Nexus Zef said:
Shouldn't they complain about everyone else that ever smoked in a film?
Anti-smoking groups do.
Truthfully they have a lot of good points, especially when it comes to things like corruption in the Tobacco industry and their intentional addiction of their consumer base.
They then push it with intelligent observations like how advertising is intended to get people to try a product. Oddly that arguement led to the ban of a lot of smoking advertisement. Even as a non-smoker I think this bit is ridiculous.
When it comes to films and TV the issue of people smoking in TV and movies is an old one, and it's been under constant attack. Cigarettes being a good acting aid being one of the defenses made in defense of the practice, because nobody really has the brains to just say "so? shut up".
With Avatar being such a massive phenomena every fringe that can find something to get upset about to promote their message is going to do so. Simply putting the name "Avatar" into a headline is going to get attention. If say someone demands you boycott the movie, even if you gnore them, you still heard what they had to say when reading about why they think you should boycott it. I doubt most things like this (boycott "attempts") are intended to actually do more than get attention anyway.
In general I have little objection to people smoking, people have been screaming about the problems with smoking from the rooftops for a few decades now. If people still want to smoke, more power to them. It's not that they don't understand, it's typically that they don't care for one reason or another.
I see no reason why people in the future aren't going to smoke, and furthermore I see no real reason why they might not have found ways to deal with some of the other problems by that point.
I think James Cameron is full of it though, and probably trying to use the "gamer" boogie man as a deflection attempt. Simply put I think the scientist in question, was simply being portrayed as edgy, and smoking like that is a typical characterization tool. As a team leader she's also presumably under a lot of stress, which smoking helps relieve, and the fact that she wants a smoke immediatly says something about the situation (and indeed she's heading right out into an arguement/conflict with her boss, which is apparently not unusual for her).
All I can say to James is that I like his work, but if he wants to pick on gamers even offhandedly, I can point out that he certainly wasn't shy about trying to exploit us with the release of an "Avatar" video game right along with the movie. So much for his concerns for all us gamers who spend too much time playing video games, eh?
Personally I'd rather we get more lulz by seeing more expression of how this huge "white guilt" movie was actually offensive to primitives, due to the hero who saves them being white. I was reading some stuff in the local reservation newsletters about "Why can't the 'natives' do it themselves? Why do they need a white man to come lead them and show them the way? The message is obviously that only a white man can oppose another white man, and we need them to protect and lead all us poor savages". I almost blew a lulz-gasket and thought it was comedy gold given the subject of the movie and no other way I guess they could complain about it (and again use the movie name to get a bigger than normal audience for their ranting). Someone really needs to take that one on the national media circuit... or at least convince a speaker on the subject that "The Treehouse Comedy Club" is actually a lecture stage and pipe it live onto The Comedy Network.