Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy
Sound of Trumpet
REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
Revenge Fantasy
(SPOILER WARNNG)
Big Hollywood ^ | 12/13/2009 | John Nolte
Posted on 13 December 2009 23:22:55 by SeekAndFind
Absent from the big screen for over a decade now, Oscar-winning
director James Cameron returns armed with a reported half-billion
dollars, a story he’s been desperate to tell for 15 years, and the
very latest in cutting-edge visual technology. The result is “Avatar,”
a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional
characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large
– surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious
politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act
begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet. For
all the time and money and technology that went into its making, the
thing that matters most – character and story – are strictly
Afterschool Special.
What a crushing disappointment from one of our most original and
imaginative filmmakers.
Avatar
Set in 2154, “Avatar” is a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and
simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our
founding straight through to the Iraq War. Sam Worthington is Jake
Sully, a paraplegic Marine Corporal sent to the planet Pandora after
the untimely death of his brother. In a plot-thread built up to
promise much that never pays off, Sully has none of the training his
brother benefitted by: years of schooling in the Avatar Program to
prepare him to infiltrate the indigenous species of Pandora called the
Na’vi, who are the only things between Earth’s RDA (Resources
Development Administration) and a precious energy resource
“ironically” called Unobtainium.
Because the air on Pandora is toxic to humans, the RDA developed the
Avatar Program to create clone-like avatars from both Na’vi and human
DNA (which is why they need the untrained Sully) that allow for a
human to transfer their consciousness into the 10-foot native blue
beings and safely explore the planet. The scientists want to use the
program to study Pandora, the military wants to conquer it, and the
RDA wants to strip mine it. At first Sully’s unconcerned with these
dueling tensions and agendas. Once a marine always a marine, and when
his commanding officer, the beefed up genocide-happy Col. Quaritch
(Stephen Lang), asks him to infiltrate the Na’vi and do recon for a
probable attack, Jake is more than ready. Hoo-rah.
But before you can say I’ve seen this movie a thousand times before,
Jake enters his Na’vi avatar and in a tired action scene straight out
of the “Jurassic Park” trilogy, gets lost in the dangerous Pandoran
forest only to be rescued by something else he’d like to enter, the
beautiful (if you go for ten-foot tall gaudy blue females) Neytiri
(Zoe Saldana) – a walking cliché of the tough, earthy, compassionate,
oh-so wise love interest who can somehow speak English … but in that
halting way that’s so gosh darned endearing.
And so begins the real Cliché-A-Thon…
***SPOILERS COMING***
Does Neytiri just happen to be the Chief’s daughter? Check! At first,
does the tribe not trust Sully and want to kill him on the spot before
Neytiri intervenes with wise explanations as to why it’s their tribal
custom to take in strangers as one of their own? Chuh-eck! Is Sully
then immersed in the native culture and put through a series of tests
to prove his worthiness beginning with the sort of clumsiness that
brings hoots of derisive laughter from the male warriors but endears
him to Neytiri? Double check! Does Sully eventually become one of
their strongest warriors and on the day he’s to be initiated as a full
member of the tribe—GOD this movie’s tedious.
AVATAR
There’s nothing wrong with a simple, boilerplate plot. They’re
boilerplate for a reason. But within that well worn template
complicated characters involved in complicated and surprising
relationships are an absolute necessity, and this is where “Avatar”
fails miserably.
Within 15 minutes, the “liberal tell” spoils every story beat of
Sully’s character arc. He’s as dull a protagonist as you’ll ever see.
Sigourney Weaver plays a gruff-talking, cigarette smoking scientist
with … wait for it, wait for it … a heart of gold. Giovanni Ribisi’s
sweaty weasel of a corporate executive never moves beyond that and
Col. Quaritch is all ‘roid rage, no humanity and his Big Speech about
the necessity of “a pre-emptive attack to fight terror with terror”
was as surprising as Cameron‘s use of a military “shock and awe”
campaign to level the Na’Vi’s precious “Home Tree” as a tacky metaphor
for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Oh yeah, he went there…
In supporting roles, Michelle Rodriguez and Joel Moore bring a whole
lot more to their underwritten roles than the film deserves — you’d
like to spend more time with them — but it’s always back to the film’s
dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that
with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an
alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-
cow cliché imaginable. These are creatures who worship the Great
Mother Eywa, have a sacred relationship with the earth, shoot bow and
arrows, ride horse-like animals, whoop it up in battle, and talk like
this: “It has only happened five times since the time of the first
songs of our ancestors.”
The Na’vi also apologize to animals after killing but before
butchering them. So I guess that’s okay. Maybe if Quaritch had gotten
on the loudspeaker and spoken a little mumbo-jumbo before dropping a
daisy cutter on Home Tree all would be forgiven.
On top of that, the Na’vi are an awfully stupid species. After years
of dealing with the “Sky People,” for some reason they still haven’t
figured out that arrows are useless against giant military aircraft.
And is it okay to mention how hard it is to keep track of who’s who,
because the Na’vi, uhm … all look alike? Twice I was sure Sully’s
avatar had been killed. Twice I was disappointed.
Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably noble
… I wanted to wipe them out.
AVATAR
Visually “Avatar” doesn’t break any new ground. It looks like a big-
budget animated film with a garish color palette right off a hippie’s
tie dye shirt. Never for a moment did I believe the Na’vi or the world
of Pandora was something organic or real. The fairly pointless use of
3-D certainly doesn’t help, but Steven Spielberg’s sixteen year-old
dinosaurs are light years ahead of “Avatar” in the reality department.
The one thing Cameron has always done well is to create busy,
energetic, brilliantly choreographed action scenes that allow the
audience to follow what’s going on. That’s not a small thing because
it’s becoming a lost art in Hollywood as more and more filmmakers
lazily trade coherence for the artless shaky-cam and hyper edits. And
while none of Cameron’s big battle set-pieces is ever able to overcome
the “liberal tells” pre-ordained outcome and create a sense of
suspense or peril, at least you don’t get lost in the precious wonder
of it all.
Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic,
revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys
(America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of
it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.
And if Cameron is able to make a profit spending a half-billion
dollars on a little liberal bloodlust, more power to him.
tomcervo
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
I guess the bar is a lot lower in the right wing press. I can remember
when people like Allan Tate and John Simon did reviews for the NR. Now
it's hacks who can't write a decent sentence, but who make sure they
salt it with the right talking points.
Budikka666
more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
college?
Budikka
Boo Radley
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ebf6023c-1c4a-4037...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
More over a Movie Critc from freerepublic.com , those people still think
Obama is a muslim terrorist born in Kenya and sent here as a secret
terrorist to sign over our country to Arabia.
James A. Donald
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
Yes it is, but on the other hand, it is a technological break through.
They have passed through uncanny valley and come out the other side,
which is where we have never been before, which is mighty cool.
> Set in 2154, “Avatar” is a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and
> simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our
> founding straight through to the Iraq War.
True, but only the American technology that the movie despises (it
gets beaten by virtuous primitives using bows and arrows) could have
created this movie.
> And so begins the real Cliché-A-Thon…
Yes, but all these cliches appear new when you see them on the other
side of uncanny valley.
> There’s nothing wrong with a simple, boilerplate plot. They’re
> boilerplate for a reason. But within that well worn template
> complicated characters involved in complicated and surprising
> relationships are an absolute necessity, and this is where “Avatar”
> fails miserably.\
That would be a relevant criticism if this was a novel. It is an
action movie taking place on the other side of uncanny valley, for
which formula characters of boilerplate and cardboard are exactly
right.
> dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that
> with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an
> alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-
> cow cliché imaginable.
Well, yeah. What we need is this CGI technology applied to Starship
Troopers. Evil loathsome enemy bugs, kill them all. That would be
even more fun.
> Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic,
> revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys
> (America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of
> it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.
Quite so. But it all happens on the other side of uncanny valley,
which is where we have never been before.
DouhetSukd
Did ya see the movie? Or is regurgitation, much before digestion, the
order of the day?
Howard Brazee
Some critics seem to have my tastes. Some have tastes contrary to
mine. Either way, I can narrow down my search for a movie I want to
see.
Same thing with books. We can't see/read everything, and don't
want to.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
nick
And make sure to get in their masturbatory whack-off violence fetish:
"Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably
noble
… I wanted to wipe them out."
Where would the modern right wing be without these moments of "I'm not
a wimp, no, not really" bloodlust?
Sanity's Little Helper
posteth:
> REVIEW: Jim CameronοΏ½s οΏ½AvatarοΏ½ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
nick
> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>, and he
> posteth:
>
> > REVIEW: Jim Cameron s Avatar Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> > Revenge Fantasy
>
> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
Revenge Fantasy but I had a fun three hours watching it.
Quadibloc
> "Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
> duity, and any response as persecution
"Muslim" (n). A person who views oppressing non-Muslims as a sacred
duty, and any response as persecution.
Less PC, but closer to the truth.
Despite, of course, not being the truth. A lot of Muslims in majority-
Muslim countries _do_ correspond to that definition, but then when
Christian countries had similar levels of wealth and education, we did
behave about as badly.
The review had one clear inaccuracy; the amount of money James Cameron
used was closer to a quarter billion dollars than a half billion.
A sentimental plot about innocent natives issuperior to one of
transparent jingoism... but if Cameron had avoided heavy-handed
identification of his bad guys with America today or under Bush, it
would have helped. Frankly, I think Hollywood ought to be, at the
present time, showing the same level of... responsibility... as it did
during World War II. The terrorists are not warm and cuddly, and
neither the American people nor the Israeli people are under any moral
obligation to tolerate being the targets of terrorism.
John Savard
JRStern
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
>REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>Revenge Fantasy
Is Yoda in it? Or just Jar-Jar Binks?
J.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> Revenge Fantasy
> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>
Must be a great movie. Strumpet and the Freepers hate it.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
BAAWA Knight Sir Karl of the Solaris Media
____________________________________________________________________
Ray Fischer
>
>
>REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>Revenge Fantasy
As soon as I saw the movie I knoew that there would be wingnuts
outraged at the notion that nature and people isn't to be brutally
exploited.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Budikka666
The critics love it and it's earned 27 million US on its opening day.
The game looks exactly like the movie for good reason. Cameron waited
ten years to make this move for "technology to catch up" to his ideas
for it. It's worth going to see purely to see what he's done. I
understand that both Spielberg and Lucas visited him on set to see
what he was up to. Both of them are enthusiastic about it, and Lucas
has apparently suggested it might even outdo Star Wars:
http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/lucas-spielberg-talk-avatar/
I personally doubt that, but let's wait and see. Besides it's a space
adventure with Sigourney Weaver. What's not to like?!
Budikka
Quadibloc
> As soon as I saw the movie I knoew that there would be wingnuts
> outraged at the notion that nature and people isn't to be brutally
> exploited.
Oh, no. I'm happy to see movies that are opposed to the brutal
exploitation of people. For example, Star Trek: Insurrection.
If there is a subtext in the movie that the "bad guys" who are
brutally exploiting nature and people are similar to someone on Earth,
all they have to do is make sure that this subtext points to some
country hostile to the United States rather than some country friendly
to the United States.
So if he had made a movie about a Chinese spaceship coming to this
planet that had two tribes of blue-skinned aliens, say Arab blue-
skinned aliens and Jewish blue-skinned aliens, and the bad Arab aliens
were bullying the Jewish aliens, and the Chinese spacemen were going
to make a deal with the bad Arab aliens to get their unobtainium, why,
even if it was still cliched and kitschy and sentimental, just like
the real movie, at least I could praise it for helping to energize the
American people patriotically during a difficult time.
The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
achieved total victory in the War on Terror, so as to re-orient the
psychology of Americans as they get on with the work of rebuilding
these lands along democratic lines.
John Savard
Uncle Vic
Exactly. These guys get major attention when they pan a movie, and what
a movie to pan! I've come to the understanding that when a picture gets
bad reviews, it's going to be worth watching. Hell, the hype that's been
building for months should at least bring in the money to pay for the
production costs, which were considerably less than half a billion. 300
Mil was the figure I heard.
And about 15,000 of it went into my bank account, not including the
soundtrack re-use. And many years worth of Secondary Markets Funds
(residuals) to follow. I worked on the picture - music prep. It was a
dream gig. All the scores were prepared in Finale, the leading edge
music publishing program. We XMLd the files and extracted the parts in
Sibelius. I'd have preferred just extracting them in Finale, but my boss
(82 years old) insisted on Sibelius. He claims to be too old to learn
Finale, and he's probably right - the learning curve on that program is
through the roof. Whatever... it pays to know both programs well. On
busy days, we copyists were making over a grand a day. Nice work if you
can get it...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com>, and he
> posteth:
>
>> REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> Revenge Fantasy
>
> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
Aww hell. Get good and stoned first. I think you'll like it.
D.F. Manno
<d578a11e-4c58-400a...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> achieved total victory in the War on Terror
A final solution?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
In a Life without Walls�, who needs Windows�?
William December Starr
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> said:
What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
(Other than to mock you, of course.)
-- wds
Quadibloc
> In article
> <d578a11e-4c58-400a-9918-abbcda439...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> > achieved total victory in the War on Terror
>
> A final solution?
Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
than exterminating it.
Why would we need to be re-oriented to be nice to people when they're
all dead?
John Savard
Budikka666
> In article <ebf6023c-1c4a-4037-b07e-f08c823f4...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> > Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What could
> > be more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even
> > know dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on
> > nothing more than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as
> > a Gut Form" in college?
>
> What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
Well you did so why don't you tell us what you are? LoL!
Budikka
Budikka666
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What could be
> > more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
> > dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
> > than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
> > college?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Exactly. These guys get major attention when they pan a movie, and what
> a movie to pan! I've come to the understanding that when a picture gets
> bad reviews, it's going to be worth watching. Hell, the hype that's been
> building for months should at least bring in the money to pay for the
> production costs, which were considerably less than half a billion. 300
> Mil was the figure I heard.
That sounds right in the ballpark I read. The only real movie critic
is the box office. That doesn't mean all good movies make money or
all bad ones lose money, but it does mean that movie critics seem
clueless to the fact that if movie stuidos don't make money they go
bankrupt and no more movies come from them, good, bad, or indifferent.
Movie critics seem to be utterly clueless when it comes to
understanding what movies are actually *for*. They seem to think
every movie should be some sort of morally-uplifting educational
event, and when someone makes a movie that is for nothing more than
pure entertainment, they can't grasp it's "purpose"!
If a move takes you out on an adventure for a couple of hours, it's
served its purpose. That's all there is to it. If some writers,
actors, directors want to make it more than that, fine, but don't
expect the audience to require that or to appreciate it. If I want to
experience existential angst or learn about the human condition, I'll
go read a book or watch a documentary, or just look at it all around
me. I don't need a movie to show me what I see every day. I want a
movie to be something other than than that - otherwise, what's the
point?
> And about 15,000 of it went into my bank account, not including the
> soundtrack re-use. And many years worth of Secondary Markets Funds
> (residuals) to follow. I worked on the picture - music prep. It was a
> dream gig. All the scores were prepared in Finale, the leading edge
> music publishing program. We XMLd the files and extracted the parts in
> Sibelius. I'd have preferred just extracting them in Finale, but my boss
> (82 years old) insisted on Sibelius. He claims to be too old to learn
> Finale, and he's probably right - the learning curve on that program is
> through the roof. Whatever... it pays to know both programs well. On
> busy days, we copyists were making over a grand a day. Nice work if you
> can get it...
That sounds like a cool life to be leading!
Budikka
MarkA
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>
FYI, Avatar has 94% positive reviews among top critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
If it's a good movie, AND it pisses off the "George W Bush was the
Greatest President EVER" crowd, what could be better?
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
Ray Fischer
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>>
>>
>> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> Revenge Fantasy
>> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>>
>
>FYI, Avatar has 94% positive reviews among top critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
>If it's a good movie, AND it pisses off the "George W Bush was the
>Greatest President EVER" crowd, what could be better?
Free jujubes?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Quadibloc
> the "George W Bush was the
> Greatest President EVER" crowd,
That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
Reagan.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Movie critics seem to be utterly clueless when it comes to
> understanding what movies are actually *for*. They seem to think
> every movie should be some sort of morally-uplifting educational
> event, and when someone makes a movie that is for nothing more than
> pure entertainment, they can't grasp it's "purpose"!
Yes, I enjoyed Star Wars when it first came out.
However, in order to entertain, a movie does have to have quality,
even if movie critics seem to only know how to look for superficial
things sometimes associated with quality. A movie should be judged on
the quality it actually has, not on its pretensions.
John Savard
Tom
Yeah, nobility... what a disturbing virtue to practice.
If only more of these right-tard douche bags would act nobly...
Tom
James A. Donald
> > > The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> > > achieved total victory in the War on Terror
> > A final solution?
Quadibloc
> Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
> crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
> re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
> responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
> than exterminating it.
But before the Germans were persuaded to go along with re-orientation,
it was necessary to make a good start on extermination.
Wexford
> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What could be
> more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
> dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
> than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
> college?
>
> Budikka
You've got a point. I admit I'm not crazy about Cameron's work.
"Titanic" was pathetically stupid, a story constructed on two spoiled
airheads whose dialogue was a collection of catch phrases and cliches.
I doubt Avatar is any better, and as for special effects, I prefer
actors to cartoons. On the other hand, I've seen movies then read
reviews of them that were so far off the mark, so weird and smug that
it was hard to believe the reviewer actually saw the same movie I
saw.
Lord Calvert
Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
Founding Fathers"
Thanks, Ronnie.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
Christopher A. Lee
<Calver...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 1:35�pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 8:19�am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > the "George W Bush was the
>> > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>>
>> That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
>> President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
>> Reagan.
>
>Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
>Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
>Founding Fathers"
>
>Thanks, Ronnie.
He said it about the Contras as well.
Uncle Vic
>> And about 15,000 of it went into my bank account, not including the
>> soundtrack re-use. �And many years worth of Secondary Markets Funds
>> (residuals) to follow. �I worked on the picture - music prep. �It was
>> a
>> dream gig. �All the scores were prepared in Finale, the leading edge
>> music publishing program. �We XMLd the files and extracted the parts
>> in Sibelius. �I'd have preferred just extracting them in Finale, but
>> my boss
>> (82 years old) insisted on Sibelius. �He claims to be too old to
>> learn Finale, and he's probably right - the learning curve on that
>> program is through the roof. �Whatever... it pays to know both
>> programs well. �On
>> busy days, we copyists were making over a grand a day. �Nice work if
>> you
>> can get it...
>
> That sounds like a cool life to be leading!
>
It is if you can learn to handle the financial aspect. Sometimes I go
for months making big bucks, then it dies out for a few months. It's the
furthest thing from a steady job. After losing Paramount TV (Star Trek
et al) I tried to make things steadier by offering my services to
everyone in town, and after a six-month period of unemployment, I got
picked up by Sony Pictures. Then a Live-TV house picked me up on the
side, and I got a little work out of Disney. Every now and then my old
Paramount office gets some work, and I've gone "dark" dates (non-union)
with a few other employers. Last season I was "hired" by the guy that
runs the Live-TV house (we do the music prep for Dancing With the Stars
among other shows), and things are looking to get steadier again.
Unfortunately, there are three month hiatuses between seasons of DWTS, so
I have to try to fill those up. I just did two days on an Adam Sandler
film at Sony, and I'm hearing rumors about two more pictures coming thru
next month, then maybe some "throw me a bone" work on the Academy Awards.
Sigh!
If you try to think more than two weeks ahead in this business you'll
drive yourself crazy.
The best time of the year starts on July 1 every year, when the annual
Secondary Markets check shows up in the mailbox. It's a collection of TV
& movie residuals based on new deals the production companies have made
on product you've worked on. (Like DVD releases, network TV, airline in-
flight movies, etc.) Many of us start counting down the days before the
checks arrive, beginning sometime in April. Heh... Granted, these
residuals take a while to build up, career-wise, but I've been in the
business for 25 years now. Last year's check was over 50K (32K after
taxes and processing fees). Yeah. BIG shot in the arm. I still have
about 6K left, but I'm now unemployed - hopefully not for long. DWTS
starts up again in March. Time to lie low - but my wife just informed me
she just bought herself her Xmas present from me, and talked the guy WAY
down from three grand. S H I T !!! :-)
What, me worry? If I did, I'd be dead by now. My brother has a steady
job, paid vacation, paid sick days, government pension... He had a heart
attack about five years ago. Stress related, I'll bet. I told him to
adopt my philosophy, "I don't give a shit".
Uncle Vic
There are many kinds of movies, IMHO. "Academy" movies like "Howard's
End", or "Out of Africa". Entertaining movies with big SFX and all-star
casts like "Armageddon", Star Wars stuff. Funny movies, chick flicks,
dick flicks, etc. Cult movies. And just plain bad movies. All are
judged as a matter of opinion, and movie critics are only expressing
their own opinions. People who believe what they say and base their
movie going experiences on said opinions are just, well, missing out.
Auntie Lib
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org>
> wrote:
>
> > posteth:
>
> >> REVIEW: Jim Cameron¢s ¡Avatar¢ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> >> Revenge Fantasy
>
> > sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
> Aww hell. Get good and stoned first. I think you'll like it.
My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up," the 3-
D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses made me
kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to them. But,
still, they didn't even use the effect the one place it would've been
appropriate: when they were flying on those dragon things (Ikrun? Or
something?) I thought for sure they would show us the view from the
rider's perspective, experience the thrill of flying. But they
didn't. Just used standard camera work to show the soaring dragons
from the audience's perspective.
For the first half or so I was thinking "Yeah, 'Dances With Wolves,'
been there, done that." But then, when the HomeTree fell so
spectacularly, I felt myself getting misty-eyed. (I'm a woman, my
only excuse.) It was odd to be rooting AGAINST the soldiers for a
change.
Yeah, it's heavy-handed. But it's also true. And it isn't "America
hating." That's just ethnocentric garbage whereby everything is about
US. Most of your more successful nations have gone in and destroyed
indigenous peoples of one sort or another. It's what invaders do.
They could've been talking about the Aussies and their treatment of
the Aborigines. I think it was actually more akin to the world's
destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest and its native people. If the
right-wing sees some sort of "message" about the invasion of Iraq,
that's just guilt and projection talking.
I wasn't planning on seeing it but my brother works for Fox and they
had an employee screening on the lot today so I went. I'm glad I
did. (I'm not sure I would've paid to see it, but I enjoyed it.)
It's absolutely gorgeous to look at, the music was beautiful, the
script had some really good moments. Sigourney Weaver was fabulous.
Sam Worthington (?) was really good as both Jake Sully and Jakesully
the warrior. The story was emotionally compelling.
When I go to the movies I'm just looking to be entertained for a
couple of hours and "Avator" delived. I'm not looking for anything
"deeper" than that.
elizabeth
Auntie Lib
> On Dec 19, 11:09 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <d578a11e-4c58-400a-9918-abbcda439...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> > > achieved total victory in the War on Terror
>
> > A final solution?
>
> Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
> crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
> re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
> responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
> than exterminating it.
A perfect example of someone for whom the entire point of the movie
went - whoooosh! - soaring over his head. Who are these "terrorists"
you're hoping to see "completely crushed"? Hmmm? The entire theater
I saw it with laughed when the general said "We will fight terror with
terror" as they discuss their plans to wipe out the entire indiginous
population of the planet simply because they inconveniently live on
top of a source of valuable ore. Sheesh. Some people are so cranky
when things don't go their way. (Was it really called "unobtainium"?
How funny is that!)
elizabeth
Nic A. Heretic
> more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
> dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
> than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
> college?
>
> Budikka
Good post, no, GREAT POST Budikka! One Of The Year's 10 Best!!!
--
Religion needs Spirituality; Spirituality NEEDS NOT *ANY* NEED religion(s)...
Ray Fischer
>> A final solution?
>
>Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
>crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
>re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
>responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
>than exterminating it.
And right there, ladies and gents, is the inevitable rationalization
for a totalitarian dictatorship. Pol Pot wanted to create a utopian
agronomy. Hitler wanted to purify humanity. Lenin wanted to
eliminate the oligarchs. And here we have a luntatic who wants to
"re-orient" the oppressed so that they will suffer their chians more
willingly.
And always the result is that people who dare to be free are killed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Quadibloc
> On Dec 20, 1:35 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 8:19 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > the "George W Bush was the
> > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> > Reagan.
>
> Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
> Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> Founding Fathers"
Be that as it may, it was Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
that helped bring about the ultimate defeat and collapse of Soviet
tyranny! The War on Terror hasn't been won yet.
So the conservatives who might be inclined to find G.W.B. a great
President would still find Ronald Reagan a greater one. What liberals
think of him is a different matter; my point is that the "George W.
Bush is the second greatest President EVER" crowd would be bigger than
the one previously mentioned, even if that crowd, too, might be
misguided, objectively, or at least in your eyes.
John Savard
Jimbo
> On Dec 20, 8:07 pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 1:35 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 8:19 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the "George W Bush was the
> > > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> > > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> > > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> > > Reagan.
>
> > Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
> > Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> > Founding Fathers"
>
> Be that as it may, it was Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
> that helped bring about the ultimate defeat and collapse of Soviet
> tyranny! The War on Terror hasn't been won yet.
>
> So the conservatives who might be inclined to find G.W.B. a great
> President would still find Ronald Reagan a greater one. What liberals
> think of him is a different matter;
Liberals, most moderates, and even a number of moderate republicans.
The guy only had what? A 24% approval rating? I've been around
since 1944, voting since 1962, and Bush Jr. is the only president in
that time I witnessed being booed out of office. Although. LBJ
certainly deserved to be. Anyone, and I mean anyone that thinks that
Bush Jr. was a great president has lodged their heads so far into self
delusion that I doubt there would be any saving them. Best just to
step back and let them go the way of the Doo-Doo.
William December Starr
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> said:
Ah, you cut out my followup line: "(Other than to mock you, of course.)"
Which makes you not just a buffoon but also a dishonest asshole.
-- wds
William December Starr
Auntie Lib <walle...@msn.com> said:
> My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up,"
> the 3-D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses
> made me kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to
> them.
Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
-- wds
William December Starr
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> said:
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> the "George W Bush was the Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of
> Ronald Reagan.
Satire is dead, folks.
-- wds
Budikka666
> In article <1a9698c9-b09a-42d7-b16f-c11bcae78...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> >>> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What
> >>> could be more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't
> >>> even know dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on
> >>> nothing more than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema
> >>> as a Gut Form" in college?
>
> >> What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
>
> > Well you did so why don't you tell us what you are? LoL!
>
> Ah, you cut out my followup line: "(Other than to mock you, of course.)"
>
> Which makes you not just a buffoon but also a dishonest asshole.
>
> -- wds
Go fuck yourself shit bag.
Budikka
Sean Eric Fagan
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
>place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
Depends on the person and the glasses. It's a one-size-fits-all system, so if
you have a larger head, or larger glasses, you may be out of luck.
I have a larger head, but small glasses, so they can fit -- but I also have a
right eye that drifts decidedly to the right, and 3D just *does not work for
me*. (Normally, when watching a movie, reading, or anything but driving, I
just relax my eye and let it drift, and pretty much only pay attention to the
left eye. This doesn't work with 3D films, and it has a tendency to cause me
a bad headache. Worse, even when I *do* focus -- which gets tiring after 90
minutes, let alone 2h20m -- my eyes aren't in perfect alignment, which causes
the 3D effects to just fail.)
Tim McGaughy
I don't see why not. Generally, they're pretty big, and that's probably
exactly why.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 19, 9:32�pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>, and he
>> > posteth:
>>
>> >> REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> >> Revenge Fantasy
>>
>> > sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>>
>> Aww hell. �Get good and stoned first. �I think you'll like it.
>
>My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D.
And it didn't NEED to be in color. But the 3D and the color both
enhanced the movie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bill Snyder
Starr) wrote:
The brain-dead are not noted for their grasp of humor and irony.
Even zombies don't seem to have much sense of fun.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Budikka666
> > Auntie Lib <wallenbr...@msn.com> said:
>
> >> My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up,"
> >> the 3-D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses
> >> made me kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to
> >> them.
>
> > Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
> > place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
>
> I don't see why not. Generally, they're pretty big, and that's probably
> exactly why.
They are rather large for kids, but I had no problem with mine. I was
unaware of them once I'd put them on and got used to them after a
minute or two. The ones I had, which presumably are what's issued at
all theaters showing this, were not the cardboard dealies with red and
green plastic in them; they were black plastic frames with pale gray
"lenses".
Budikka
Quadibloc
> They are rather large for kids, but I had no problem with mine. I was
> unaware of them once I'd put them on and got used to them after a
> minute or two. The ones I had, which presumably are what's issued at
> all theaters showing this, were not the cardboard dealies with red and
> green plastic in them; they were black plastic frames with pale gray
> "lenses".
So they were using polarizing glasses instead of anaglyph glasses,
which is better quality, but doesn't involve any new techniques.
John Savard
MarkA
> On Dec 23, 3:44ļæ½pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 8:07ļæ½pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 1:35ļæ½pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> > > On Dec 20, 8:19ļæ½am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > the "George W Bush was the
>> > > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>>
>> > > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
>> > > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of
>> > > Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> > Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
>> > Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
>> > Founding Fathers"
>>
>> Be that as it may, it was Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
>> that helped bring about the ultimate defeat and collapse of Soviet
>> tyranny! The War on Terror hasn't been won yet.
>>
>> So the conservatives who might be inclined to find G.W.B. a great
>> President would still find Ronald Reagan a greater one. What liberals
>> think of him is a different matter;
>
> Liberals, most moderates, and even a number of moderate republicans. The
> guy only had what? A 24% approval rating? I've been around since 1944,
> voting since 1962, and Bush Jr. is the only president in that time I
> witnessed being booed out of office. Although. LBJ certainly deserved to
> be. Anyone, and I mean anyone that thinks that Bush Jr. was a great
> president has lodged their heads so far into self delusion that I doubt
> there would be any saving them. Best just to step back and let them go
> the way of the Doo-Doo.
What most impressed me about the Bush decade was that it was the first
time that a political party figured out how to really exploit the science
of public opinion. Karl Rove was just plain brilliant in his engineering
of the Bush image. I still can't believe that they were able to portray
Bush as "the war president" against Kerry, who actually served in Vietnam,
and was decorated for heroism, while they couldn't find anyone who
remembered Bush ever even showing up for his ANG duty! Of course, getting
elected is one thing; governing intelligently is quite another.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Budikka666
The new techniques were in the cameras used in filming this.
Budikka
Tim McGaughy
Those are polarized filters. They're color independent, and work by
blocking the polarized light meant to be seen by the other eye.
Spartakus
> ... the beautiful (if you go for ten-foot tall gaudy blue females) Neytiri
Hey, don't be hatin' on ten-foot tall gaudy blue females until you've
dated one.
> (Zoe Saldana) – a walking cliché of the tough, earthy, compassionate,
> oh-so wise love interest who can somehow speak English … but in that
> halting way that’s so gosh darned endearing.
I wonder where these fuckwits find the time and energy to debunk at
length what is essentially an escapist bit of fantasy/adventure? Does
it have a message? Sure. So do Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" and
Mozart's "Magic Flute". So what?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Dec 23, 7:54 pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <7a1ceecc-703f-4a0f-924b-3fec26c67...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Auntie Lib <wallenbr...@msn.com> said:
>>>> My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up,"
>>>> the 3-D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses
>>>> made me kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to
>>>> them.
>>> Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
>>> place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
>> I don't see why not. Generally, they're pretty big, and that's probably
>> exactly why.
>
> They are rather large for kids, but I had no problem with mine.
I already wear glasses, I don't like them to begin with.
I'll go see a "3d" movie when they actually solve the 3d movie problem
and project it in actual 3d.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Budikka666
That would be a holographic movie and we're a good many years away
from that. Meanwhile Cameron's 3-D is a very acceptable alternative
and if you haven't experienced it, it's your loss, no one else's.
Budikka
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
f02a5e...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 20, 8:19�am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> the "George W Bush was the
>> Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> Reagan.
It's amazing that you can say that without a trace of irony. Did you take
acting lessons?
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Pray for Goppers the way they pray for Obama! Psalm 109!
Auntie Lib
> >My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D.
>
> And it didn't NEED to be in color. But the 3D and the color both
> enhanced the movie.
Oh, hell YES it had to be in color! Can you imagine Pandora in black
and white? Wouldn't even come close to the beauty I saw onscreen.
OTOH the 3-D didn't "enhance" the movie in any way. Just my opinion,
natch.
elizabeth
aa#2098
EAC Director of Useless Endeavors
Vice-Chairman Of The Committee On Wasted Time
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 23, 6:48�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D.
>>
>> And it didn't NEED to be in color. �But the 3D and the color both
>> enhanced the movie.
>
>Oh, hell YES it had to be in color! Can you imagine Pandora in black
>and white? Wouldn't even come close to the beauty I saw onscreen.
Ditto 3D.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Gerry Quinn
21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Calver...@msn.com says...
> >
> > > the "George W Bush was the
> > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
> >
> > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> > Reagan.
>
> Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> Founding Fathers"
He is alleged to have stated this in 1985 - clairvoyance must have been
among his skills, as the Taliban were not founded until nine years
later.
- Gerry Quinn
Eric S. Harris
> On Dec 19, 6:20 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
> I guess the bar is a lot lower in the right wing press. I can remember
> when people like Allan Tate and John Simon did reviews for the NR. Now
> it's hacks who can't write a decent sentence, but who make sure they
> salt it with the right talking points.
Your comments start and end with criticizing how the message is
delivered. Does that mean you agree with the content of the article?
-Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ...
Eric S. Harris
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
> REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>
> Big Hollywood ^ | 12/13/2009 | John Nolte
>
> Posted on 13 December 2009 23:22:55 by SeekAndFind
Yeah, it was tedious, from a plot standpoint. And the characters
apparently were picked off a drop-down menu except, as the critic noted,
the second-tier good guys. (Maybe if they'd had more screen time, they
could have been boring, too.) The planet's ecosystem is more than a
little absurd, what with the vertebrates and plants all having organic
USB ports. (Asimov's "Green Patches" were wireless.)
But the movie I saw -- despite the screenwriter/director's intent,
apparently -- was about eminent domain abuse on a grand scale (preceded
in this case by old-fashioned colonialism, Subtype A) and government
direction of the economy (Subtype 1930s). With an unrealistic,
relatively happy ending.
Nobody expects much plot coherence or originality from a roller coaster
ride, or a CGI demo reel. -Eric
Quadibloc
> The new techniques were in the cameras used in filming this.
Some of the scenes were filmed in cameras, but those weren't the ones
that give the movie its claim to fame. But, yes, I remember reading
somewhere that they were using a new kind of 3-D camera allowing a
closer spacing between the two lenses, so that the 3-D effect would be
realistic instead of exaggerated.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Dec 23, 6:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > And it didn't NEED to be in color. But the 3D and the color both
> > enhanced the movie.
>
> Oh, hell YES it had to be in color! Can you imagine Pandora in black
> and white? Wouldn't even come close to the beauty I saw onscreen.
>
> OTOH the 3-D didn't "enhance" the movie in any way. Just my opinion,
> natch.
And, of course, if you want to go that route, I suppose the movie
could have managed without synchronized sound, using subtitles for all
the dialogue.
I think it needed sound and color, though, for anyone to go and see
it.
Even if the 3-D did add to the movie, given the bad 3-D in previous
movies, probably moviegoers would not be terribly attracted by it -
and even if it didn't, I approve of bringing the technology forwards,
making 3-D something that can be employed in a tasteful, natural way
in movies.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> A perfect example of someone for whom the entire point of the movie
> went - whoooosh! - soaring over his head. Who are these "terrorists"
> you're hoping to see "completely crushed"? Hmmm? The entire theater
> I saw it with laughed when the general said "We will fight terror with
> terror" as they discuss their plans to wipe out the entire indiginous
> population of the planet simply because they inconveniently live on
> top of a source of valuable ore. Sheesh. Some people are so cranky
> when things don't go their way. (Was it really called "unobtainium"?
> How funny is that!)
My point is: *yes*, that general in the movie *was* evil. BUT the
people in the real world who are fighting terrorism are NOT evil. It's
the terrorists that are evil.
So, any movie that tries to draw parallels with evil oppressors (in
the movie) and the heroic fighters against terrorism (in the real
world) is harmful and dishonest - and it weakens the resolve of the
American people to win the fight against terrorism. Which is bad.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> And right there, ladies and gents, is the inevitable rationalization
> for a totalitarian dictatorship. Pol Pot wanted to create a utopian
> agronomy. Hitler wanted to purify humanity. Lenin wanted to
> eliminate the oligarchs. And here we have a luntatic who wants to
> "re-orient" the oppressed so that they will suffer their chians more
> willingly.
>
> And always the result is that people who dare to be free are killed.
The Christmas underwear clown is not a person who dares to be free.
There ARE oppressed Muslims in some places.
The ethnic Albanians of Kosovo. The Chechens and the Ingush in Russia.
The black Muslims of the Sudan, who, along with the (also black)
Christians there are oppressed by the Arab-dominated government. The
Rohingyar tribe of Burma - a news story on the BBC web site about
Bangaladesh repatriating refugees of that tribe noted their plight.
And, of course, there are the unfortunate Palestinians - who are
caught in the middle, first, between Israel and the attempts of
Israel's neighbors to drive it into the sea, and now between Israel
and the terrorists who want to drive it into the sea.
However, other things create a less-than-positive impression. As one
random example...
Just recently, I saw a news item about a family from Pakistan admitted
into Canada under a ministerial permit. Their daughter, now 7 years
old, was brutally raped at the age of 2 1/2, because her father
refused to convert from Christianity to Islam. AND THE AUTHORITIES IN
PAKISTAN STILL HAVE NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH THE CRIME.
The Grand Mufti of Egypt made the news recently, condemning the Swiss
ban on minarets as an "insult to all Muslims". Sadly, some newspapers
reported this without including, as essential background, the fact
that Coptic Christians in Egypt are not only forbidden (because of
Shari'a law, partially implemented in Egypt) to build new churches -
but also cannot obtain permits to carry out repairs to their existing
churches, although this is theoretically allowed under Egyptian law.
One can look at the book "From Time Immemorial" to get some background
on the Middle East conflict.
Generally, historians have noted that in the Middle Ages, Jews fared
better in the Muslim world than in the Christian world.
In the Christian world, they were confined to ghettoes, incendiary
sermons on Good Friday occasionally led to mob violence against them,
and every now and then there were pogroms.
In the Muslim world, conditions were more stable, and less
unpredictable, but they were still discriminated against. This is
because Shari'a law set out a code of conduct with respect to non-
Muslims. Pagans could be required to convert to Islam on pain of
death, but "people of the book", Jews and Christians, were "protected
persons" or _dhimmi_. They were subjected to a fixed set of
disabilities - they paid a special tax, they were required to have a
"submissive" attitude, and their testimony could not be heeded where
it contradicted that of a Muslim.
As a U.S. citizen, you should be familiar with a group of individuals
who, in some states, could not have their testimony counted in courts
where it contradicted that of anyone not in that group... and who were
required to have a submissive attitude, the term being to "know their
place". In the United States, of course, you have come a long way... a
member of this group is now your President.
Of course, you might find it hypocritical of me that I think the
Islamic world is deserving of condemnation for treating Jews like
Americans treated Negroes, while America ought to be on top of the
world (crushing Russia and China, so that Russia can be booted out of
Georgia and China can be booted out of Tibet).
If so, you are forgetting that America has mended its ways, while
large chunks of the Islamic world are still behaving like they did in
the Middle Ages.
More importantly, the terrorists aren't attacking America because
America oppressed Muslims or denied Muslims their rights. No. They're
attacking America because America helps to defend the freedom of
Israel.
They're attacking America because it stands in their way of living in
Palestine alongside the Jews in the way that God commands... lording
it over the Jews, and if some errant member of the Muslim community
rapes one of their daughters, they are not to be permitted to make
much of a fuss about it.
That is not daring to be free.
No. The terrorists are not attacking Americans because the Muslim
people want to be free.
The terrorists are attacking Americans on behalf of a misguided
segment of the Islamic community that wants to regain what it feels is
its rightful place - as the *oppressors* of the Jews of Israel... and
probably the Christians of Spain, for that matter.
Those who murder innocents in the pursuit of oppressing those of other
faiths deserve to be killed - and that fate awaits many of those who
have followed al-Qaeda's evil siren call, and we can be confident,
even if there is a God, that as He would be just if He existed, there
will be no seventy-two virgins awaiting them either.
The fight against the terrorists is not wrong, even if it turned out
the war in Iraq could have been avoided, or at least delayed.
In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in the Gaza Strip, it is indeed the case
that innocents are being caught in the middle between the terrorists
and their intended victims who are fighting back. Particularly in the
case of the Gaza Strip, it would seem that more restraint would have
been helpful in avoiding creating people who will be understandably
embittered and thus led into the fatal embrace of terrorism.
Although what would really have helped in the Gaza Strip was if the
United States could have simply instituted a full-scale draft, putting
as many men under arms as during the height of the Vietnam war, to
send them into the Gaza Strip, so that absolutely overwhelming force
could have utterly rooted out Hamas with much less in the way of
collateral damage. But sinister forces in the U.S. have so far
succeeded in poisoning American public opinion against doing what is
needed to pull out terror by the roots.
Israel isn't creating problems for the Palestinians because it hates
Muslims and wants to make them miserable - the way that Muslims hated
Jews and did make them miserable without reason. No, the Palestinians
have problems because Israel has to defend itself against being wiped
out by military attacks from its neighbors - who HAD THE CHANCE to
live in peace with Israel without any Palestinian problem in 1947, but
THREW IT AWAY by trying to drive it into the sea - and against
terrorist attacks, the rockets launched by Hamas, and the suicide
bombers.
The terrorists aren't "people who dare to be free". They fight for the
sake of an imagined "right" to go on oppressing the Jews of Israel,
and so they fully deserve the anger of Americans.
Although there are blots on America's record with respect to some
interventions in Latin America, or the fate of many Native Americans,
America has progressed - giving the vote to women, and eliminating
discrimination against black people - and it was a democracy from the
start, and contributed mightily to the cause of freedom in two World
Wars and the Cold War.
America is a nation that has done so much for the rest of the world -
and so, on September 11, 2001 as on December 7, 1941, Americans have
every right to resent anyone committing murderous attacks against
them, and to conclude that, as America has stood on the side of
liberty, the side of human rights, whoever is behind such attacks is
on the side of evil.
Such a conclusion is not out of synchrony with the facts. Go to
Israel, or go to Nanking, if you need convincing.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Liberals, most moderates, and even a number of moderate republicans.
> The guy only had what? A 24% approval rating? I've been around
> since 1944, voting since 1962, and Bush Jr. is the only president in
> that time I witnessed being booed out of office. Although. LBJ
> certainly deserved to be.
What about Nixon?
It certainly is sad that Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese people
into Communist tyranny, but that is no excuse for subverting the
ability of the American people to choose their President and other
representatives with their votes.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Kerry, who actually served in Vietnam,
> and was decorated for heroism,
Yes, but then he went traipsing across America claiming that America
was waging a genocidal war against the ordinary people of South
Vietnam - instead of defending them against the murderous Viet Cong,
as they actually were doing. Surely that has to count for something.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> In article <2c4b8a9b-1f0b-4269-9086-0a6bb7cc327a@
> > Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
> > Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> > Founding Fathers"
>
> He is alleged to have stated this in 1985 - clairvoyance must have been
> among his skills, as the Taliban were not founded until nine years
> later.
The United States boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Russia because Russia
was invading Afghanistan at the time. So that at least was before
1985.
He could well have been calling the Afghan resistance fighters "the
moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers", since, clairvoyance NOT
being among his skills, he would not have known what extreme forms of
Islam *some* of them would later get involved in, and what ingratitude
a few among them would show for American covert aid.
John Savard
Quadibloc
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:d250a83a-735b-456a-b5be-
> f02a5eb30...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> > Reagan.
>
> It's amazing that you can say that without a trace of irony. Did you take
> acting lessons?
No, I just missed my political correctness lessons.
John Savard
James A. Donald
> > > Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> > > Founding Fathers"
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > He is alleged to have stated this in 1985 - clairvoyance must have been
> > among his skills, as the Taliban were not founded until nine years
> > later.
Quadibloc
> He could well have been calling the Afghan resistance fighters "the
> moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers", since, clairvoyance NOT
> being among his skills, he would not have known what extreme forms of
> Islam *some* of them would later get involved in,
There is no substantial overlap between the resistance and the
Taliban. Bin Laden built roads for the resistance. The Taliban are a
new lot.
The leading character of the resistance, Massoud, was indeed the moral
equivalent of the founding fathers. You can find some bad guys in the
shadows, notably Hekmatyar, the Benedict Arnold of the resistance, who
indirectly received a disturbing amount of US taxpayer money, but you
have to trace a long and convoluted thread to get from Massoud to Bin
Laden and then to Mulla Omar. It is as if you are tracing a thread
connecting George Washington to Hitler via Bendict Arnold.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 11:25�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> And right there, ladies and gents, is the inevitable rationalization
>> for a totalitarian dictatorship. �Pol Pot wanted to create a utopian
>> agronomy. �Hitler wanted to purify humanity. �Lenin wanted to
>> eliminate the oligarchs. �And here we have a luntatic who wants to
>> "re-orient" the oppressed so that they will suffer their chians more
>> willingly.
>>
>> And always the result is that people who dare to be free are killed.
>
>The Christmas underwear clown is not a person who dares to be free.
>
>There ARE oppressed Muslims in some places.
There are Christians who oppress others.
But claiming that you need to "fix" Islam relies upon the assumption
that YOU have the right to decide how other people will live and
worship.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Quadibloc
> But claiming that you need to "fix" Islam relies upon the assumption
> that YOU have the right to decide how other people will live and
> worship.
We all have the right to ensure that other people do not oppress
others. That is not decided by me, that is a fact. Otherwise
interfering in how others live and worship, in ways that respect the
rights of others, is not something anyone has a right to do.
It is only that matters are complicated by the fact that the thought
is father to the deed.
John Savard
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 30, 4:34�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> But claiming that you need to "fix" Islam relies upon the assumption
>> that YOU have the right to decide how other people will live and
>> worship.
>
>We all have the right to ensure that other people do not oppress
>others.
So you're going to oppress people in order to prevent them from
oppressing.
> That is not decided by me, that is a fact.
Ah, the certainty of the religious extremist.
It certainly spares you the effort of actual thought.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Anarcissie
<2afd8b2f-97a2-4c9a...@c3g2000yqd.google
groups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Terrorism is a method, not a tribe or an ideology. You
can't win a fight against a method, especially not by
engaging in the method. It's as silly as the "War to
end war."
Greg Goss
>Terrorism is a method, not a tribe or an ideology. You
>can't win a fight against a method, especially not by
>engaging in the method. It's as silly as the "War to
>end war."
I refer to terrorism as "Cold War Two". You win it by making its side
spend too much, and by outcompeting by being obviously wealthy and
successful. Getting on the news for getting laid a lot helps.
Thanks, Tiger, for showing how the Imperialist West works.
Eventually the various Soviet clients looked at what their competition
was getting and decided that they'd rather have some of that instead.
These are the tactics that will work here. Don't become the enemy as
Cheny would like. Show them that our system works.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
David Johnston
wrote:
What's more since I hear that the company starts hostilities by
toppling this huge tree that the natives live in, it doesn't sound
like precisely which side represents the Americans, if either does, is
all that clear.
Paul Ciszek
In article <7q6vpe...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>Eventually the various Soviet clients looked at what their competition
>was getting and decided that they'd rather have some of that instead.
"Decided"? If they had had any choice in the matter, none of the Soviet
"clients" would have been clients in the first place.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Greg Goss
>
>In article <7q6vpe...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>Eventually the various Soviet clients looked at what their competition
>>was getting and decided that they'd rather have some of that instead.
>
>"Decided"? If they had had any choice in the matter, none of the Soviet
>"clients" would have been clients in the first place.
"You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
(John Campbel, Jr. I think)
Paul Ciszek
In article <7q7nre...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <7q6vpe...@mid.individual.net>,
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Eventually the various Soviet clients looked at what their competition
>>>was getting and decided that they'd rather have some of that instead.
>>
>>"Decided"? If they had had any choice in the matter, none of the Soviet
>>"clients" would have been clients in the first place.
>
>"You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
>(John Campbel, Jr. I think)
Did he have a wife or any children when he said that? Brave, absolutist
statements like that tend to appeal less to those who have to consider
what happens to other people besides themselves.
Howard Brazee
>"You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
>(John Campbel, Jr. I think)
But is there such a thing as a free man?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Alan Ford
>> "You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
>> (John Campbel, Jr. I think)
>
> But is there such a thing as a free man?
Or, more importantly, a free woman.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <7q7nre...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7q6vpe...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Eventually the various Soviet clients looked at what their competition
>>>>was getting and decided that they'd rather have some of that instead.
>>>
>>>"Decided"? If they had had any choice in the matter, none of the Soviet
>>>"clients" would have been clients in the first place.
>>
>>"You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
>>(John Campbel, Jr. I think)
>
>Did he have a wife or any children when he said that?
An ex-wife, who'd left him for one of his authors.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Invid Fan
<da...@block.net> wrote:
It's all how you look at it. A Malaysian friend complained that 300 was
too rah rah America rules, where as I saw it as more anti-US if
anything. I mean, obviously a powerful superpower like the Persians
would represent the US and not the poor Spartans :) Likewise in Avatar
you could only consider it anti-US if you think the US acts like the
bad guys do.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
David Goldfarb
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 02:11:30 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>Ciszek) wrote:
>>In article <7q7nre...@mid.individual.net>,
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>"You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
>>>(John Campbel, Jr. I think)
>>
>>Did he have a wife or any children when he said that?
>
>An ex-wife, who'd left him for one of his authors.
And two children.
The quote, however, comes from "--If This Goes On", by Heinlein and it's
"conquer", not "enslave". (Did you know that one of Campbell's daughters
was named for Heinlein's first wife? [Who actually was apparently his
second wife.])
--
David Goldfarb | "You can't do only one thing."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Campbell, Jr.
Quadibloc
> Did he have a wife or any children when he said that? Brave, absolutist
> statements like that tend to appeal less to those who have to consider
> what happens to other people besides themselves.
Ah, you were *not* talking about alimony payments at all, as was not
clear from the part of that paragraph which others had quoted. (As I
might have responded to the other post - "An ex-wife? That's even
worse!")
In any case, even killing all the free men is sufficient to ensure
that only the slaves are left.
Thus, we need to focus on actually defeating the tyrants, not merely
wishing them away, or resisting them with our purity of heart.
John Savard
T Guy
> What's more since I hear that the company starts hostilities by
> toppling this huge tree that the natives live in, it doesn't sound
> like precisely which side represents the Americans, if either does, is
> all that clear.
(T Guy):
Your use of the words 'natives' and 'Americans' brings to mind the
thought that
the planet = America
the inhabitants = Americans
the newcomers/invaders = Columbus, Cortez and subsequent, er, let's
say 'visitors'
T Guy
Mick Russom
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>
> Big Hollywood ^ | 12/13/2009 | John Nolte
>
> Posted on 13 December 2009 23:22:55 by SeekAndFind
>
> Absent from the big screen for over a decade now, Oscar-winning
> director James Cameron returns armed with a reported half-billion
> dollars, a story he’s been desperate to tell for 15 years, and the
> very latest in cutting-edge visual technology. The result is “Avatar,”
> a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional
> characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large
> – surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious
> politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act
> begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet. For
> all the time and money and technology that went into its making, the
> thing that matters most – character and story – are strictly
> Afterschool Special.
>
> What a crushing disappointment from one of our most original and
> imaginative filmmakers.
>
> Avatar
>
> Set in 2154, “Avatar” is a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and
> simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our
> founding straight through to the Iraq War. Sam Worthington is Jake
> Sully, a paraplegic Marine Corporal sent to the planet Pandora after
> the untimely death of his brother. In a plot-thread built up to
> promise much that never pays off, Sully has none of the training his
> brother benefitted by: years of schooling in theAvatarProgram to
> prepare him to infiltrate the indigenous species of Pandora called the
> Na’vi, who are the only things between Earth’s RDA (Resources
> Development Administration) and a precious energy resource
> “ironically” called Unobtainium.
>
> Because the air on Pandora is toxic to humans, the RDA developed theAvatarProgram to create clone-like avatars from both Na’vi and human
> DNA (which is why they need the untrained Sully) that allow for a
> human to transfer their consciousness into the 10-foot native blue
> beings and safely explore the planet. The scientists want to use the
> program to study Pandora, the military wants to conquer it, and the
> RDA wants to strip mine it. At first Sully’s unconcerned with these
> dueling tensions and agendas. Once a marine always a marine, and when
> his commanding officer, the beefed up genocide-happy Col. Quaritch
> (Stephen Lang), asks him to infiltrate the Na’vi and do recon for a
> probable attack, Jake is more than ready. Hoo-rah.
>
> But before you can say I’ve seen this movie a thousand times before,
> Jake enters his Na’viavatarand in a tired action scene straight out
> of the “Jurassic Park” trilogy, gets lost in the dangerous Pandoran
> forest only to be rescued by something else he’d like to enter, the
> beautiful (if you go for ten-foot tall gaudy blue females) Neytiri
> (Zoe Saldana) – a walking cliché of the tough, earthy, compassionate,
> oh-so wise love interest who can somehow speak English … but in that
> halting way that’s so gosh darned endearing.
>
> And so begins the real Cliché-A-Thon…
>
> ***SPOILERS COMING***
>
> Does Neytiri just happen to be the Chief’s daughter? Check! At first,
> does the tribe not trust Sully and want to kill him on the spot before
> Neytiri intervenes with wise explanations as to why it’s their tribal
> custom to take in strangers as one of their own? Chuh-eck! Is Sully
> then immersed in the native culture and put through a series of tests
> to prove his worthiness beginning with the sort of clumsiness that
> brings hoots of derisive laughter from the male warriors but endears
> him to Neytiri? Double check! Does Sully eventually become one of
> their strongest warriors and on the day he’s to be initiated as a full
> member of the tribe—GOD this movie’s tedious.
>
> AVATAR
>
> There’s nothing wrong with a simple, boilerplate plot. They’re
> boilerplate for a reason. But within that well worn template
> complicated characters involved in complicated and surprising
> relationships are an absolute necessity, and this is where “Avatar”
> fails miserably.
>
> Within 15 minutes, the “liberal tell” spoils every story beat of
> Sully’s character arc. He’s as dull a protagonist as you’ll ever see.
> Sigourney Weaver plays a gruff-talking, cigarette smoking scientist
> with … wait for it, wait for it … a heart of gold. Giovanni Ribisi’s
> sweaty weasel of a corporate executive never moves beyond that and
> Col. Quaritch is all ‘roid rage, no humanity and his Big Speech about
> the necessity of “a pre-emptive attack to fight terror with terror”
> was as surprising as Cameron‘s use of a military “shock and awe”
> campaign to level the Na’Vi’s precious “Home Tree” as a tacky metaphor
> for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
>
> Oh yeah, he went there…
>
> In supporting roles, Michelle Rodriguez and Joel Moore bring a whole
> lot more to their underwritten roles than the film deserves — you’d
> like to spend more time with them — but it’s always back to the film’s
> dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that
> with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an
> alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-
> cow cliché imaginable. These are creatures who worship the Great
> Mother Eywa, have a sacred relationship with the earth, shoot bow and
> arrows, ride horse-like animals, whoop it up in battle, and talk like
> this: “It has only happened five times since the time of the first
> songs of our ancestors.”
>
> The Na’vi also apologize to animals after killing but before
> butchering them. So I guess that’s okay. Maybe if Quaritch had gotten
> on the loudspeaker and spoken a little mumbo-jumbo before dropping a
> daisy cutter on Home Tree all would be forgiven.
>
> On top of that, the Na’vi are an awfully stupid species. After years
> of dealing with the “Sky People,” for some reason they still haven’t
> figured out that arrows are useless against giant military aircraft.
> And is it okay to mention how hard it is to keep track of who’s who,
> because the Na’vi, uhm … all look alike? Twice I was sure Sully’savatarhad been killed. Twice I was disappointed.
>
> Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably noble
> … I wanted to wipe them out.
>
> AVATAR
>
> Visually “Avatar” doesn’t break any new ground. It looks like a big-
> budget animated film with a garish color palette right off a hippie’s
> tie dye shirt. Never for a moment did I believe the Na’vi or the world
> of Pandora was something organic or real. The fairly pointless use of
> 3-D certainly doesn’t help, but Steven Spielberg’s sixteen year-old
> dinosaurs are light years ahead of “Avatar” in the reality department.
>
> The one thing Cameron has always done well is to create busy,
> energetic, brilliantly choreographed action scenes that allow the
> audience to follow what’s going on. That’s not a small thing because
> it’s becoming a lost art in Hollywood as more and more filmmakers
> lazily trade coherence for the artless shaky-cam and hyper edits. And
> while none of Cameron’s big battle set-pieces is ever able to overcome
> the “liberal tells” pre-ordained outcome and create a sense of
> suspense or peril, at least you don’t get lost in the precious wonder
> of it all.
>
> Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic,
> revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys
> (America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of
> it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.
>
> And if Cameron is able to make a profit spending a half-billion
> dollars on a little liberal bloodlust, more power to him.
Avatar stunk to high-hell. If it weren't for Cameron's Abyss, Aliens
and T2, this movie would be derided, lampooned and called out for the
pile of festering caramelized feculent slime that it is.
This movie is rife with terrible acting, horrific dialogue, and its
'message' is delivered through constant abuse of moral hazards. We
have moral relativism, betrayal and treason being perpetrated for the
greater good. The greater good of course being subjective so a movie
like this promulgates the idea that all crimes against any state or
authoritative entity are justifiable.
This was a 3D wrapped celluloid that without the stunning (yet stupid
looking, e.g., blue-cat-deer-women with human breasts) visuals would,
especially in novel form, be a bloody laughing stock.
The aliens stunk horribly. What's with the talking bi-peds with two
eyes, a nose and a mouth. Has it ever occurred to these so called
"creative" people that new life might be a colony of nano-bots, a
slime mold with group intelligence, life that aspirates with copper
based blood, non-DNA self replicating life forms? Why is everything a
blue monkey with breasts? At least in 1969 when Star Trek was
populated with "old-form" Klingons that looked like a bronzed human
they were on a near-zero budget, but at least they were totally re-
defining sci-fi and giving a window into the future. Also of note in
this mediocrity contests, gravity on Pandora is for everything but the
floating rocks? The physics, weaponry, strategy of the military and
the plausibility of the whole thing is beyond fantasy, its moronic and
so implausible that its distracting and ridiculous. No, this isn't
Blade Runner, Terminator, BSG, Star Trek. This is like getting crystal-
skull-raped.
Crap like Avatar, especially after T2, Star Trek, Star Wars (Ep 4,5
only), is shocking. Its showing that Cameron is a master of marketing
mass subscribed explosion fests laced with politically motivated
parables and drivel and sub-themed with nothing intellectual because
there is nothing beyond the visual veneer, it is fundamentally puerile
trash that's been hussied up to look like way more than it actually
is. It is trash which is the opiates of the McDonald's eating masses.
Anyone who defends this movie is simply a below average or nearly
average mind that can't see past visuals that are no more complex of a
stimulus than a piece of string is as a cat toy. They are incapable of
rational or critical thought and are very likely a wage slave heavily
in debt working towards no particular end, lost in life, and movies
like this are a form of escapism where they "want to believe" and
become immersed in something because their own lives are basically
mundane, insignificant and unimportant.
Moral hazards. Identity politics. Thinly veiled political positions.
Preaching to the customer/consumer/viewer. Moral relativism. Severe
lack of plot, dialogue and finally acting capability.
This is a turning point for the world. It is showing how things that
stimulate basal sensory centers in the simplistic human mind lead the
herd into mindless oblivion.
The Navi are flawless, they have no strata in their society or any
inter-tribal strife. This in and of itself is unrealistic. The bad
guys here are 100% bad, and have no capacity for rational thinking or
empathy, except scientists in white coats, they have all the wisdom,
empathy and intelligence and are always right. The characters were
utterly simplistic, like toys and images made for pre-verbal children.
Its like having tele-tubbies broadcast in massively expensive
exquisite 3D where every frame is lovingly crafted to present to you
some of the flattest, most uninspiring characters ever created.
This movie is clearly well below average, if you liked it you are the
reason Hollywood is cranking out garbage these days. This man spent 10
times what District 9 costs and made a movie far worse, (not that
District9 was any benchmark or the cat's meow), and this huge budget
could have given 10 directors a shot at making something good. No
wonder Linda Hamilton divorced this drunken train wreck of a truck
driver idiot Cameron.
The movie itself is a total sham. The message people walk away from
is: down with the evil empire, down with the mercenaries, down with
planet destroying mining and down with …. (list goes on)
So it takes a crippled jar head to save the Navi because they are too
stupid or incompetent to do this for themselves? That seems rather
insulting of the noble savage. Since when to bows and arrows bounce
off of glass in one part and then start "working" in the next part? So
Cameron exposes corporatism by marketing his movie with McDonalds? So
people who have access to a neural network biological super computer
are meant to be clueless idiots? Did anyone ever note that Jake Sully
lead the Navi into a total disaster. They totally lost the fight. And
just when the battle needed winning the biological computer (which was
supposedly only interested in maintaining balance and not interfering)
somehow sends in the rhino creatures for the win. Even though the
rhino creatures arent linked in. So Jake Sully, without the pathetic
plot device of God stepping in and saving the day, was going to
completely destroy this noble savage society. And most of the efficacy
of the attack was due to his detailed plans he fed to the mercenaries.
It would seem this is an added insult to the noble savages they are
too dumb to see an enemy in Jake Sully. Why do all the noble savage
natives gyrate around the tree of glowing idiocy? Other noble savages
in history have performed vivisection, human sacrifice, cannibalism,
self mutilation and self flagellation - so are we to assume these blue
fools are doing just gyration and none of the other reprehensible
behavior or are these savages?
A large number of the scenes involve idiot level interaction with the
planet flora and fauna. A large portion of this movie was dedicated to
"getting to know Pandora," through clumsy interactions with the
animals. Lots of grunting, snorting and idiot displays of animals that
are identical to various living earth creatures and dinosaurs with an
extra leg here, a hammer-head shark nose put on a rhino, and other
totally idiotic modifications to existing earth creatures to make them
aliens. An extra eye here or there, a nasal sail on the big red
pterodactyl (sails were often used to help cool blood so a small nasal
sail would not be effective, also, the sail was shown to be bone which
would make the sail ineffective and add unnecessary weight to a flying
creature). The ion-sail spaceship can't reach the speed of light, and
even if it got to relativistic speeds (0.94c and up), it would require
that as much of the journey is spent decelerating as accelerating.
This rules out a 5 year journey to Alpha Centurai. Did you notice the
Navi are basically double-sized humans (I hope they have a greatly
improved vascular system or two hearts), with biceps, triceps gluts
quadriceps like humans evolved on earth. But they have cat eyes, deer
ears and a stupid nose. And they have 100% carbon copy human feet. I
guess this is the most efficient foot design for bi-peds? Probably
not, especially if they spent any significant time in trees, they
would have feet that were better at gripping than transferring force
across an area. Again, Cameron's juvenile imagination is pathetic. A
magnetic field strong enough to levitate mountains would probably do a
whole lot more than just mess with instruments. It would *certainly*
prevent remote communication with an Avatar body. By the way, where is
the bio-mechanical interface for receiving and transmitting input
output from/to the Avatar from the control stations? Oh yeah, and
latency isn't an issue here? Also, a planet wide brain would not
function well as the latency (especially in terms of biological
electrical signal propagation) would really make such a large single
brain model impossible. More likely it would have multiple brains
interlinked (there are jellyfish that have multiple shared brains). I
would doubt that the large brain would function, or the distributed
brain model would be very intelligent at all. I also wonder how a
planet with an air atmosphere thick enough to allow helicopters to
operate would likely not have a gravity substantially different from
9.8ms2. The magnetosphere and gravity required for an atmosphere
requires a magnetic dynamo mechanism to keep the atmosphere from being
blown away and smaller planets, like mars, lose atmosphere very
quickly. Especially in the radiation-wind of a gas giant. Also, the
proximity to a gas giant is likely to cause tidal locking and prevent
rotation relative to the gas giant (which, given the solar system's
gas giant and its distance from the star would cause massive changes
in environment, and gas giants emit quite a bit of radiation, and
using the sol model, this would likely make the bulk of the thermal
inputs coming from the gas giant) and expose moons like Pandora to
likely fatal cyclotron radiation. Also gas giants compress via the
Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism , and given the geological time scales
required for live to evolve, they radiation output and thermal outputs
of the gas giant would change too quickly. Also, the gas giant as
depicted in the movie was rotating impossibly fast.
Cameron has one theme potentially right in his films. Until the humans
are smart enough to stop paying for complete drivel like Avatar, the
society will degrade into a dystopian idocracy. The only complaint I
have with this vision is people dumb enough to keep putting up with
this trash won't be capable of interstellar travel.
This block-bustering famous director / famous actor garbage has to
stop.