Avatar's baddie seemed like a Starship Trooper
Tian
the similarity hasn't been discussed here. He had the body armor for
one thing.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest change: Marijuana regulation story from San Jose's City Council.
a425couple
>I just saw that movie for the first time last evening. I'm surprised
> the similarity hasn't been discussed here. He had the body armor for
> one thing.
Jeanette posted on it January 16th, fair number of responses.
Nobody mentioned (IIRC) that a strong theme of
"Avatar" seems almost anti-Heinlein.
I do not know. How do others view both Avitar's and
Heinlein's views on fights between human & indigenous people?
lal_truckee
Heinlein was born among people who would remember the Indian Wars on the
plains. I suspect his views changes over a lifetime, but his observation
(at most extreme in SST) that you expand or die may have origins in
old-timers' tales.
Although by Glory Road Heinlein had no problem observing that the
Alaskan Inuit were more highly evolved than Los Angeles suburbanites.
David M. Silver
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Doesn't it mostly depend on the attitude and how big a club the
indigenous swing? And on which, specifically, humans are carrying on a
dispute and for what reason?
The Hroshii swing an awfully big club yet are willing to let bygones be
bygones so long as they get their Princess back. The slugs of Titan,
conversely, didn't seem to leave anyone any other choice than submission
and slavery or war to extinction. On the third hand, Burke's activities
on behalf of System Enterprises (kidnapping for ransom and murder to
obtain mineral exploitation rights) doesn't seem to draw very much
sympathy from the Patrol (although Burke is out on bound at the end of
the story and who knows whether his daddy will be able to grease the
wheels of justice).
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Gaeltach
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hpic9...@news1.newsguy.com...
: "Tian" <tnha...@aceweb.com> wrote in message...
Actually, indigenous people *are* human (but I know what you are trying to
say).
lal_truckee
> "a425couple"<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hpic9...@news1.newsguy.com...
> : "Tian"<tnha...@aceweb.com> wrote in message...
> :>I just saw that movie for the first time last evening. I'm surprised
> :> the similarity hasn't been discussed here. He had the body armor for
> :> one thing.
> :> Tian
> :
> : Jeanette posted on it January 16th, fair number of responses.
> :
> : Nobody mentioned (IIRC) that a strong theme of
> : "Avatar" seems almost anti-Heinlein.
> :
> : I do not know. How do others view both Avitar's and
>
> Actually, indigenous people *are* human (but I know what you are trying to
> say).
The point of AvatarTheMovie is the locals ARE human also, in the
expanded definition.
David M. Silver
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And what if it is stipulated that they are not human? All that stuff
about the "Customs of Civilization" in _The Star Beast_ means what?
Isn't the issue simply one of civilization, e.g., language, intelligence
and under the "orthodox theories of xenological biology" whether the
thing can use "patty-paws" to pick things up? Until the day we run into
one that doesn't need its patty-paws? Or grows them only when needed?
Chris Zakes
Which is a point the Martian genetic engineer makes in "Jerry Was a
Man."
-Chris Zakes
Texas
You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like they
were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
Either hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving
*really* slowly.
Chris Zakes
Well... Heinlein shows many sides of that question:
Aggressively hostile aliens like the bugs in "Starship Troopers" or
the centaurs in "Starman Jones."
Aliens that appear to be primitive but are really just "differently
sophisticated" like in "Space Cadet."
Aliens that are far more powerful than humans, like the Hroshii in
"The Star Beast" or the Martians in "Stranger,""Red Planet" and
possibly "The Rolling Stones."
Friendly, somewhat human-like aliens like the dragons in "Between
Planets" or the Rargyllians in "The Star Beast."
As with many other subjects, that darn Heinlein fellow just won't stay
in his pigeonhole.
Will in New Haven
> "Tian" <tnhar...@aceweb.com> wrote in message...
If you are talking SsT, the Arachnids weren't "indigenous people" in
the sense I think you mean. They were another expanding imperial
force, competing for generally uninhabited real-estate. The "if you
are there first it's yours; if we are there first, it's ours" policy
that the humans seemed to operate by didn't satisfy them. So they
attacked. This is much more like Elizabethan England versus Spain,
either side being the humans or the bugs, than it is like Avatar or
Wounded Knee.
The Martians and Venusians in several of his works seem willing to
allow humans on their worlds, under restrictions that the humans don't
always like. In at least one, it is clear that the Martians could very
much do something dire about it if the humans don't watch it. The
Venusian Dragons were also formidable and technelogically, or at least
scientifically, advanced. But they stayed out of the war in _Between
Planets_
Avatar has a strong anti-western theme, much like "Dances with Wolves"
but less literate, and Heinlein was certainly pro-western. Oddly
enough, the idea that one shouldn't mistreat indigenous peoples is
also very western. Conquest and enslavement was always accepted
everywhere until the educated people in the nations that had done so
much of it realized that it was wrong.
--
Will in New Haven
a425couple
> Gaeltach wrote:
>> "a425couple"<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in...
>> : "Tian"<tnha...@aceweb.com> wrote in message...
>> :>I just saw that movie for the first time last evening. I'm surprised
>> :> the similarity hasn't been discussed here. He had the body armor for
>> :> one thing.
>> :> Tian
>> :
>> : Jeanette posted on it January 16th, fair number of responses.
>> :
>> : Nobody mentioned (IIRC) that a strong theme of
>> : "Avatar" seems almost anti-Heinlein.
>> :
>> : I do not know. How do others view both Avitar's and
>> : Heinlein's views on fights between human& indigenous people?
>>
>> Actually, indigenous people *are* human
>> (but I know what you are trying to say).
>
> The point of AvatarTheMovie is the locals ARE human also, in the
> expanded definition.
(As I said before, "I do not know.")
Perhaps I was all wrong in my words.
Wiki, "human" =
"Humans commonly refers to the species Homo sapiens
(Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"),[3][4] the only extant
member of the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae,
the great ape family.
However, in some cases the term is used to refer to any member
of the genus Homo."
Hmmm, (Well frump!! that is not crystal clear!)
Are the "natives" in Avitar of the Species, Homo sapiens?
Are the "natives" in Avitar of the Genus, Homo?
OK from a "Avatar" plot summary:
"When his brother is killed in a robbery, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully
decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora.
There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's
intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine
for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland.
In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers
intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho
Colonel Quaritch, while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the
Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity. While Jake begins
to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful
alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless
extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight
back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora.
Written by The Massie Twins"
Is "Neytiri" one of the "Na'vi"?
If so:
How can they call Neytiri an "alien",
and at same time call the "Na'vi" "humanoid" ?
Euuch, still nothing very clear.
"Frump again."
I am going to hit send, maybe somebody wishes to figure this out.
a425couple
- "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Tian" <tnhar...@aceweb.com> wrote in message...
> >I just saw that movie for the first time last evening.
>
> "Avatar" seems almost anti-Heinlein.
>
> I do not know. How do others view both Avitar's and
> Heinlein's views on fights between human & indigenous people?
-If you are talking SsT, the Arachnids weren't "indigenous people" in
-the sense I think you mean. They were another expanding imperial
-force, competing for generally uninhabited real-estate. The "if you
-are there first it's yours; if we are there first, it's ours" policy
-that the humans seemed to operate by didn't satisfy them. So they
-attacked. This is much more like Elizabethan England versus Spain,
-either side being the humans or the bugs, than it is like Avatar or
-Wounded Knee.
-The Martians and Venusians in several of his works seem willing to
-allow humans on their worlds, under restrictions that the humans don't
-always like. In at least one, it is clear that the Martians could very
-much do something dire about it if the humans don't watch it. The
-Venusian Dragons were also formidable and technelogically, or at least
-scientifically, advanced. But they stayed out of the war in _Between
-Planets_
-Avatar has a strong anti-western theme, much like "Dances with
-Wolves" but less literate, and Heinlein was certainly pro-western.
Thank you Will. Thank you so much.
For properly saying, what I seemed unable to express.
-Oddly enough, the idea that one shouldn't mistreat indigenous peoples is
-also very western. Conquest and enslavement was always accepted
-everywhere until the educated people in the nations that had done so
-much of it realized that it was wrong.
-Will in New Haven
OK, I'll try a fresh start.
What label can we all agree on, for a 'group' that includes:
Robert Heinlein, Rod Walker (TITS), Oscar (Glory Road),
and Carmen = Carmencita Ibanez (SST),
But does not include ones such as "bouncers and Old Ones"
(Red Planet page 194) and Syndonians (CitizenOTG page 7) ?
Will in New Haven
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote...
I just say humans for the biologically human and "people" for everyone
else who is a person. This would include the aliens you mention,
although the Syndonians ae human-descended, and also the Venusian
Dragons and a few other alien beings in Heinlein. He really wasn't one
who postulated a lot of alien types. But he was clear that they were
people.
For instance, there is no doubt that the Mother Thing is a person,
although she is clearly not a human. Some of the Cetatians on this
planet and possibly some of the Cephalapods are also clearly people,
in my opinion, as are the great apes and elephants. Some AIs and
certainly the AIs in Heinlein are people.
My cat WooToo would not accept the demotion to human but person is ok
if it is said respectfully.
Tian
>
> I just say humans for the biologically human and "people" for everyone
> else who is a person. This would include the aliens you mention,
> although the Syndonians ae human-descended, and also the Venusian
> Dragons and a few other alien beings in Heinlein. He really wasn't one
> who postulated a lot of alien types. But he was clear that they were
> people.
>
> For instance, there is no doubt that the Mother Thing is a person,
> although she is clearly not a human. Some of the Cetatians on this
> planet and possibly some of the Cephalapods are also clearly people,
> in my opinion, as are the great apes and elephants. Some AIs and
> certainly the AIs in Heinlein are people.
>
> My cat WooToo would not accept the demotion to human but person is ok
> if it is said respectfully.
>
syrup is MUCH more subsidized than maple syrup. I've since put a bottle
of Karo syrup next to the pink piggy bank. Soon enough dropping a coin
in that bank will purtabate that corn syrup, salt, & vanilla in plastic.
I'm MUCH more likely to consume the syrup than I am the SPAM behind it.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
I showed new deception dollars to the teller at California Bank & Trust.
I offered to leave the bills but they said "No funny money in the Bank!"
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I just say humans for the biologically human and "people" for everyone
> > else who is a person. This would include the aliens you mention,
> > although the Syndonians ae human-descended, and also the Venusian
> > Dragons and a few other alien beings in Heinlein. He really wasn't one
> > who postulated a lot of alien types. But he was clear that they were
> > people.
>
> > For instance, there is no doubt that the Mother Thing is a person,
> > although she is clearly not a human. Some of the Cetatians on this
> > planet and possibly some of the Cephalapods are also clearly people,
> > in my opinion, as are the great apes and elephants. Some AIs and
> > certainly the AIs in Heinlein are people.
>
> > My cat WooToo would not accept the demotion to human but person is ok
> > if it is said respectfully.
>
> In pondering the role of subsidies in politics, I've realized that Karo
> syrup is MUCH more subsidized than maple syrup. I've since put a bottle
> of Karo syrup next to the pink piggy bank. Soon enough dropping a coin
> in that bank will purtabate that corn syrup, salt, & vanilla in plastic.
> I'm MUCH more likely to consume the syrup than I am the SPAM behind it.
Why would that be a reply to anything in my post? What does it have to
do with this thread?
Why didn't you just shout it out your window.
loupgarous
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > I just say humans for the biologically human and "people" for everyone
> > else who is a person. This would include the aliens you mention,
> > although the Syndonians ae human-descended, and also the Venusian
> > Dragons and a few other alien beings in Heinlein. He really wasn't one
> > who postulated a lot of alien types. But he was clear that they were
> > people.
>
> > For instance, there is no doubt that the Mother Thing is a person,
> > although she is clearly not a human. Some of the Cetatians on this
> > planet and possibly some of the Cephalapods are also clearly people,
> > in my opinion, as are the great apes and elephants. Some AIs and
> > certainly the AIs in Heinlein are people.
>
> > My cat WooToo would not accept the demotion to human but person is ok
> > if it is said respectfully.
>
> In pondering the role of subsidies in politics, I've realized that Karo
> syrup is MUCH more subsidized than maple syrup. I've since put a bottle
> of Karo syrup next to the pink piggy bank. Soon enough dropping a coin
> in that bank will purtabate that corn syrup, salt, & vanilla in plastic.
> I'm MUCH more likely to consume the syrup than I am the SPAM behind it.
> --
> I showed new deception dollars to the teller at California Bank & Trust.
> I offered to leave the bills but they said "No funny money in the Bank!"
Speaking of SPAM... why are you posting it?
loupgarous
> In article <hpic930...@news1.newsguy.com>,
>
> "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Tian" <tnhar...@aceweb.com> wrote in message...
> > >I just saw that movie for the first time last evening. I'm surprised
> > > the similarity hasn't been discussed here. He had the body armor for
> > > one thing.
> > > Tian
>
> > Jeanette posted on it January 16th, fair number of responses.
>
> > Nobody mentioned (IIRC) that a strong theme of
> > "Avatar" seems almost anti-Heinlein.
>
> > I do not know. How do others view both Avitar's and
> > Heinlein's views on fights between human & indigenous people?
>
> Doesn't it mostly depend on the attitude and how big a club the
> indigenous swing? And on which, specifically, humans are carrying on a
> dispute and for what reason?
>
> The Hroshii swing an awfully big club yet are willing to let bygones be
> bygones so long as they get their Princess back.
The Hroshii's decision cycle was pretty much driven by whim of the
Princess, IIRC. She'd been raising John Thomas Stuarts for so many
years, and those Terrans are so cute... who KNOWS how vindictive they
might have been when HRH's pet race wasn't concerned....
Will in New Haven
It is good that he didn't write that for John Campbell. Humans survive
by being good PETS.
YOIKS.
Chris Zakes
caused "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> to write:
Simple enough. "Alien" basically means "not from around here." In
modern political parlance, it usually means someone from another
country; in science fiction it usually means someone from another
planet.
"Humanoid" means "human-shaped"--two arms, two legs, head at the top.
In "Between Planets" the move-overs are humanoid, the dragons aren't.
But they're both aliens.
MajorOz
> Is "Neytiri" one of the "Na'vi"?
> If so:
> How can they call Neytiri an "alien",
> and at same time call the "Na'vi" "humanoid" ?
It is simply a means to an end -- the end being that "we" are evil.
So definitions and meanings have no......uh.....meaning other than to
serve the cause.
I haven't seen it yet, but feel I have, based on so many reviews from
so many viewpoints.
And......the more I read, the more I understand the nickname: "Dances
With Smurfs"
cheers
oz
lal_truckee
You know, this is another good example of how hard it is to pin down
Heinlein.
Here Heinlein seems at ease with Lummox raising John Thomases as pets,
yet in Methuselah's Children he is vehement that humans aren't meant to
be pets...
Will in New Haven
Isn't it more one Lazarus Long who is vehement? I have always thought
there was less of RAH in LL than people think.
--
Will in New Haven
David M. Silver
<7a970964-d554-41ae...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
loupgarous <vfri...@forethought.net> wrote:
You've been missing a bit, Vance. Hope you're doing reasonably well.
Don't disagree with you about the Hroshii.
loupgarous
Well, Her Highness/"Lummox" didn't insist on making HER pets lobomized
members of a group mind, which IIRC was Lazarus Long's problem with
the Jockaira.
loupgarous
I'm pretty well, thanks, David. It's nice to be back.
Tian
your cat, but it has even less of a metabolism than a book, and MUCH
less of one than a living cat. When I think of all that cat lover
camraderie I see here I remember that I'm allergic to cats. Pink piggy
banks don't bother my lungs.
bookman
It still amuses the hell out of me that he slipped the "raising John
Thomases" reference past the sex-paranoid Alice Dalgliesh. I wish
there were documentation to show it was deliberate, though.
Regards,
RtB
Space Ranger
It seems a shame to take some one else's word for something that you
can easily see for yourself and make up your own mind.
Will in New Haven
Why make any effort to see and, incidentally, enrich the makers of a
film that seems like it would not please you?
--
Will in New
bookman
Why not come to Kansas City in the summer for BBQ pork ribs? ;-)
Regards,
RtB
Will in New Haven
Aye, there's the rub. :,-)
I can't be everywhere and do everything but that sounds like a very
good idea.
Tian
screen. That was a draw for me. The 3D works really well to. You can't
see that on at TV screen yet.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest change: added NO ON 14 and NO ON 16 buttons to my website.
Will in New Haven
I didn't know that the theme of the film would be so vomitous, so I
did see it. And I agree the visuals were brilliant. By the way, I
really like that "yet' that terminates your post.
jeanette
Catholic TV station that is broadcasting in 3D.
Jeanette
Tian
> A couple days ago there was a tiny article in the newspaper
>
Are we talking spiritual 3D? Maybe virtual spiritual 3D?
loupgarous
> jeanette wrote:
> > A couple days ago there was a tiny article in the newspaper
> > about a Catholic TV station that is broadcasting in 3D.
>
> Are we talking spiritual 3D? Maybe virtual spiritual 3D?
>
> --
> Latest change: added NO ON 14 and NO ON 16 buttons to my website.
Don't see why not. The local Catholic station here in Denver has
several HD channels going... must be more bucks in mainstream
religious broadcasting than I thought.
- Vance
Tian
For sure there is lots of money in that kind of thing for just the right
type of preacher.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest addition: Me with THE UNFOLDING STATE OF AWARENESS and keyhole.
Quadibloc
> I do not know. How do others view both Avitar's and
> Heinlein's views on fights between human & indigenous people?
I could see Lin Carter's "The Man Who Loved Mars" as having some
similarities with Avatar.
But I think this is asking the wrong question.
In the situation as pictured in the film Avatar, people with
conservative leanings who might enjoy Heinlein and have no problems
with his politics... *would* side with the Na'avi.
The problem isn't with the morality of the in-film situation at all.
Instead, the political complaint about the film is a completely
different one. The bad guys in the film are depicted as basically
continuous with the present-day United States of America.
If, instead, say, it was a *Chinese* space exploration effort that was
trying to rob the Na'avi of their unobtanium, and a future CIA agent
was down on Pandora helping to organize the successful resistance of
the Na'avi to this exploitation... conservatives would have no problem
with the film. It would be *liberals* who would be comparing it to,
say, "The Green Berets" with John Wayne.
So the problem is not with anyone approving of being nasty to peaceful
indigenous people. The problem is with John Cameron failing to realize
that the United States of America has learned from its mistakes, and
doesn't do bad things like that any more, and instead is the chief
source of sweetness and light in the world today.
John Savard
Michael Stemper
>On Apr 7, 10:35=A0am, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I do not know. =A0How do others view both Avitar's and
>> Heinlein's views on fights between human & indigenous people?
>
>I could see Lin Carter's "The Man Who Loved Mars" as having some
>similarities with Avatar.
>
>But I think this is asking the wrong question.
>
>In the situation as pictured in the film Avatar, people with
>conservative leanings who might enjoy Heinlein and have no problems
>with his politics... *would* side with the Na'avi.
>
>The problem isn't with the morality of the in-film situation at all.
>
>Instead, the political complaint about the film is a completely
>different one. The bad guys in the film are depicted as basically
>continuous with the present-day United States of America.
Sounds like people with guilty consciences or really poor self-images.
I certainly didn't see any connection with the present-day US, other
than similar cultural backgrounds.
I certainly didn't see Major Major or whatever his name was as being
emblematic of any particular current-times group, other than the
group known as "arrogant assholes".
I have to wonder why those who took political offense at _Avatar_
identified with Major Major instead of with Gimpy Limpy. He's the
viewpoint character; the one who changes as a person; the one whose
actions matter; the protagonist. Why did people identify with an
asshole antagonist?
>If, instead, say, it was a *Chinese* space exploration effort that was
>trying to rob the Na'avi of their unobtanium, and a future CIA agent
>was down on Pandora helping to organize the successful resistance of
>the Na'avi to this exploitation... conservatives would have no problem
>with the film.
It would be a completely different story, though. It wouldn't be, as
it now is, a story about Limpy Gimpy developing respect, then empathy,
then kinship with the Naboo. It might be perfectly good as a different
story, but it would still be a very different story.
>So the problem is not with anyone approving of being nasty to peaceful
>indigenous people. The problem is with John Cameron failing to realize
>that the United States of America has learned from its mistakes,
Oh, bullshit. It has to do with people who feel that any portrayal
of less-than-perfect behavior is a swipe at them. "If the shoe fits ..."
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Tian
>
> So the problem is not with anyone approving of being nasty to peaceful
> indigenous people. The problem is with John Cameron failing to realize
> that the United States of America has learned from its mistakes, and
> doesn't do bad things like that any more, and instead is the chief
> source of sweetness and light in the world today.
>
over seas for that to be true. Not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Last weeks front page news: Arizona Law. I'm remembering "Arid-Zone-Ah!"
David M. Silver
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> >The problem isn't with the morality of the in-film situation at all.
> >
> >Instead, the political complaint about the film is a completely
> >different one. The bad guys in the film are depicted as basically
> >continuous with the present-day United States of America.
>
> Sounds like people with guilty consciences or really poor self-images.
> I certainly didn't see any connection with the present-day US, other
> than similar cultural backgrounds.
I don't think Heinlein would have identified with corporate-hired
mercenaries. That's all the cammie-clad donut-holes portrayed in the
movie are. Look at _Friday_. Can you say Heinlein showed any particular
trust of any of the corporate-employed mercenaries he portrayed in it?
Moseley, who hired Marjorie Baldwin for a one-way trip to a quiet
disposal in The Realm, after she delivered a healthy fetus? The voice in
the ceiling, "the Major," who interrogates Friday by torture, who
Marjorie sweetly suggests, as a Parthian shot, ought to "Go sooth
yourself!"? Even Baldwin the Unready, who dies without a Will and leaves
his faithful employee-followers, including his oh-so-beloved adopted
"daughter," to the tender mercies of Wainwright, who proceeds to try to
really fix all of their wagons?
The mere fact in the movie they put the thugs in uniforms somewhat
familiar to us, or had one of them claim service in something that might
be a future successor to one of our armed services and should be no more
a stamp of approval or disapproval or identification or
mis-identification than Heinlein's having the secret police call itself
the I.B.I. in _Between Planets_, slurs the F.B.I.; or his naming the
Federation's international police force the S.S. in _Stranger in a
Strange Land_, slurs every international peace-keeping agency. Compare,
for example, the "Patrol" portrayed in _Space Cadet_. Which do we know
about the S.S. in _Stranger_ other than: (1) it's commanded by a
power-mad spying jerk who Douglas doesn't trust (I don't trust Douglas),
one of its pilots landed on some rosebushes (Lummox ate a couple of
those), and, it's sometimes employed to guard hospital patients who
might be the target of some criminal or nutjob? What would you think if
there wasn't a guard? Cue: Godfather Music.
Mike groks "great wrongness" in an aircar full of them? So what? What
was the "wrongness"? Some jerk farmboy who failed to obey his sergeant's
order to lock his piece before loading? Or Charles Whitman with the
brain cancer a-growing in his skull sitting there among his squadmates?
Oswald? McVeigh, to pick another service that wears neato cammies, and
probably had its former members among the mercenaries in Avatar? Michael
never told us. Who put him in charge and gave him the right to send a
squad of farmboys to the end of the line for being in an aircar that
someone might have landed on another bush? What makes Jubal's bush more
deserving of protection by death to their potential destroyer than John
Thomas Stuart's neighbors?
>
> I certainly didn't see Major Major or whatever his name was as being
> emblematic of any particular current-times group, other than the
> group known as "arrogant assholes".
>
Donut holes are a much nicer term, Mike.
> I have to wonder why those who took political offense at _Avatar_
> identified with Major Major instead of with Gimpy Limpy. He's the
> viewpoint character; the one who changes as a person; the one whose
> actions matter; the protagonist. Why did people identify with an
> asshole antagonist?
>
Far as I can figure out, it got started by some career Marine Public
Information officer with nothing better to do with his time than write
letters to the Marine Corps Gazette
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/01/marine_avatar_010810w/
If this guy had any substantial stick time, I'd worry; but I tracked
down and read his resume and he doesn't.
I figure he's trying to make BG before they retire him. Makes me wonder,
again, if maybe what Matt in _Space Patrol_ believed about the necessity
of having a relatively low IQ ceiling for Marine officers isn't true. I
don't think so. Didn't believe it then. Surely there's a mess kit repair
depot they could put him in charge of, somewhere, maybe Barstow?
Compare, the comments of another Marine colonel, named Victor E.
Bianchini at
http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1584107&page=2
Some Marine officers seem able to think reasonably.
> >If, instead, say, it was a *Chinese* space exploration effort that was
> >trying to rob the Na'avi of their unobtanium, and a future CIA agent
> >was down on Pandora helping to organize the successful resistance of
> >the Na'avi to this exploitation... conservatives would have no problem
> >with the film.
>
> It would be a completely different story, though. It wouldn't be, as
> it now is, a story about Limpy Gimpy developing respect, then empathy,
> then kinship with the Naboo. It might be perfectly good as a different
> story, but it would still be a very different story.
>
> >So the problem is not with anyone approving of being nasty to peaceful
> >indigenous people. The problem is with John Cameron failing to realize
> >that the United States of America has learned from its mistakes,
Huh? I think Cameron's portrayal of the operations undertaken by the
mercenaries in Avatar was one of the funniest intentional comic
portrayals of idiots in action since Verhoeven's portrayal of the M.I.
invasion in _Starship Troopers_. Compare the idiotic landing piloted by
the Beverly HIlls 90210 girls in SST and the mass chopper attack by the
mercenaries in _Avatar_, so close together that they cannot help but
make themselves vulnerable to some people flying around on birds. I
couldn't stop laughing. Cameron probably couldn't resist the opportunity
to parody Verhoeven.
I think it's a case of the failure of the adolescent movie-going
audience of all ages to realize where and when they are having their
chains jerked. All Cameron needed was Doogie Howzer in another leather
coat. Wonder if he tried to get him?
Doesn't it remind you, again, of the posse ganging up together to ride
into that box canyon and letting the Cassidy Gang shoot the hell out of
them, once more? I expected Ken Maynard out there in front, with Gabby
Hayes riding right next to him. Shades of _Blazing Saddles_!
>
> Oh, bullshit. It has to do with people who feel that any portrayal
> of less-than-perfect behavior is a swipe at them. "If the shoe fits ..."
Ever hear the joke about the Fuew Bird, MIke?
Chris Zakes
I didn't identify with the major, but the whole depiction of the
military as "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" and the corporation
as greedy, destructive, "profit uber alles" types seemed kind of
stupid and simplistic.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.
-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Compare, the comments of another Marine colonel, named Victor E.
> Bianchini at
> http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1584107&page=2
>
> Some Marine officers seem able to think reasonably.
They seem to have moved the discussion thread containing the response of
Colonel Bianchini:
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1584779-Cameron-%91Avat
ar%92-not-slam-on-Corps/page2
Michael Stemper
>In article <hrpmdb$8mm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>> >Instead, the political complaint about the film is a completely
>> >different one. The bad guys in the film are depicted as basically
>> >continuous with the present-day United States of America.
>>
>> Sounds like people with guilty consciences or really poor self-images.
>> I certainly didn't see any connection with the present-day US, other
>> than similar cultural backgrounds.
>
>I don't think Heinlein would have identified with corporate-hired
>mercenaries.
Probably not, no.
> That's all the cammie-clad donut-holes portrayed in the
I do like that term.
[snip bunches]
>The mere fact in the movie they put the thugs in uniforms somewhat
>familiar to us, or had one of them claim service in something that might
>be a future successor to one of our armed services and should be no more
>a stamp of approval or disapproval or identification or
>mis-identification than Heinlein's having the secret police call itself
>the I.B.I. in _Between Planets_, slurs the F.B.I.;
All quite true.
>Mike groks "great wrongness" in an aircar full of them? So what? What
>was the "wrongness"?
I've never understood the adulation that SiaSL receives in some
quarters. Judging by comments in _Grumbles_, RAH didn't either.
> Who put him in charge and gave him the right to send a
>squad of farmboys to the end of the line for being in an aircar that
>someone might have landed on another bush?
At the risk of being facetious, "the author".
>> I certainly didn't see Major Major or whatever his name was as being
>> emblematic of any particular current-times group, other than the
>> group known as "arrogant assholes".
>
>Donut holes are a much nicer term, Mike.
I do like it, but it costs the alliteration.
>> actions matter; the protagonist. Why did people identify with an
>> asshole antagonist?
>
>Far as I can figure out, it got started by some career Marine Public
>Information officer with nothing better to do with his time than write
>letters to the Marine Corps Gazette
>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/01/marine_avatar_010810w/
I'll look this over. Thanks for the pointer.
>> >So the problem is not with anyone approving of being nasty to peaceful
>> >indigenous people. The problem is with John Cameron failing to realize
>> >that the United States of America has learned from its mistakes,
>
>Huh? I think Cameron's portrayal of the operations undertaken by the
>mercenaries in Avatar was one of the funniest intentional comic
It was a bit over-the-top, yes. I kept waiting to see the second aspect
of the guy's character/personality/what-have-you, but never did.
>> Oh, bullshit. It has to do with people who feel that any portrayal
>> of less-than-perfect behavior is a swipe at them. "If the shoe fits ..."
>
>Ever hear the joke about the Fuew Bird, MIke?
I've always seen it spelled "Foo", but I did actually consider saying
"If the foo ..." when I wrote that.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Compare, the comments of another Marine colonel, named Victor E.
> > Bianchini at
> > http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1584107&page=2
> >
> > Some Marine officers seem able to think reasonably.
>
> They seem to have moved the discussion thread containing the response of
> Colonel Bianchini:
>
> http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1584779-Cameron-%91Avat
> ar%92-not-slam-on-Corps/page2
The real fun in that thread takes place very quietly was a brief comment
by yet a third Marine Colonel named Allan R. Millett. See, page 4 of the
thread, item dated 01-29-2010�11:44 AM.
Google the name if you don't know who Millett is.
Mike Van Pelt
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>In the situation as pictured in the film Avatar, people with
>conservative leanings who might enjoy Heinlein and have no problems
>with his politics... *would* side with the Na'avi.
>
>The problem isn't with the morality of the in-film situation at all.
>
>Instead, the political complaint about the film is a completely
>different one. The bad guys in the film are depicted as basically
>continuous with the present-day United States of America.
Not quite...
The bad guys in the film are depicted as the oh-so-trendy
Hollywood Left sees the present-day United States of America.
As with virtually every other bit of "product" coming from
Hollywood, any correspondance between that "product" and
reality is entirely coincidental. (And very, very unlikely.)
Ignoring the oh-so-trendy Hollywood Left assumptions... "Avatar"
was definitely a fun ride. I intend to see the sequels.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Michael Stemper
>In article <ag.plusone-637F2...@news.individual.net>, "David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Compare, the comments of another Marine colonel, named Victor E.
>> Bianchini at
>> http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1584107&page=2
>>
>> Some Marine officers seem able to think reasonably.
>
>They seem to have moved the discussion thread containing the response of
>Colonel Bianchini:
>
>http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1584779-Cameron-%91Avatar%92-not-slam-on-Corps/page2
Thanks for posting that. I read all of the discussion.
I'm glad that I read it, not because of all of the people exhibiting
their hypersensitivity, but because the fact that Jake was ex-Marine
himself had slipped my mind. (Somebody in that thread had some nice
comments on how he portrayed the true Marine ethos.)
What's funny is that the only reason that I saw it was because I was
visiting my son at Fort Bragg, and he suggested that we go. It was
the third time that he saw it. He didn't find it offensive, nor did
he see it as a commentary on Afghanistan. At least, not that he said.
Actually, the whole flick is a hodge-podge of stuff that'd been done
before (at least in writing). For probably the first hour that I was
watching it, I kept finding myself saying, "Okay, this scene is
derivative of <X>, <Y>, and <Q>" and "Now, this one is derivative of
<H> and <P>".
None the less, I found it quite entertaining.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Twenty-four hours in a day; twenty-four beers in a case. Coincidence?
Tian
>
> As with virtually every other bit of "product" coming from
> Hollywood, any correspondance between that "product" and
> reality is entirely coincidental. (And very, very unlikely.)
To the tune of "no SPAM was consumed while typing this reply".
To put it another way, I think they corresponded with reality
well enough that we bought into the story enough to care about
the action.
A nit I'd like to pick: Why are the humans in the movie walking
around in current fashions? The time frame of the movie implies
to me that the clothing should have been MUCH more unexpected.
I mean special effects budget: huge; clothing budget: $49.95. :-(
>
> Ignoring the oh-so-trendy Hollywood Left assumptions... "Avatar"
> was definitely a fun ride. I intend to see the sequels.
>
Especially in 3D! Seeing it in a theater was an awesome visual treat.
Will in New Haven
> Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
> > As with virtually every other bit of "product" coming from
> > Hollywood, any correspondance between that "product" and
> > reality is entirely coincidental. (And very, very unlikely.)
>
> To the tune of "no SPAM was consumed while typing this reply".
> To put it another way, I think they corresponded with reality
> well enough that we bought into the story enough to care about
> the action.
>
> A nit I'd like to pick: Why are the humans in the movie walking
> around in current fashions? The time frame of the movie implies
> to me that the clothing should have been MUCH more unexpected.
> I mean special effects budget: huge; clothing budget: $49.95. :-(
>
That's an insight I didn't have but I agree with you 100%. Now I
wonder how many other SF films are guilty of the same lack of
imagination.
jeanette
identify with the humans and not be distracted by differences.
As I remember, the clothes were basic what you would wear to summer camp
or fatigues for the military types. Practical for the jungle.
I just watched the new STAR TREK movie on DVD. (Saw it in the theater
for Mother's Day last year.) ST has always had interesting uniforms.
Fanciful, especially for some of the aliens but not always practical.
The practical stuff worn on the ice planet and in the non-Starfleet
scenes would not cause notice on Main Street USA today (depending on the
weather, of course).
Jeanette
loupgarous
> > On Apr 8, 6:34 pm, loupgarous<vfric...@forethought.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Hroshii's decision cycle was pretty much driven by whim of the
> >> Princess, IIRC. She'd been raising John Thomas Stuarts for so many
> >> years, and those Terrans are so cute... who KNOWS how vindictive they
> >> might have been when HRH's pet race wasn't concerned....
> >
> > It is good that he didn't write that for John Campbell. Humans survive
> > by being good PETS.
> > YOIKS.
>
> You know, this is another good example of how hard it is to pin down
> Heinlein.
> Here Heinlein seems at ease with Lummox raising John Thomases as pets,
> yet in Methuselah's Children he is vehement that humans aren't meant to
> be pets.
Yabbut... HRH Lummox "raises John Thomases" (and wouldn't you know it, Kate Middleton has revived the custom on behalf of the House of Windsor - sorry... ) from the exalted position of a shoe box in the Thomases' keepsake corner - until she eats that yummy, nutrient-filled fountain pen and grows up to become the big, strong, and oh-so-willful Princess of the Hroshii (we need to ask Conan O'Brien and company whether Leela's pet whatever-it-is "Nibbler" in Futurama owes anything to fond memories of "Princess Lummox").
Those of us who've read both The Star Beast AND Methuselah's Children remember that the Jockaira subsumed Mary Sperling and their other Earthling pets in exactly the same way Lummox didn't.
Apart from that, the POV was different in the two stories. RAH was having some not-so-gentle fun with Alice Dogleash and all those for whom she pontificated in The Star Beast. He usually had more respect for Campbell than that.