that this utter lack of morality somehow distinguishes them from non-business people?  But I do agree with you that Hollywood is quite willing to depict them that way.

Your use of the emotional term “slave labor” is not accurate.  The allegation was not that the workers were “slaves” (slaves are considered actual property, and are physically coerced into working without payment), but that they were being paid excessively low wages, especially by American standards.  The problem was not “corporations” per se, but the extreme poverty in China, poverty caused not by corporations, but by Maoist doctrines, doctrines that excoriated private business and emphasized acting for “the good of all”.  To the extent that China today (although still a dictatorship) has abandoned those collectivist doctrines and at least begun to allow private businesses to flourish, it’s becoming far, FAR wealthier and better off, precisely because of those private businesses that you believe have “no regard for anything at all”.

Business is conceived and operates on the principle of voluntary production, marketing, and exchange of goods and services (including labor), a principle you don’t seem to think is humanitarian.  The view you have (and seem to think Cameron has) that anyone who chooses to operate a business somehow abandons all of his previous ethics and morality and longer has a “regard for anything at all” by the very nature of its structure is indeed an extremely skewed one.

Edited by RobertR - 1/2/10 at 9:06am

I actually find those movies to be basically optimistic because, like you said, an individual makes a positive difference.

Sure, sure.  Pessimistic may be the wrong word.  Realistic may be a better one.  But the idea that he know suddenly is targeting corporations as his "villain" when he's been targeting humankind's lack of vision and humility since day one seems, well, wishful.  For lack of a better word.  It isn't Wal-Mart he was targeting in The Abyss or the Terminator films.  The corporation was a bad guy in Aliens, but that was a carry-forward from the first film.

I simply see a continuation of his basic themes in Avatar.  The RDA isn't evil or malicious.  Selfridge isn't evil, just human.  I think Cameron looks with a longer view than simply our current sociological norms and processes.  The RDA is no different than Buy N Large from WALL*E.  Short-sighted and myopic.

Depending on the particular tribe, in conditions where the settlers were greatly outnumbered by the natives they generally attempted to form a peaceful trading (and missionary) relationship with the natives - or were slaughtered by them.  When the numbers of the settlers grew much larger than the natives, conflict became inevitable due to a direct competition for scarce resources (and often an attitude of divine providence on the part of the settler).  In this film we see that former attempts at diplomacy had failed due to a diminished understanding of the alien culture, but Jake's relationship with the natives was providing a new, viable pathway for sustained diplomacy.  Yet the leadership pushes forward with an attack with no regard for long term relationships or basic strategy.

People that are in desperate situations, have no means of providing for themselves or their own family, or that believe they are being guided explicitly by a higher power may engage in highly unethical acts to justify their own survival - this is very different than saying that "the human species will do anything for money".  I found it difficult to accept that an organization that is capable of routine interstellar travel, that is (exclusively?) mining a highly profitable mineral, would be able to maintain a workforce of desperate, destitute, amorally robotic workers.  At some point I would expect guilt to creep in for many like it did for the Michelle Rodriguez character.  In my own personal experience of the film, I felt that the characterization of the rest of the corporation employees in the latter half was too one-dimensional.  I'm not saying that such as setup isn't possible, nor that there aren't analogous examples in human history.  I just felt that it hurt the story to make it such a black hat vs white hat setup going into the conclusion.  For me, the film was purposefully driven to an effects heavy conclusion with a predictable good-guys-win result (of course, that's the best use of the effects budget), and that seemed to require the most pessimistic view of humanity to achieve.  You attack a sacred location, monitor your enemy massing a vast army (led by someone familiar with your equipment and tactics), and then order a direct, low speed ground unit charge into the heart of their forces.  Who does that?  High-altitude aerial (heck, ORBITAL) bombardment for the win.  Only a cartoon character would be so stupid and arrogant.

Brad

I discovered this entry in the Avatar Wiki:


Based on this, it's now clear to me that what we see in the film is not simply a profit making enterprise, but more like an arm of a future interplanetary government (the "quasi" qualifier notwithstanding).

The first paragraph would seem to plug what many people were seeing as a gaping plot hole, namely, why the hell didn't they simply nuke the targets from orbit (which was the "obvious" solution in Aliens).

Why would the humans even have nukes at Pandora?  What would be the launching mechanism?  How would the RDA deal with fallout from such a strike, with respect to their stated goal of mining the planet?  Why would they feel nukes necessary, dealing with a native species that uses bows and arrows?

One could ask similar questions of the space marines in Aliens.  They would use a very low yield device generating minimal radiation.  Such a tactic would be more "efficient" than putting soldiers at risk by using a low airspeed/ground assault.  It would be essentially impossible to defend against a high speed missile.  But, as the Wiki entry states, they are prevented from using such weapons.

Sure, but that was a military ship and a military operation.  This is not.  So the expectation that they would have such weapons is premature.

Why didn't the US just use low yield nukes in Vietnam?  The US Air Force was created after WWII in the expectation that all future warfare would be solely long range bombers dropping nukes.  That hasn't materialized, and our warfare still ranges from bullets to bombs to nukes.  Reciprocal force is a long-standing military concept.  Why even use a nuke, again, on natives with bows and arrows?  Nukes aren't cheap.

It's a mining operation, but it's clearly operating with plenty of military backing.

The use of nukes has always had geopolitical implications, implications which well overshadow military considerations.  The Wiki entry seems to indicate that political restraints on their use are still very much in effect.  All I'm saying is that in the absence of such restraints, I could easily see someone like Quaritch saying "why should I bother risking my men and equipment with a big assault, when a quick strike with a nuke missile will do the job?".   It would hardly seem to be more expensive than the use of the large amount of men and equipment we saw in the film.

Of course, I fully understand that the drama wouldn't be served in such a situation, just as it wouldn't be quite so dramatic to have the "big bad dinosaurs" in Jurassic Park face soldiers with bazookas in an open area..