Kevin's Watch

Cagliostro wrote:I spoke with my wife about the Wall-E discussion, and she said that Wall-E changes everyone around him, which I think is a fair assessment.

For whatever it is worth.

I think Wall-E's message was different from what Z has described.
It was less of an environmental movie to me and more of an anti-fat/lazy/idyllic way of life movie.
I saw Wall-E and a few days later almost busted out laughing when I went to Wall-mart and saw several large(huge) customers in those battery carts with giant softdrinks in their hands and bags of chips in the cart in front [true story].

High Lord Tolkien wrote: I saw Wall-E and a few days later almost busted out laughing when I went to Wall-mart and saw several large(huge) customers in those battery carts with giant softdrinks in their hands and bags of chips in the cart in front [true story].

Then you'll love this site:
People of Wal-Mart

I remember seeing some self-described homely comedian say he loves going to Wal-Mart cause he knows he is the best looking guy in the store.

Zarathustra wrote:I'm not here to turn this into a political rant ...

But when Hollywood gives us movies with ... a plot designed only to serve the message ... The movie could be preaching the benefits of free market capitalism and I'd have the same exact complaint.

I don't doubt the integrity of your 'movie critic' opinion. However, it does seem that the message of the movie (liberal, environmental) gets brought up an awful lot by those who are very critical of the movie.

The thing is, the Noble Savage vs. Corporate America message could just as easily be replaced by a Tolkeinesque anti-industrial subtext. The point being, when you step into the muck of popular opinion, most people can't separate what they believe in from what they like, and what offends them from what they don't like, especially when the purported message is so obvious.

Btw, Sully didn't 'give up' his humanity. He took the avatar as his own and discarded his old body, much like he would have done to his old legs if he'd been given new ones.

It's amazing how frank and unapologetic Cameron is in preaching this message of self-denial and reality-denial.

Let me get this straight. Living for months in a cocoon and, in essence, dreaming those days among an alien race in a body nothing like his own (except when that body requires sleep) isn't a severe mind-f*ck, aside from the pressure Sully gets from the scientists and the military when he's in his own body.

So, yeah, it must be self-denial that leads Sully to his final decision.

Rigel wrote:Then you'll love this site:
People of Wal-Mart

What an amazing site!!

Fist and Faith wrote:

Rigel wrote:Then you'll love this site:
People of Wal-Mart

What an amazing site!!

I think it's nice that there's a place where people can go and be themselves.

wayfriend wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Rigel wrote:Then you'll love this site:
People of Wal-Mart

What an amazing site!!

I think it's nice that there's a place where people can go and be themselves.

...outside of the carnival.

Cagliostro wrote:I spoke with my wife about the Wall-E discussion, and she said that Wall-E changes everyone around him, which I think is a fair assessment.

Not a bad point, though I wouldn't say "everyone." Only the humans actually changed, and Wall-e only interacted with one or two.

Itiswritten wrote:I don't doubt the integrity of your 'movie critic' opinion. However, it does seem that the message of the movie (liberal, environmental) gets brought up an awful lot by those who are very critical of the movie.

True. But (as I've said) Cameron gives us nothing else besides the graphics to talk about.

The thing is, the Noble Savage vs. Corporate America message could just as easily be replaced by a Tolkeinesque anti-industrial subtext. The point being, when you step into the muck of popular opinion, most people can't separate what they believe in from what they like, and what offends them from what they don't like, especially when the purported message is so obvious.

Well, I vehemently disagree with Tolkien's subtext (both the religious and the anti-industrial ones), but I still love LOTR. There's a perfect example of the "message" (if you could call it that) not driving the story.

Btw, Sully didn't 'give up' his humanity. He took the avatar as his own and discarded his old body, much like he would have done to his old legs if he'd been given new ones.

His consciousness was transplanted into an alien body. If you only want to look at it literally, this is much more than putting on prosthetic legs. But the point was much more than literal. The Na'vi represented the polar opposite of the humans. Jake not only took their side, but became one of them. He turned his back on his race because they were (so we're told) wrong.

Let me get this straight. Living for months in a cocoon and, in essence, dreaming those days among an alien race in a body nothing like his own (except when that body requires sleep) isn't a severe mind-f*ck, aside from the pressure Sully gets from the scientists and the military when he's in his own body.

So, yeah, it must be self-denial that leads Sully to his final decision.

Is that sarcasm? That's how I'm reading it (correct me if I'm wrong). It is self-denial because Sully wanted to escape his life, escape his race, and go to Paradise (that doesn't really exist--there is no "noble savage"). It is running away from his past, escaping the consequences of his actions, even escaping the consequences of his own mortality. It is denying unalterable truths of this world: violence, hatred, and greed exist. There is no Paradise to escape to where one can give up the mortal and moral limitations of what it means to be human. Violence, hatred, and greed aren't things you can eradicate with bows and arrows and killing all the "bad" humans--including yourself--and then living with another, unrealistic race.

Zarathustra wrote:

Cagliostro wrote:I spoke with my wife about the Wall-E discussion, and she said that Wall-E changes everyone around him, which I think is a fair assessment.

Not a bad point, though I wouldn't say "everyone." Only the humans actually changed, and Wall-e only interacted with one or two.

Well, Eve, certainly, would be another. And all the others that were along for the ride were changed as they were made aware there was more than just the ship. And this was due to his actions.

Zarathustra wrote:Cameron gives us nothing else besides the graphics to talk about.

He does try, but he runs up against one severe limitation: Humans aren't as universally evil as he wants them to be. Nor is there any real reason for them to mine Pandora; hence, his DEM invention of "Unobtainium" (which was fine in The Core, where the intent was to be cheesy, but doesn't work in a movie that takes itself as seriously as Avatar).

The sad fact is that no real reason was given for the humans to want Pandora other than the indigenous life, but that wouldn't serve Cameron's message very well, now would it?

Zarathustra wrote:There is no Paradise to escape to where one can give up the mortal and moral limitations of what it means to be human. Violence, hatred, and greed aren't things you can eradicate with bows and arrows and killing all the "bad" humans--including yourself--and then living with another, unrealistic race.

Hey, wait, I think I read a novel about that once... or was it a trilogy? Something about a delusional leper, I think...

Rigel wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:There is no Paradise to escape to where one can give up the mortal and moral limitations of what it means to be human. Violence, hatred, and greed aren't things you can eradicate with bows and arrows and killing all the "bad" humans--including yourself--and then living with another, unrealistic race.

Hey, wait, I think I read a novel about that once... or was it a trilogy? Something about a delusional leper, I think...

Exactly. I've brought it up once already: Covenant is the opposite of Avatar. Avatar is anti-Covenant.

Zarathustra wrote:

Rigel wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:There is no Paradise to escape to where one can give up the mortal and moral limitations of what it means to be human. Violence, hatred, and greed aren't things you can eradicate with bows and arrows and killing all the "bad" humans--including yourself--and then living with another, unrealistic race.

Hey, wait, I think I read a novel about that once... or was it a trilogy? Something about a delusional leper, I think...

Exactly. I've brought it up once already: Covenant is the opposite of Avatar. Avatar is anti-Covenant.

What's funny is that I saw so many Covenant-esque things in Avatar. The Na-vi seemed to be a combination of all the races of the land (particularly Woodhelvin and Ramen, what with their "I see you" crap and living in trees...sounds like weak reasoning, but it just seemed that way to me!)
When they talked about energy flowing through everything and being able to see this network, I thought: Earthpower and Health Sense. Hell, a creature even bowed to one of the characters in a Rynahyn style before letting alien mount it.

See, you Tolkien geeks? I can nitpick and claim something is a rip-off of a series I love too...

Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues

(CNN) -- James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie. [...] [link]

Actually, I'm depressed because I haven't seen it.

wayfriend wrote:

Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues

(CNN) -- James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie. [...] [link]

And if Sully hadn't made his choice at the end, but instead retained his humanity such that he was afflicted with the above depression, THAT could have been an interesting story. He would have been forced to find that beauty in a way that acknowledged and retained his humanity.

I hope these people someday realize the irony of getting depressed because something that they saw in the real world was so beautiful that it made them believe that the real world isn't as beautiful (and in fact moreso). The fact that people can watch a CGI cartoon and get depressed that reality isn't as good is depressing to me.

Zarathustra wrote:

The thing is, the Noble Savage vs. Corporate America message could just as easily be replaced by a Tolkeinesque anti-industrial subtext. The point being, when you step into the muck of popular opinion, most people can't separate what they believe in from what they like, and what offends them from what they don't like, especially when the purported message is so obvious.

Well, I vehemently disagree with Tolkien's subtext (both the religious and the anti-industrial ones), but I still love LOTR. There's a perfect example of the "message" (if you could call it that) not driving the story.

I ignore the subtexts, too. They're just a point of debate. One that obviously missed the mark.

Btw, Sully didn't 'give up' his humanity. He took the avatar as his own and discarded his old body, much like he would have done to his old legs if he'd been given new ones.

Zarathustra wrote:His consciousness was transplanted into an alien body. If you only want to look at it literally, this is much more than putting on prosthetic legs. But the point was much more than literal. The Na'vi represented the polar opposite of the humans. Jake not only took their side, but became one of them. He turned his back on his race because they were (so we're told) wrong.

By the end of the movie, he already was one of them, and he fought against his race because their actions were precipitate and tyrannical.

Why insert "(so we're told)"? In the story the human military are bad guys. It's not a reflection on humanity. It's just a simplistic story element.

Let me get this straight. Living for months in a cocoon and, in essence, dreaming those days among an alien race in a body nothing like his own (except when that body requires sleep) isn't a severe mind-f*ck, aside from the pressure Sully gets from the scientists and the military when he's in his own body.

So, yeah, it must be self-denial that leads Sully to his final decision.

Zarathustra wrote:Is that sarcasm? That's how I'm reading it (correct me if I'm wrong). It is self-denial because Sully wanted to escape his life, escape his race, and go to Paradise (that doesn't really exist--there is no "noble savage"). It is running away from his past, escaping the consequences of his actions, even escaping the consequences of his own mortality. It is denying unalterable truths of this world: violence, hatred, and greed exist. There is no Paradise to escape to where one can give up the mortal and moral limitations of what it means to be human. Violence, hatred, and greed aren't things you can eradicate with bows and arrows and killing all the "bad" humans--including yourself--and then living with another, unrealistic race.

In the deeply psychological tale of Covenant, you're absolutely correct. The Land is not real. But Pandora is real in Avatar.

But my sarcastic point was that Sully was pushed to side with the Na'vi. Sure, that decision wasn't hard. We are suppose to do what we believe is right. He wasn't the only human that made that choice.

You're arguing a philosophy that excludes the alien--in this context. To Sully, the Na'vi were as human as Grace, or the Colonel, and just as entitled to their inalienable rights (haha). Accepting the avatar as his permanent form wasn't such a self-denial. It became logical.

We're just back from seeing this flick. I don't have any critiques to add to what everyone else has said, I'll just echo that I saw Covenant and McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern throughout the whole film.

I just saw it, and there were blue people

7 out of 10. A solid movie-going experience. Enjoyable for entertainment.
Firstly, as has been discussed before, the visuals are outstanding. You can see exactly where the money went. Truly wonderfula nd the 3D (for the most part) worked. Where it doesn't work (still) is in the pans... there is a visual lag that I find bothersome. And the CG is brilliant! They have almost got the problem of 'gravity' solved, but you can still see how CG characters still don't run, jump, etc realistically ... Gravity seems to work differently for them. Always been a problem.

Having said such wonderful things about the FX, (which, again, a really specatular), the story is annoying average. Unlike others, I do not think it is 'bad' ... but when you are spending a LOT of money on a project such as this, it would have been cool to elevate the story to the level of the FX... instead we get 2D rehash story.

Now unlike others complaining about the "Nobel savage" issue, I don't have a problem with it. There is something to be said about RESPECT for where you live and how you live. And that is the difference between the 'savages' and the 'humans'. This is NOT about supplying for your group/city/nation on a large scale, it's about "need" versus "want". And history is full of examples of cliche greedy business men/corperations who see "bottom-line" over the effect their greed is having.
Now at the risk of sounding "leftist" (god I hate such attempts at pigeon-holing), this is fact. But it is up to the individual to decide what they prefer. I prefer the respect shown by the 'savages' to their environment - the place where they live and depend on for food and a future.

frik... i sermoned. sorry. Needless to say, I was disappointed by the lack of intereting story. But found the actors did their jobs that was required of them. Cameron NEVER has characters that grow in his films ... they are always architypes ... what you see is what you get.

Still, I am glad I saw it on the big screen and in 3D.

I finally saw AVATAR on saturday. Actually I should say I saw part of AVATAR on saturday. Actually I saw the first 38 seconds of AVATAR on saturday. After surviving endless previews we all had settled into our seats for the moving going experience of a lifetime when after finally seeing the first images of an overhead shot of treetops...everything goes black. Then emergency lights come up. Then we're told the power is out. Then about 45 minutes later we're walking out of the darkened cineplex with passes for another showing, which we havent used yet.

What happened?

Usivius wrote:Now unlike others complaining about the "Nobel savage" issue, I don't have a problem with it. There is something to be said about RESPECT for where you live and how you live. And that is the difference between the 'savages' and the 'humans'. This is NOT about supplying for your group/city/nation on a large scale, it's about "need" versus "want". And history is full of examples of cliche greedy business men/corperations who see "bottom-line" over the effect their greed is having.

As chief complainer, I'll respond to that.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a mythical noble savage any more than I have a problem with Tolkien's Elves. If we're only talking about mythical characters, then that would be fine. My problem is that people forget that we're talking about a myth, and think that the noble savage is something we should actually strive to emulate (not to mention the whole historical debate started with Rousseau in which people have argued that this ideal actually existed, and that it was civilization which made humans "bad").

I have no problem with the idea that we should respect the environment. But it is a mistake to think civilization is the problem, and living closer to nature is the "solution" (I say this as we debate on the Internet with our computers that run on electricity ). Despite what you see in movies, primitive humans didn't take care of the environment because they loved it more than we do. Their smaller impact on the environment was due to being dirt poor, combined with their extremely inefficient means of production. There was nothing noble about their poverty and impotence. It wasn't like they had the means to destroy the environment and then chose not to. Given the opportunity to live like we do now, I'm sure most of them would love to have AC and running water and 75 year life spans. There is plenty of forest on this planet. Any one of us can go live in a tree if we want to.

[Actually, I must contradict the above by pointing out that primitive man hunted 1000s of species into extinction long before we had civilization. So they actually did have the power to rape the planet, and did so frequently. American Indians also burned down huge forests in order to have farmland.]

Avatar was unambiguous: technology and nature are incompatible. Greed and nature are incompatible. There is no middle ground, no place for people like you and me who can't get our own avatar and marry the tribal princess. If we're to take Cameron's message at face value (a message which he needs $400 million and lots of technology that was produced by capitalism in order to convey), we're screwed because there is absolutely nothing redeeming about humans or capitalism.

Yes there is something to be said about respecting the environment. But this isn't it. And there is also something to be said about capitalism and "greed." But this isn't it, either. Capitalism and greed have produced more nobility than all the savages put together. I'll take civilization over slavery, cannibalism, superstition, poverty, disease, and human sacrifice any day.

[As long as we're going to use movies to exemplify our idea of savages, I recommend Apocalypto. Watch that and then get back to me on which type of society you'd rather have. I rather like not having my head chopped off in order to stop an eclipse. ]