I didn’t care at all for a bunch of religious freaks who were killing human soldiers because the humans wanted to develop their land. I see absolutely no reason to sympathize with any of the whatever you call them.
I was pulling for the soldiers and had zero sympathy for the “blue” people too. It would have been awesome if the final scene was the soldiers marching under the burned out tree in parade formation playing Yankee Doodle Dandy type songs:
@Imperious:
I was pulling for the soldiers and had zero sympathy for the “blue” people too. It would have been awesome if the final scene was the soldiers marching under the burned out tree in parade formation playing Yankee Doodle Dandy type songs:
Ha… I like this. :lol: I can’t say I was pulling for the soldiers… or anyone for that matter… I sort of just watched the movie unfold. I think it would have been more amusing to have the soldiers win. The idea of a victory march under a burned out tree is pretty funny.
Sorry I missed your answer.
I had almost the opposite reaction. I didnt care at all for a bunch of religous freaks who were killing human soldiers because the humans wanted to develop their land.
I see absolutly no reason to sympathize with any of the whatever you call them. They wern’t real people as much as they were pretty CGI creations who through their height, blue skin and big eyes were tailored to make the audience feel sympathetic based on looks and not who they accaully were. If you swithced out the blue people for the Aliens from James Cameron’s other films(now Aliens is a good movie), nobody would feel any sympathy for those monsters no matter how many of their big trees were burned.
:-o
Well if your empathy only extends to people who look like you anything more I might say is likely just to make you angry.
Are you an atheist or a theist? (just to help me understand where you might be coming from not to start any sort of discussion)
I didnt like the main character either. When he was human he is loyal to them, now that he is blue, tall and has big eyes he is loyal to the Navs. Ok.
And the stand that the movie takes, “its wrong to kill and destory people and their stuff”, in my experience thats a very common popular culture idea.
Also what was Faustian about it? What do you mean by the soldeirs dilemma?
I thought the good guys lost.
Well that was the story wasn’t it? That Jake is caught between two loyalties. But as you had no sympathy for the “religious freaks” who weren’t ‘real’ you could only see his actions as betraying one side. The Faustian bargain was the deal for his legs and I suppose it is a stretch to call it that. He had to betray the trust he had with the Na’vii that allowed him to acquire the information that would ‘buy’ his legs.
But Jake being a soldier had some sense of honor so does his honor solely lie with the humans? Or the Na’vi who took him under their wing and embraced him as a brother? And don’t soldiers have some duty to a ‘higher’ sense of right? Of course you seem to think it is right to take the land of “religious freaks” to dig it up so I suppose this perspective didn’t occur to you and Jake’s dilemma is solely ‘us’ or ‘them’ and has the “religious freaks” weren’t ‘real’ there was only ‘us’ and no ethical call to see no blood shed.
And I’m gone from this discussion. :-)
Sorry I missed your answer.
I had almost the opposite reaction. I didnt care at all for a bunch of religous freaks who were killing human soldiers because the humans wanted to develop their land.
I see absolutly no reason to sympathize with any of the whatever you call them. They wern’t real people as much as they were pretty CGI creations who through their height, blue skin and big eyes were tailored to make the audience feel sympathetic based on looks and not who they accaully were. If you swithced out the blue people for the Aliens from James Cameron’s other films(now Aliens is a good movie), nobody would feel any sympathy for those monsters no matter how many of their big trees were burned.
:-o
Well if your empathy only extends to people who look like you anything more I might say is likely just to make you angry.
Are you an atheist or a theist? (just to help me understand where you might be coming from not to start any sort of discussion)
I didnt like the main character either. When he was human he is loyal to them, now that he is blue, tall and has big eyes he is loyal to the Navs. Ok.
And the stand that the movie takes, “its wrong to kill and destory people and their stuff”, in my experience thats a very common popular culture idea.
Also what was Faustian about it? What do you mean by the soldeirs dilemma?
I thought the good guys lost.
Well that was the story wasn’t it? That Jake is caught between two loyalties. But as you had no sympathy for the “religious freaks” who weren’t ‘real’ you could only see his actions as betraying one side. The Faustian bargain was the deal for his legs and I suppose it is a stretch to call it that. He had to betray the trust he had with the Na’vii that allowed him to acquire the information that would ‘buy’ his legs.
But Jake being a soldier had some sense of honor so does his honor solely lie with the humans? Or the Na’vi who took him under their wing and embraced him as a brother? And don’t soldiers have some duty to a ‘higher’ sense of right? Of course you seem to think it is right to take the land of “religious freaks” to dig it up so I suppose this perspective didn’t occur to you and Jake’s dilemma is solely ‘us’ or ‘them’ and has the “religious freaks” weren’t ‘real’ there was only ‘us’ and no ethical call to see no blood shed.
And I’m gone from this discussion. :-)
I’ve noticed that most people who post on politics here are conservatives. Perhaps it’s because most people here are middle age adults?
Not Atheist in the slightest.
The reason why i have no sympathy is because the soldiers would have developed the land even better that in the end would have provided a better result.
Like in Star Trek, the peoples just keep expanding and developing the planets toward that end. The result would be eventually integration like the Vulcans, who serve with distinction on those space ships. But first they needed to be trained and shown that interstellar progress is coming for their own betterment.
Otherwise on their own they might become prey to a really belligerent civilization that wants them gone ( cylons). In that case the humans would not be around to protect them and they would perish an even worse fate.
The humans just wanted to exploit the planet and in a universe of billions of planets, plenty of even better places conceivably exist that don’t stand above an oil field. In the end casinos might be built and the blues could make their world the next Las Vegas, allowing them to enjoy plenty of large hot dogs and watch football.
Also, it would only be a matter of time before the planet would get hit by a giant rock, now the humans could protect them with technology the blue people don’t have. So they made a trade to survive.
@Imperious:
I didn’t care at all for a bunch of religious freaks who were killing human soldiers because the humans wanted to develop their land. I see absolutely no reason to sympathize with any of the whatever you call them.
I was pulling for the soldiers and had zero sympathy for the “blue” people too. It would have been awesome if the final scene was the soldiers marching under the burned out tree in parade formation playing Yankee Doodle Dandy type songs:
@Imperious:
I was pulling for the soldiers and had zero sympathy for the “blue” people too. It would have been awesome if the final scene was the soldiers marching under the burned out tree in parade formation playing Yankee Doodle Dandy type songs:
Ha… I like this. :lol: I can’t say I was pulling for the soldiers… or anyone for that matter… I sort of just watched the movie unfold. I think it would have been more amusing to have the soldiers win. The idea of a victory march under a burned out tree is pretty funny.
IL, that was pretty funny. You reminded me of Brain Damaged with that comment. I did think that Stephen Lang was good as the bad guy. He played great characters in Gettysburg and in Gods and Generals as well.
@Imperious:
Not Atheist in the slightest.
The reason why i have no sympathy is because the soldiers would have developed the land even better that in the end would have provided a better result.
Like in Star Trek, the peoples just keep expanding and developing the planets toward that end. The result would be eventually integration like the Vulcans, who serve with distinction on those space ships. But first they needed to be trained and shown that interstellar progress is coming for their own betterment.
Otherwise on their own they might become prey to a really belligerent civilization that wants them gone ( cylons). In that case the humans would not be around to protect them and they would perish an even worse fate.
The humans just wanted to exploit the planet and in a universe of billions of planets, plenty of even better places conceivably exist that don’t stand above an oil field. In the end casinos might be built and the blues could make their world the next Las Vegas, allowing them to enjoy plenty of large hot dogs and watch football.
Also, it would only be a matter of time before the planet would get hit by a giant rock, now the humans could protect them with technology the blue people don’t have. So they made a trade to survive.
Similar justifications were made during the age of imperialism: “They don’t properly use their land so they have no right to it.”
“They don’t properly use their land so they have no right to it.”
Yes something like that, except they get to learn how to exploit their own planet to compete in the federation. This would involve getting skills and education that they generate after the enlightenment to make better use of their environments, like we have today… like post imperialism.
If they lived in darkness, they would eventually be prone to a space disaster, while now they can fund their own planetary defense satellites to protect their way of life with the casinos that the earth people come and spend money in. Mutual benefit for all is assured.
@Imperious:
“They don’t properly use their land so they have no right to it.”
Yes something like that, except they get to learn how to exploit their own planet to compete in the federation. This would involve getting skills and education that they generate after the enlightenment to make better use of their environments, like we have today… like post imperialism.
If they lived in darkness, they would eventually be prone to a space disaster, while now they can fund their own planetary defense satellites to protect their way of life with the casinos that the earth people come and spend money in. Mutual benefit for all is assured.
ooooookaaaaaayyyyy
This is hilarious. :-D
I am very glad to have started this thread. I’d like to keep it at least civil enough where debate is encouraged. I won’t ask Frimmel back, but he seems to be the only one arguing for the merits of the movie… so we need him, or someone who would like to take his place and defend the film.
I don’t quite follow all that IL has said, but it is making some satirical sense. If only due to comedic hyperbole. It is entertaining if nothing else. I am not sure how the “Vulcans” part fits in. It isn’t like the Vulcans are galactic recluses which need to be persuaded to open their culture to the outside. They were the ones who contacted the humans after all… and jointly formed the Federation… But this is all Trek babble… I am undoubtably losing people here.
Are most of us here middle aged, as Calvin asks? I for one am only 20 years old. I would say I am conservative, yes. But that does not affect my “objective” assesment of the movie.
I don’t know IL’s age… want to enlighten us? Although, I do think his profile lists him as 200 some years old… so he is a bit past middle age. But maybe that is normal for his species. :-D
So; if you care to list your age… please do. If not, it shouldn’t matter anyway.
You can’t always think of yourself, but to help others to do better. I just figure the humans could get their resources and trade it for technology so that the blue people can protect their planet in a galactic community and also move forward. If for example extraterrestrial creatures came to us, we would want to learn everything we can from them and not just sit under a tree right? No of course not because knowing other people exist can also mean that other may come to harm us,so to learn from the benevolent humans can only be an improvement. Of course the director of that shlock missed that entirely instead working on his 3D story based effects.
“A night to Remember” with Barbara Stanwick was much better than Titanic. It was more accurate too.
Sorry I missed your answer.
I had almost the opposite reaction. I didnt care at all for a bunch of religous freaks who were killing human soldiers because the humans wanted to develop their land.
I see absolutly no reason to sympathize with any of the whatever you call them. They wern’t real people as much as they were pretty CGI creations who through their height, blue skin and big eyes were tailored to make the audience feel sympathetic based on looks and not who they accaully were. If you swithced out the blue people for the Aliens from James Cameron’s other films(now Aliens is a good movie), nobody would feel any sympathy for those monsters no matter how many of their big trees were burned.
:-o
Well if your empathy only extends to people who look like you anything more I might say is likely just to make you angry.
I dont think thats what I said at all,
and who are you too say whats gonna make me angry :x :x :x.lol jk
My point is I dont see anything admirable about the Navs. If they are the heroes then there should be somthing good about them besides their physical appearance.
but it is making some satirical sense. If only due to comedic hyperbole.
Yes that is what makes this a good satire of a position. I love to crouch my ideas with self satire because it give me a handicap to prove the merits of the position and im usually for the underdog in most things. But of course it makes alot of sence and to spoof the “inside the box” mentality is a pastime for me. I really hate this “bad guy good guy thing” in movies. Its really played out. Id rather have all sides flawed and no clear outcome leaving everybody dissatisfied in the end. Faust was not a clear hero either and thats what made him great.
@Imperious:
I really hate this “bad guy good guy thing” in movies. Its really played out. Id rather have all sides flawed and no clear outcome leaving everybody dissatisfied in the end. Faust was not a clear hero either and thats what made him great.
yes
This is hilarious. :-D
I am very glad to have started this thread. I’d like to keep it at least civil enough where debate is encouraged. I won’t ask Frimmel back, but he seems to be the only one arguing for the merits of the movie… so we need him, or someone who would like to take his place and defend the film.
I don’t quite follow all that IL has said, but it is making some satirical sense. If only due to comedic hyperbole. It is entertaining if nothing else. I am not sure how the “Vulcans” part fits in. It isn’t like the Vulcans are galactic recluses which need to be persuaded to open their culture to the outside. They were the ones who contacted the humans after all… and jointly formed the Federation… But this is all Trek babble… I am undoubtably losing people here.
Are most of us here middle aged, as Calvin asks? I for one am only 20 years old. I would say I am conservative, yes. But that does not affect my “objective” assesment of the movie.
I don’t know IL’s age… want to enlighten us? Although, I do think his profile lists him as 200 some years old… so he is a bit past middle age. But maybe that is normal for his species. :-D
So; if you care to list your age… please do. If not, it shouldn’t matter anyway.
I’m not saying being conservative affects your view of the movie. I was just pointing out that in the rare times we talk about politics(before IL locks the thread), everyone seems to be a conservative. I brought up the middle-aged thing because younger people are more likely to be liberal and older people are more likely to be conservative.
I’m not saying being conservative affects your view of the movie. I was just pointing out that in the rare times we talk about politics(before IL locks the thread), everyone seems to be a conservative. I brought up the middle-aged thing because younger people are more likely to be liberal and older people are more likely to be conservative.
Well… your politics will affect the way you view the movie, because the movie was so political. You just can’t help it. I do think that most people will be able to seperate their political disgust or endorsement from an honest review of the movie; as a story and characters and a work of cinema. I have tried to show that I can do that, but I don’t know how effective i have been.
I wouldn’t say everyone seems to be conservative… from my perspective it seems that there are a good many liberal, progressive, opposite thinking… whatever people around too. Take yourself, JohnnyMarr and Frimmel for instance.
@Imperious:
but it is making some satirical sense. If only due to comedic hyperbole.
Yes that is what makes this a good satire of a position. I love to crouch my ideas with self satire because it give me a handicap to prove the merits of the position and im usually for the underdog in most things. But of course it makes alot of sence and to spoof the “inside the box” mentality is a pastime for me. I really hate this “bad guy good guy thing” in movies. Its really played out. Id rather have all sides flawed and no clear outcome leaving everybody dissatisfied in the end. Faust was not a clear hero either and thats what made him great.
You know, you are pretty smart guy IL. I’ll give you a lot of credit here…
I’m not saying being conservative affects your view of the movie. I was just pointing out that in the rare times we talk about politics(before IL locks the thread), everyone seems to be a conservative. I brought up the middle-aged thing because younger people are more likely to be liberal and older people are more likely to be conservative.
Well… your politics will affect the way you view the movie, because the movie was so political. You just can’t help it. I do think that most people will be able to seperate their political disgust or endorsement from an honest review of the movie; as a story and characters and a work of cinema. I have tried to show that I can do that, but I don’t know how effective i have been.
I wouldn’t say everyone seems to be conservative… from my perspective it seems that there are a good many liberal, progressive, opposite thinking… whatever people around too. Take yourself, JohnnyMarr and Frimmel for instance.
I was thinking about Wilson2, ChromwellDude, and you and IL. How if Johnymarr liberal? What posts did he make to that effect?
Lets worry less about who is liberal or conservative and just stay in topic about the movie.
Thanks.
@Imperious:
but it is making some satirical sense. If only due to comedic hyperbole.
Yes that is what makes this a good satire of a position. I love to crouch my ideas with self satire because it give me a handicap to prove the merits of the position and im usually for the underdog in most things. But of course it makes alot of sence and to spoof the “inside the box” mentality is a pastime for me. I really hate this “bad guy good guy thing” in movies. Its really played out. Id rather have all sides flawed and no clear outcome leaving everybody dissatisfied in the end. Faust was not a clear hero either and thats what made him great.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Lord of the Rings quotes.
“It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace.”
The Lord of the Rings
Chapter ‘Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit’.
