toldailytopic: Avatar Movie. Did you like it?

[kmoney]

I might remind everyone that land is given by God:

Acts 17:26
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

And God had given that land to the Navi. The humans were trying to take it.

 

[The Berean]

And God had given that land to the Navi. The humans were trying to take it.

:think:

 

[Egbert]

It was anti-human because it was unbalanced and did not show the best of humanity; the pathos was with the Na'vi.

It's interesting how selective your complaint is. According to your reasoning, most movies are anti-human. Conflict is, after all, a main element of storytelling, and it is not humanity's best characteristic. Yet only when there is another sentient species with which to compare humans do you seem to find it offensive.
The Na'vi were extremely similar to humans. If not for the blue skin, pointy ears and tails, they could just as well have been Native Americans. (In that case, I suppose you would have complained that the film was anti-European.) Avatar was not anti-human, but anti-warmonger. It was just a futuristic depiction of the kind of nasty behavior of which we humans have proven capable numerous times throughout history.

If you would prefer a good old-fashioned alien-bashing film, then watch one of the countless extraterrestrial-invasion movies that depict humans as morally superior victims. I've seen plenty of those. Avatar was a nice change of pace.

 

[MaryContrary]

It's interesting how selective your complaint is. According to your reasoning, most movies are anti-human. Conflict is, after all, a main element of storytelling, and it is not humanity's best characteristic.

Conflict resolution is a main element of storytelling. How is that anti-human if conflict is such a bad human characteristic? In this particular movie the conflict is resolved by killing all the humans by non-humans.

Avatar was not anti-human, but anti-warmonger. It was just a futuristic depiction of the kind of nasty behavior of which we humans have proven capable of numerous times throughout history.

lain:

Okay...you really can't see what you said here?

 

[Egbert]

Conflict resolution is a main element of storytelling. How is that anti-human if conflict is such a bad human characteristic?

I didn't say conflict resolution was anti-human.
The fact remains that if you view everything that "doesn't show the best of humanity" as anti-human, then you're taking issue with most all movies ever made.

In this particular movie the conflict is resolved by killing all the humans by non-humans.

Not quite right. It was resolved by the killing of most of the invaders by the natives and fellow defenders (some of which were human). The divide was primarily along moral lines, not biological ones.

lain:

Okay...you really can't see what you said here?

The distinction is clear enough when read in context. Warmongers are a subset of humans, and the fact that the majority of the humans depicted in Avatar could be labeled as such does not make the movie anti-human. It could just as well be called pro-scientist.

 

[Aimiel]

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but there are people committing suicide, due to the paradise depicted in this movie and the utter depravity of this world. Just a few thoughts....

I thought the idea behind moves was to stimulate thought. I didn't feel any particular political bent, or find offense in the movie. I thought of it as fantasy, showing the obvious marks of being written during time of war but not anti-God or really anti-anything. It's just a movie, it's not like it is going to cause anyone to commit suicide or anything, because they feel hopelessness due to watching it. I simply can't imagine anyone being so influenced by this movie as to kill themselves. I don't see where the movie or its author is to blame for that at all. Certainly fiction has its place, and those loose enough to off themselves after watching Avatar couldn't possibly blame the movie for their own predicament.

 

[MaryContrary]

I didn't say conflict resolution was anti-human.
The fact remains that if you view everything that "doesn't show the best of humanity" as anti-human, then you're taking issue with most all movies ever made.

Yes, I know, and my apologies for misspeaking. But, you said that conflict was "not humanity's best characteristic", conveying that it's common to humanity and that it's generally bad. Correct? And that to support that conflict was a common element of storytelling and so one can't take except in this instance without taking exception in all those other instances as well. Correct? So my point would be that conflict isn't a common element of storytelling but rather conflict resolution. And so your point doesn't stand.

The conflict resolution in all those other stories generally involves humans dealing with the "not humanity's best characteristic", i.e. conflict by resolving it. Almost always with justice of some sort. In this film we do not have humans resolving the conflict. We have a sentient planet that aliens worship and live in symbiosis with resolving it. Every human in the film was involved in the conflict, most of them on what we all recognize as the wrong side of that conflict.

So I think it's reasonable to take exception, on the behalf of humanity, to this film's presentation of conflict resolution.

Not quite right. It was resolved by the killing of most of the invaders by the natives and fellow defenders (some of which were human). The divide was primarily along moral lines, not biological ones.

Okay. So roughly what percent of the humans were on the wrong side of the moral line here? You know, the invaders that were killed by the natives and defenders? Would upwards of 99% be close to the mark?

The distinction is clear enough when read in context. Warmongers are a subset of humans, and the fact that the majority of the humans depicted in Avatar could be labeled as such does not make the movie anti-human. It could just as well be called pro-scientist.

No, the context you laid out clearly indicated warmongering as nasty and not at all a "sub-set" of humanity. The wording "...proven capable of numerous times throughout history" sure seems to indicate that it's common to humanity. I wouldn't be too uncomfortable saying that attributes it as the norm among humans. Which is where I get confused on your position. If you believe humans are generally warmongers and this movie is anti-warmonger then I would think you'd have no problem saying so, even defending the movie's anti-human message. It makes a great case for how humanity's warmongering nature can lead to all kinds of terrible things. The injustice done to the Na'vi as well as their violent response to that being obvious examples. That's the only reason I'm even arguing with you here. I don't understand why you're taking this position.

 

[Granite]

And God had given that land to the Navi. The humans were trying to take it.

It was an indictment of the worst elements of western civilization. Sure. That doesn't mean the criticisms are without merit.

The film's a heck of a piece of escapism and entertainment. People will see what they want to see. If all you see in Avatar is something nasty, devilish, or anti-America, you'll see red whenever you see blue.

 

[Egbert]

So my point would be that conflict isn't a common element of storytelling but rather conflict resolution. And so your point doesn't stand.

The conflict has to be featured in the story before any conflict resolution can come into play. The latter cannot exist without the former. Conflict resolution, by contrast, is not necessarily important: although most endings are defined by clean resolution of the issues comprising the bulk of the story, some are just "left hanging." It's the conflict that makes the story interesting, regardless of whether the goal of resolution is ever accomplished.

So I think it's reasonable to take exception, on the behalf of humanity, to this film's presentation of conflict resolution.

If you want to believe that humanity cannot be on the wrong side of things... then okay.

Okay. So roughly what percent of the humans were on the wrong side of the moral line here? You know, the invaders that were killed by the natives and defenders? Would upwards of 99% be close to the mark?

I'd guess around 98%. (I don't remember if they said how many humans in total were present, but at least five were siding with the Na'vi.)
The characters were also not all pure in their loyalties. The corporate manager was conflicted, and ultimately weak-willed/complacent when it came to his own convictions. The Colonel was the only character shown to be dead-set against the Na'vi; the other soldiers' actions could be explained by groupthink, reluctance to question authority, and general lack of reflection on what they were really doing. (Taking down large trees is easy enough if you're giving no thought to the people living in them.) They also were in full-blown "us or them" mode after being told that the alien tribes were gathering for an assault on their colony. By that point, they were feeling understandably desperate, such that they would quickly forget about what had led up to the situation and focus on preserving their own lives. The scientists were generally sympathetic to the Na'vi, having previously integrated with them and studied their culture.

No, the context you laid out clearly indicated warmongering as nasty and not at all a "sub-set" of humanity.

Uh, no, it didn't. Are you forgetting that wars have at least two sides? Warfare is common enough, but that doesn't mean that most or all humans are yearning for it.