Avatar

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I find it is often helpful to draw a distinction between movies and film. Comparing all movies on the same continuum is like trying to compare decadent processed junk food and gourmet haute cuisine using the same four star rating scheme...

I would say that Avatar rocked as a movie, but was mediocre to bad as a film. As a movie popcorn experience, I felt my money was well-spent, even at the 3D ticket price. I was entertained, as long as I kept ducking the ham-fisted "Corporations are Bad" 3D-swings being taken at me amidst the lush greenery of the faux-jungle.
Dances with Wolves, well as a movie it was more like Donkey Balls Sucked. I felt myself ageing during the viewing. However, I felt it deserved it's Academy Award, because I felt it hit the mark as a film. I was emotionally edified by it -- this would have been a pleasant experience had that been my goal for the evening.
Titanic? Crap on both levels, and that's even before you throw in the Celine Dion.
It is the rare piece of cinematic gold that works as both a movie and a film, and I am surprised when I find both in one, as I never expect it.
Iron Man? Great movie, lousy film.
Star Wars? Awesome movie, pretty bad film.
Out of Africa? Epic film, unwatchable movie.
The Piano? Superb film, painful movie.
Kill Bill I & II? It worked for me as a film, and I enjoyed it as a movie... a departure from the way I feel about most other Tarantino.
Van Helsing? An entertaining movie, and utter drek as a film.
300? It tried so hard to be a film, but didn't make it. It worked OK as a movie, if you are also fascinated by BowFlex commercials -- but the end result was like a gilded diaper. [strangely, I own it]
The Godfather Trilogy? I admit it as a masterpiece of film, but only as long as you don't make me watch it, and you overlook the fact that I have never made it through more than 15 minutes of any of the three without permanently losing some part of my zest for life.


The list can go on, but you get the idea.

dw

[Cagliostro]

Am I wrong in thinking that the Lord of the Rings movies worked as both? Certainly as movies, they occasionally left something to be desired, because they were so long with lotsa talking, but when they ramp up the action, it really does take off most of the time (Helm's Deep gets a bit tiring).

[dANdeLION]

Why are you people talking about "movies" and "films"? This is the FLICKS thread; stop this off-topic nonsense or I'll have Jay BAN YOU!!

[Elfgirl]

Well, I liked it - the CG artwork was superb! Kudos to the hundreds of CG artists for creating a magnificent cinematic spectacle!

I so want an Eywa entity to take care of OUR planet by diminishing the impact of the human parasite. Alas - too many humans, too much greed, not enough death penalties.

[dANdeLION]

Alas - too many humans, too much greed, not enough death penalties.

You do realize you're one of those humans, right? I mean, sheesh, show a little species pride here!

[Zarathustra]

Well, I liked it - the CG artwork was superb! Kudos to the hundreds of CG artists for creating a magnificent cinematic spectacle!

I so want an Eywa entity to take care of OUR planet by diminishing the impact of the human parasite. Alas - too many humans, too much greed, not enough death penalties.

Must ... resist ... political ... response.

[dANdeLION]

I so want an Eywa entity to take care of OUR planet by diminishing the impact of the human parasite.

We're NOT a parasite. Like you said, this is OUR planet. An Eywa entity on earth, distributing it's own brand of justice, should be as unwelcome here as we would be on Pandora, doing what was depicted in the movie. Or was it a film?

[wayfriend]

We're NOT a parasite.

There's this movie called "Avatar" that will change your mind. You should see it.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

We're NOT a parasite.

There's this movie called "Avatar" that will change your mind. You should see it.

All Fauna is parasitic in some respect as all fauna is to some degree dependent upon the environment to provide materials necessary for survival and in obtaining those materials deplete the environment of those materials.

[Zarathustra]

SS, a parasite is more than an animal that feeds off the environment. It is an invader that harms the host organism.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.

The environment isn't an organism. We didn't invade it. It is impossible for us to harm the earth as a parasite harms a host organism, because the earth's natural (or at least original) state is a glowing fireball of magma. Any deviation we induce in the environment is only "harm" in as much as we define it as such. Hence, this "harm" is not objective, but a human concept, subject to romantic, emotional, mythological distortion. The planet doesn't care how hot it is, or how much we drill it for oil. Or how much oil we spill in the ocean. It makes absolutely no difference to this "host organism." The only organisms which care about it are the human kind.

So it's not only literaly incorrect, but also fallacious analogy. It's not even figuratively correct. The only "harm" we can cause is deviations from the opinions of some subset of humanity. Some people like the earth one way. Some people like it another. The preachiest, judgmental subset usually makes unscientific, emotional analogies to "parasites" or "viruses," in order to negatively judge the other subset for their preferences. And they are known to use cliche-ridden, mediocre movies as some kind of objective proof of this negative value-judgment. But really, it's all just make-believe. We create our own values according to our personal whims.

I personally have a different set of scales on which I weigh harm ... like the balance of human suffering that has inexorably shifted toward more freedom, more prosperity, more food, more choices, more opportunities, more education, more life, more leisure time, etc., all due to the industrial, capitalist expansion of the culture of these "parasites." Rather than pretending that our personal preferences correspond to some scientific, objective standard of harm--such as "parasitic harm" done to a mythological earth-as-an-organism--I choose a set of criteria which embraces the subjective nature of our value judgments, and does not saddle our race with a humanity-hating, life-denying, quasi-religious judgmentalism.

[wayfriend]

·· : .. : Al, The brainwashing isn't completely effective in this sector. Send another movie. Over. : .. : ··

[dANdeLION]

We're NOT a parasite.

There's this movie called "Avatar" that will change your mind. You should see it.

I did, and it didn't.

[Elfgirl]

Damn - happens every time I fleetingly mention Zero Population Growth ideas and nature fighting back...arguments & illogical support for the 'parasites'...

At least you seem to agree with me Wayfriend!

[SerScot]

Elfgirl,

How do you enforce "zero population growth" on an unwilling population?

[dANdeLION]

Damn - happens every time I fleetingly mention Zero Population Growth ideas and nature fighting back...arguments & illogical support for the 'parasites'...

Humans are part of nature, so consider it 'nature fighting back'.

Elfgirl,

How do you enforce "zero population growth" on an unwilling population?

They can't, because nobody wants to listen to them. Nobody wants to listen to them because they don't practice what they preach. If they wanted to come across as less hypocritical, I suggest they prove their commitment to their values by enforcing zero population growth in their own homes. But, even that will leave us in the same state as we are now, with some 6-7 billion 'parasites' crawling all over this poor planet. Therefore, I suggest they take it up a notch. Let's face it, Zero Population Growers are parasites too. And if they're breathing, then they're part of the problem. So, I suggest the Zero Population Growers take care of the problem, beginning with themselves.

That being said, wasn't this thread about a movie?

[Elfgirl]

Humans are part of nature, so consider it 'nature fighting back'.?

yeah, the WORST part in most cases...

If they wanted to come across as less hypocritical, I suggest they prove their commitment to their values by enforcing zero population growth in their own homes.

DUH - why else did I decide NOT to have children???? No hypocrisy from MY camp, sunshine! I DID practice what I preach - pity it's the dumbarses with below-average intelligence who are just breeding more useless trash like themselves in order to score the cash they get as a 'baby bonus' in this frakked-up country - what a crock of sh*t. They should be paying ME an 'environmental rebate' for NOT dropping another climate-changing consumer into the fray, yet all they do is financially reward sluts who shag anything just to get another welfare-sucking bun in their oven!

Zero Population Growers are parasites too. And if they're breathing, then they're part of the problem. So, I suggest the Zero Population Growers take care of the problem, beginning with themselves.

After we take care of the oxygen thieves infesting the planet, we won't have any more problems...

That being said, wasn't this thread about a movie?

that's what I thought - rest of this should belong in the Close, eh?

[Zarathustra]

Humans are part of nature, so consider it 'nature fighting back'.?

yeah, the WORST part in most cases...

Let me guess ... in the cases where they disagree with you?

I'll concede that humans can be shitty sometimes. But we're still the most amazing thing in the known universe. I'll take the bad with the good.

DUH - why else did I decide NOT to have children???? No hypocrisy from MY camp, sunshine! I DID practice what I preach

Kudos to you for your consistency. I can respect your choice. Is it too much to ask you to respect the choices of others, in return?

- pity it's the dumbarses with below-average intelligence who are just breeding more useless trash like themselves

Regardless of the intentions and intelligence of the parent, I cringe at calling children "useless trash." There have been many offspring of poor, unintelligent people who have changed the world for the better. (And plenty of harm is done by intelligent people, too.) I hate to pull a "Hitler" on you, but this kind of extreme disdain for other people whom you consider to be inferior to yourself--so extreme as to bemoan their "useless trash" children--is exactly the kind of emotion that allows monsters like Hitler to gain popular support for exterminating humans they don't like. I shudder at the thought of the Al Gores of the world mobilizing exactly this kind of anti-human, life-hating emotion to extract yet more wealth for themselves from my family.

in order to score the cash they get as a 'baby bonus' in this frakked-up country - what a crock of sh*t. They should be paying ME an 'environmental rebate' for NOT dropping another climate-changing consumer into the fray, yet all they do is financially reward sluts who shag anything just to get another welfare-sucking bun in their oven!

Perhaps the problem is welfare, not babies. You'll get no argument from me there.

After we take care of the oxygen thieves infesting the planet, we won't have any more problems...

Humans had a plethora of problems long before global warming or any other current environmental issue that so alarms the alarmists. In fact, I'd argue that their problems were much, much worse.

That's not to say we shouldn't try to solve our environmental problems. But surely the solution isn't to start turning on ourselves. We can love the earth without hating mankind. We need a worldview that doesn't pit humans against the earth. After all, isn't that the problem in a nutshell? Humans need to embrace the earth as their home, but this is impossible to do if you think humans don't belong here. If we think of humans as the worst part of nature, then how are we supposed to reconcile humans with nature?

[SerScot]

Elfgirl,

pity it's the dumbarses with below-average intelligence who are just breeding more useless trash like themselves

Oh... my... God...

Good lord you travel alot to be able to make such a broad based assertion about several billion people across the planet who currently have or are having children. My wife and I included. I'd kindly ask you to refrain from refering to us as "dumarses with below average intellegence".

[eta]

That said I do agree the government needs to get out of the business of patting people on the head with tax credits and deductions for having kids. Heck I think the Government should do away with all tax credits and deductions anyway. Let taxes be used to raise revenue and end the use of taxation for social engineering.

[wayfriend]

That said I do agree the government needs to get out of the business of patting people on the head with tax credits and deductions for having kids. ... Let taxes be used to raise revenue and end the use of taxation for social engineering.

Raising kids costs money. That's why you get a deduction: you need more of your income for basic needs. No ones trying to encourage anyone to have kids through taxes. We have ray guns for that. Yeesh.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

That said I do agree the government needs to get out of the business of patting people on the head with tax credits and deductions for having kids. ... Let taxes be used to raise revenue and end the use of taxation for social engineering.

Raising kids costs money. That's why you get a deduction: you need more of your income for basic needs. No ones trying to encourage anyone to have kids through taxes. We have ray guns for that. Yeesh.

Lots of things cost money. Why should I, as the parent of two children, get a break on my taxes while Jim down the street, who has no kids, does not? Why should I be favored by Government largess?