I don't think James Cameron has anything against the military, he uses them extensively in many of his movies. It's just part of telling the story. I'm sure the US Army has done great things but they're not infallible.

James Cameron has been quoted as having a lot of respect for the military. It's the political aspects of HOW the military are used that he questions.

James Cameron:
"I have an absolute reverence for men who have a sense of duty, courage, but I’m also a child of the ’60s. There’s a part of me who wants to put a daisy in the end of the gun barrel. I believe in peace through superior firepower, but on the other hand I abhor the abuse of power and creeping imperialism disguised as patriotism. Some of these things you can’t raise without being called unpatriotic, but I think it’s very patriotic to question a system that needs to be corralled, or it becomes Rome."

As for the Animist/Pagan views of Spirituality he presents in the film, I doubt he is claiming that they are any more "correct" for Earthlings than any other Religion claims, including Christianity .

GB

I'm not engaging in politics here, so please do not think that I am. My complaint is one of whether one agrees with any current mission or not does not matter to me. I'm okay with disagreement. My problem is one of someone making a movie with obvious parallels that would suggest that I and my comrades in arms are somehow evil or deserving of death. I do not care about the political issues in this case. I simply do not appreciate having aspersions cast on my actions or motives.

If Mr. Cameron did not want to have such comparisons made, he should have tried harder to make the uniforms, mannerisms, etc., look and feel as different from US military issue and methods as possible. It's not that hard to do it, others have. Again, I do not have a problem with the disagreement on policy, but on being caricatured in this, or any other, film. I can assure you that I, and no one I ever met, did anything deserving of this caricature.

As for his true purpose in life coming at the end from the animistic part, no thanks on talking about that. That is one part of the story, other than saying that it comes from a pathetic, flawed philosophical approach, that we ought not discuss, and I apologize for ever bringing up, as it is tied into viewpoints the discussion of which are a violation of the rules. I stand by what I said, but I should not have started it. Please forgive me, Mods.

I said what I think, so I am done. I will not rain on anyone's parade, but will wait for the movie discussion to pass before partaking here again. God bless you all and Merry Christmas.

I bid you all adieu.

I thought pretty hard before going to see Avatar. After reading a couple of Christian reviews I thought I'd go; though one was determined to have one great list of everything "bad" about the movie, the other review was much more balanced. So yes, there are some negative representations of the military, and yes, there are some Mother Earth-type spiritual aspects, but there are some great themes of self-sacrifice and standing up to wrong, too.

In fact, I was surprised how similar it was to two films I love, Dances With Wolves and Pocahontas. After I'd been to the cinema I read a rather amusing secular review of the film that said Avatar was like the above two films with a bit of Star Wars and My Little Pony thrown in for good measure. My Little Pony is a great example, and really sums up some of the more surreal moments in the film, I think ... if you've ever seen a My Little Pony movie you'll know exactly what Im talking about!

Overall I was disppointed in the story. I enjoyed the jumps between the human base and the Na'vi, especially as Jake started to change his mind about them. I thought his video logs were a great way of recording this change, and showing his character. But though I thought Sam Worthington was great as Jake, he was seriously undermined by the amazing Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana, who were simply incredible. The story (and characters) were swamped by the visual spectacle, though. The 3D was beautiful. There were moments where I actually thought I could take a step forward and be there! But it was most effective in the real sets, not in the CG world. Wow, though! If Avatar didn't impress but only amused in terms of story, it certainly sold me on 3D. I had a great time seeing it, and though I'd urge people to read reviews before going to see it, I personally think it's well worth the time and money.

To start, Avatar is a brilliantly made and directed film. Yes,the story is archetypal and somewhat derivative, but the originality of the world more than makes up for that. I saw it in 2D (because 3D is expensive!) but now having seen it, I think the 3D version would be truly phenomenal.

I'm really not surprised that people have moral gripes with this film. It's an unflinching display of the kind of brutality and disrespect human beings are capable of. For those who have seen the film, there is a moment where the Na'vi decide to allow Jake to live and teach him their ways. Why? Because he is a soldier, not a scientist. The soldier is the one that they respect enough to allow him into their midst.

Avatar has been compared to Dances with Wolves for a reason: they are thematically the same. Would anyone here argue that Dances with Wolves is an indictment of the military? The soldiers are just as crass and disrespectful in both films in order to make their point...and yet, the main character of both is a military man. The military has been used by industry for centuries in order to push greed-based agendas, and that is the thematic base of both films. Avatar has direct and very obvious parallels to westward expansion of the US. If anything, Avatar is an indictment of greed, pride, and the foolish notion that might makes right. It blatantly condemns the destruction of a people for economic gain. The military is a thematic vehicle for these ideas. The film isn't pushing the idea that this is what the military is right now, but rather what it can be when motivated by greed. Jake even says so in the film...the soldiers on Pandora are just hired guns. They work for the company, not the United States. They only answer to someone as long as the pay comes through. They aren't fighting for freedom or to liberate an oppressed people: they're just there to blow things up, and they've started to enjoy it. If there is any condemnation of militaristic thinking in this film, it's the condemnation of fighting for no cause but coin and enjoying the brutality while you do it, and I think that's a condemnation an honorable soldier would agree with.

It's a phenomenal movie that raises some themes that might be tough or unpleasant for some people to face. Not to mention the visuals really are stunning.

I'm not engaging in politics here, so please do not think that I am. My complaint is one of whether one agrees with any current mission or not does not matter to me. I'm okay with disagreement. My problem is one of someone making a movie with obvious parallels that would suggest that I and my comrades in arms are somehow evil or deserving of death. I do not care about the political issues in this case. I simply do not appreciate having aspersions cast on my actions or motives.

I agree. I've noticed a trend towards films of this type starting in the 70's but now they're much more prevalent. WW2 films seem to be the only ones largely immune to it, but everything else is fair game. I don't know when it became en vogue to actively root against your own military but I consider it more than a little disheartening, to say the least. This is one of the reasons I'm a little antsy about seeing Avatar, good as the film may be. I'm going to go out on a big limb here and expect to take a pile of grief for it.

Avatar's comparisons to Dances With Wolves sort of add a bit to my distrust because while DWW was an excellent film with excellent casting, music, and cinematography there was always a major sticking point with me, that being that when you strip the story down to its basics, taking away all the scenery, people, etc. you're basically dealing with an individual (Costner's character) who integrates himself with the local populace, essentially becomes one of them, and betrays his own country in doing so. And the film lauds him for it. If you change the setting around a bit you come across something akin to what happened with Patty Hearst. Why is that praiseworthy? I'm being completely un-PC, I know, but by the end of the movie while I was wholly sympathetic to the Sioux I felt a great deal of anger towards Costner's character, whom I considered a traitor after the fact. A harsh assessment to be sure, but one I stand by. And if Avatar is somehow like DWW was in that regard then I know I won't fully enjoy the story, despite Cameron's involvement (I've always greatly enjoyed his films), despite the fantastic special effects, and story. And given the unpopularity of the current conflict with some segments of the world it's only natural that soldiers like MC are concerned, and rightly so, since such films are, as I said earlier, becoming a lot more common.

I don't think we should be angry with Costner's character in DWW. We really were selfish. We took the Native American's land, shoved them out, killed them, or enslaved them, and turned on them. Our country is great now, but how we got our country is not something to be proud of. The idea in DWW isnt that a guy betrayed his country. Its that he stood for what was right, and the people he worked for turned out to really not be the good guys.

Anyway, I didnt have a problem with the Na'vi's worship of Eywa because of the fact that she is fictional. Had cameron used a real world religion, it wouldnt be a science fiction movie-it would be a spiritual one. Star Wars has a similar problem. There is no "force" in real life, but its used more as a story telling device than something to used to convert people. And thats sorta what its like in Avatar.

As a Christian I wasnt offended, cause by the way the milatry acted, it gave the viewer the impression that they didnt believe in God or an afterlife.

Glad you enjoyed it mate. Did you recognise some of the Australian landscapes in the movie (or haven't you been outside WA?)

I have been to queesland and Tasmania. It was shoot in Gembrook queensland. I wasn't really payig much attention to the landscape though but i did notice that cockatoo.

You've been to Queensland and Tasmania? That's cool. I haven't been to Tasmania yet, though I'd probably enjoy the cooler weather there.

Yes, I remember the cockatoo. I heard kookaburras as well. The movie ( was actually shot in Melbourne and the surrounding lands there. Now I feel like rolling up a raccoon and throwing it at someone!

The website i went to must be wrong then sicne i didn't thik it looked queenslandish and i lived in tasmania from when i was born to i was 7 then i moved to queensland from when i was 7 to 10 and a half and now WA.

that last line sound like something i would say.

To get back on topic, the cockatoo looked really funny with that stick as an arm.

By the way, I have to agree with you about the so-called nudity. One has to take into consideration that indigenous "primitive" clothing in tropical settings has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with efficiency.

Hm, in my very cynical opinion, if it's Hollywood (i.e.not a Nat'l Geo documentary), it has everything to do with sexuality.

This movie that has caused so many pages of debate has sparked my interest...a Dances With Wolves/Last Samurai kind of story, updated with pretty aliens, explosions and CGI...might be worth a look-see on the big screen.

But has anyone seen Disney's latest, The Princess and the Frog? (or is it not even out yet? I forget...) I'm contemplating taking my younger sisters to see it after Christmas, but don't know if it'll be worthwhile...

By the way, I have to agree with you about the so-called nudity. One has to take into consideration that indigenous "primitive" clothing in tropical settings has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with efficiency.

Hm, in my very cynical opinion, if it's Hollywood (i.e.not a Nat'l Geo documentary), it has everything to do with sexuality.

Except that the nudity wasn't displayed in a sexual manner at all. It was displayed exactly like it would be in a National Geographic...they simply dress that way because they do. Any sexual appeal it has is projected onto it by the audience, not the film itself. It wasn't emphasized visually and was given no mention by the characters. The only instance one could argue for it was a downplayed moment lasting about 3 seconds where Jake was a bit uncomfortable in the loincloth. There were no moments of extraneous ogling of Na'vi women by men of either race, and there wasn't even so much as a flirtatious hip sway or hair flip from the female lead. (Which is something I really liked about the character development...the romantic relationship was entirely based on personality and friendship, not outward appearance). It wasn't like X-Men Origins where Hugh Jackman was stripped to the waist or totally naked for no apparent reason for most of the film. And it certainly wasn't Watchmen. Those of you who've seen it know what I'm referring to.

Our country is great now, but how we got our country is not something to be proud of. The idea in DWW isnt that a guy betrayed his country. Its that he stood for what was right, and the people he worked for turned out to really not be the good guys.

I think Josh here has hit the nail on the head with the debate this film has stirred up. No one likes being bombarded with a 3D retelling of one of the more shameful moments in their cultural history. It's uncomfortable, but that is one of the things I like best about both Avatar and DWW. If Costner's character (and Jake Sully by extention) is a traitor, then I say he's a traitor for the right reasons, because the values he was called to be loyal to by his country were greed, cruelty, and bigotry. Who would be loyal to those, especially when you know they're wrong?

It's also very important to keep in mind that the soldiers in Avatar are not US military. They all were at one point, yes, but where else is a multi-billion dollar corporation going to get their security forces for a foray into totally hostile and unfamiliar territory? They're going to find ex-military and hire them as private security with no affiliation to the government because they have the needed skills. They're a slap-dash mercenary guild.

I think the trend towards portraying the fallibility of the military is no bad thing. We put soldiers up on pedestals, and I'm in no way saying they don't deserve every ounce of respect we could give them, but it's the nature of the artistic world to make people think and question. As far as I've gathered from family members and friends who have been or are military, if you're a soldier of any kind, there is a code of honor and conduct that you must adhere to...but the reality is that this does not always happen. The film trend has swung away from the "We're good, and the other guys are all bad and evil!" theme to the "war is just plain evil and does horrible things" theme. Culturally, the US is in a time of questioning motives for everything, and the military is not exempt from that. The real villain in Avatar is not the military (since as I've explained, they aren't even the military), it's the driving, all-consuming greed and lust for progress at any cost, no matter the destruction left in its wake.

Excellent points as usual Draugrin (and you too Josh). I'll comment further directly about my thoughts after I've seen the film on Saturday. I've had military family members and friends too. And I object to them being put in harms way, not to defend our country, but to protect the interests of the Ruling Classes. But I'm no knee jerk Pacifist either. I believe in Fighting to defend oneself and those that one loves.

I think films such as Avatar, The Last Samurai, and yes, Dances With Wolves speak exactly to those ideals.

And as far as the lack of clothing, it would be unrealistic to portray them otherwise. Not so sure about the shirtless Werewolves of New Moon though .

GB

New moon wasn't that great. They did the movie to quickly and was rashed. Not to mention screaming girls in the cinema that i felt like

rolling up a raccoon and throwing it at someone

I think the trend towards portraying the fallibility of the military is no bad thing. We put soldiers up on pedestals, and I'm in no way saying they don't deserve every ounce of respect we could give them, but it's the nature of the artistic world to make people think and question.

I agree to an extent. There's a very fine line here between a critique on behavior and outright condemnation of an entire class of society (in this case members of the military), and my concern isn't so much that the "artistic world" is making people think and question so much as they tend to pass judgement and plaster it out there for all to see. A civilian who has not been in the same environment as a member of the military is not going to understand the motives of soldiers who find themselves in nasty situations and that lack of understanding may also contribute to unintentionally (or otherwise) besmirching the reputation of these folks. Also the soldier is often the "face" of the war, sometimes more than the leaders who provoke one. I don't think the average German soldier in WW2 was anymore evil than the average US soldier who he was fighting. They were soldiers doing the job they had assigned to them, and they did their very best to obtain success, and I respect them for it. They were just on the wrong side of the equation with regards to the morality of their government (at the time).

A "good" war film is one which not only shows the horror of it and why one should not lightly walk into one, but also that despite those horrors it must be done at times. Ironically one of the film genres that tends to traditionally portray the military in a positive light are Sci-Fi films. I plan on seeing Avatar but I was concerned that this might just be another film which condemns military members in general. The "artistic" crowd are traditionally no fans of the mlitary in general and it sometimes shows in their films. I think this was what MC was hinting at before. After all, if one relied on Hollywood entirely for their knowledge of Vietnam one would be drawn to the conclusion that US soldiers were all psychotic animals who thrived on psychoactive drugs and lived for raping and pillaging. While there were instances of that (and not just there but in every war throughout history) one would be hard pressed to say that was true of all US soldiers in that war, but beyond a tiny few films (like We Were Soldiers) you'll be hard pressed to really find many with that countering point of view.

If Costner's character (and Jake Sully by extention) is a traitor, then I say he's a traitor for the right reasons, because the values he was called to be loyal to by his country were greed, cruelty, and bigotry. Who would be loyal to those, especially when you know they're wrong?

This is a case where modern sensibilities are being applied to actions in the past. To be sure this is, as you said, one of the darker chapters in our history. No one should be proud of what we did. But as a whole we do try to fix the damage we create, although sometimes it takes a bit longer than we planned. It might bother me because I was military once, and we took an oath, a very real and sacred pact to defend the country. That is not easily dismissed, and I consider myself still bound to it. When one looks at mutiny one has to take a very hard line with it, despite any contributing factors, and willing participants can, by rights, get a firing squad. As I said before I was very sympathetic to the Sioux in the film, but that one issue I had, and the one that ultimately prevented me from enjoying the film to its fullest was Costner's ultimate betrayal. Were the Army soldiers who had him incarcerated bad men? I don't know...I know they were certainly portrayed to be that way on the screen (it was designed as a splash in the face of cold reality with the intent of offering a sharp contrast to the Sioux and it is very effective), but they were kin to me, and I didn't much care for seeing them killed. I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense...duty to country was hammered thoroughly into my head from a very young age and it was the reason I ultimately joined the service. So when I see this kind of thing I tend to perhaps view the situation a bit differently, maybe even wrongly, but that's just how I am.