Blue (Skin) State

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Do I sense a Bill Hicks reference there?.

Not originally, but I can see what you mean.

Another point you could make is that the people actually watching them films probably would realise the political differences (Starship troopers being arguably a right wing look at the military while as platoon could be seen as a left wing look at the military were the American forces are seen as being just as bad and at times worse then the Vietcong forces) in them nor would they care.

Starship Troopers is almost the poster child for this as the book was a right wing condemnation of warfare, while the film was a glorification of warfare with the bugs coming across as the sympathetic characters. The only two humans that weren't twin-dimensional were both killed off.

Before you get to Doogie Howser, Space Nazi.

That kind of mindset I just don't get.

Tunnel vision. When you get the idea that N is being persecuted by X, you can't see the world any other terms. If X is nice to N, then it's deserved or has some other agenda. If X teases N, then it's heartless and cruel. If N attacks X, it's justified.

And if X is actually N, then...well, it's still wrong!

And as for the political allegories, sometimes a pipebomb is just a pipebomb.

 

[funguy2121]

Good on you, Moviebob.

The truth hurts, in spite of what all the creators of the avatar love/hate threads would have you believe (and believe themselves).

I would also add that the political themes in Avatar are nothing new for Cameron (T1,T2,Aliens,The Abyss), so those who see the film as Bush-bashing are ignorant. But maybe I'm just an elitist Limousine liberal, who happens to be living below the poverty line whilst struggling through school

 

[Chunko]

What's an article about movies, and politics doing on a gaming website?

Ole' Bob is a regular. But I suppose that doesn't answer the question...huh.
Guess the escapist wanted to stick its fingers into more pies to garner interest. Plus, MovieBob is an independently established critic of videogames (see his website).

Reading that back to myself I sound a bit like a troll. The article was pretty good btw, I even mentioned it to my dad, but lacking context it seemed out of place to me.

 

[Chasmodius]

Avatar's leftyness would be completely and utterly validated for me if, in the planned sequel, the planetary flora-network went Skynet.

I kind of think that's already happened. Skynet is trying to remake the world in its image, with a single, guiding intelligence in the planning department (which is a very Judeo/Christian deity kind of action). Pandora is that process already brought through to its completion. The Na'vi are the creatures that were created specifically to interface with and guide the balance of the system. That it is organic doesn't change the fact that a world-wide computer intelligence literally controls the planet. Whether this came about through intent or randomly is a matter of religious debate, but I see the whole idea as a continuation of other James Cameron themes.

Personally, I'd like to see the history work out such that the Na'vi culture is actually much older and more advanced than ours, but after the development of biological circuitry realized that they were killing thier own planet and used the technology to return it to a balanced state. But I guess that's just the story I would write, and we'll have to wait to see what they come up with.

 

[Chasmodius]

Reading that back to myself I sound a bit like a troll. The article was pretty good btw, I even mentioned it to my dad, but lacking context it seemed out of place to me.

If we want to bring it back into the fold (so to speak), we might discuss the political controversy in light of the film vs. the game... at least we could, if the game had the tiniest little bit to do with the movie and its themes! Or wasn't a steaming pile of... well, if it weren't rather bad.

 

[Chasmodius]

With the exception of the pundits who are blathering on about it just so they have something to be annoyed about, those who really care and think that this movie is poisoning (or even educating) audiences' minds are falling into the 'hypodermic needle' or 'blank-slate' fallacy of thinking about the effects of entertainment and popular culture on society-members. This is where analysts and scholars assume that the audience has no preconcieved notions of their own and no ability to filter information coming into their heads -- that the politics of the entertainment will over-ride any of their own thoughts and make people believe the message being pushed forth. Of course, if many pundits didn't think this, they might not be pundit-ing at all.

People aren't just blank slates for others to write their own thoughts on; audiences have their own thoughts and prejudices and opinions, and those color how they view their entertainment and what thoughts they take away from it. Being an audience-member isn't a passive role: even if you sit silently, watching and listening, your mind still filters the information and makes decisions based on your past experiences and what you want to believe. Ultimately, a film like Avatar might change a few minds one way, and might change a few minds another way, but the very most it can do on a cultural level is provide another voice or starting place for the continuing literal and metaphorical social discussion. Admittedly, that's what the good pundits (and we) are doing, so I think it succeeds in that way.

Also, couldn't Michelle Rodriguez's gunship have simply used the EM interference as a screen to pretend to be an army flyer, sidle right up behind the shuttle, and drop a rocket in its cargo bay the second it opened its door? Would have been more effective, and she might not have died. Ah well, that idea has problems, too, and of course she had to bite it for narrative and emotional effect.