They're predisposed?mdeminico wrote:No, because even implausible movies inspire real world reactions. Movies change the way we think about the world.Betruger wrote:A separate matter from whether Avatar credibly discredits technology.mdeminico wrote:I gotta say I'm on the "don't like avatar" side.
Which don't appear in the movie because they don't exist in the movie's universe because that universe is completely made up. Doesn't anyone else find it nonsensical to argue real life values and issues based on a story that's not merely fiction (as e.g. one of Shakespeare's plays) but very implausible scifi?rape, and any other number of things, all conveniently left out of this movie)
Honestly, can you tell me as a dude who's an engineer/scientist, you can watch movies like Iron Man, Tucker, October Sky, Aviator, Star Trek, or any other movies like that, and not be inspired to go create something?
I'm saying an ambiguous movie and someone's reaction to it are two separate things. You can't blame the movie for someone's interpretation of it. Someone might watch Iron Man and be spurred on to born-again luddism.
And then when it's not ambiguous, it's still just a movie. It mimics reality, it isn't reality.
No, see below.Um, because Cameron's intent wasn't to support that argument, and any debate trying to "justify" the "evil" things portrayed in that movie would be willingly submitting yourself to be below Cameron and his points, as if you're saying "he's got a point, but here's why it's ok that this happened..."Betruger wrote:Why didn't Kurzweil, instead of condemning Avatar, use the subtle mistakes (if Cameron's intent was indeed to discredit technology by pitting it against nature) in Avatar to support his argument that tech and nature are both good, that proper information (i.e. education) is necessary to keep both in check (i.e. avoid "Dangerous Futures"), etc?
Maybe because Kurzweil fell for it and knee jerked just like the other (naively tree hugging) side knee jerks when some mirror equivalent of Avatar happens.
I think Cameron's vision for the movie is puerile crap. OK. But the movie itself isn't some vulcan mind grip that forces you to believe the propaganda crap. If you know better, those things that Cameron pretends are incontrovertible evidence of his bizarro POV, aren't. And so you can watch the movie and appreciate it for the illustration of real trends that don't at all agree with Cameron's vision. E.G. the "appalling" lack of altruism of the big bad military machine, illustrated by the guy waving admiringly at a drop ship blasting off, and getting blown away - hat, admiring wave and all - could be taken as just a bit of awkward humor that reality's filled with, regardless if that drop ship's an evil pro-military symbol or if it'd been the pro-native characters in it.He doesn't have a point, he's a crackpot with an agenda that's failing to tell the whole story.
It's his movie, he can do that. But I can also refuse to see it, or support it, and I can also choose to slam the movie as the piece of crap propaganda I think it is
Am I articulating that well enough?
