_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

ravey

just wait til Django Unchained takes on racist-imperial foot fetishism

the bourne movies?

― goole

or like the daring stance against big oil in the muppets

― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies)

i don't think those compare to avatar's heroicization of armed resistance by native "terrorists" to what appears to be an invasion by the US military - made during wartime, when the US military was actually invading foreign countries and demonizing resistance as terrorism.

goole & AP's day to troll

ha. maybe that's fair in my case, but Morbius do you really believe that James Cameron's Avatar is too radical for Clooney?

avatar is a very pointed and obvious metaphor for the genocidal consequences (agenda) of specifically western imperialism. and it presents "terroristic" responses to an invasion by what looks suspiciously like the US military as unambiguous heroism. for a funtimes, family-friendly summer action blockbuster, that's pretty remarkable.

well, I do admit it's remarkable how incredibly hamfisted the message is, even for Hollywood. but I don't really consider this too important because that's not really the reason why it became a Blockbuster.

to expand on this: for a funtimes, family-friendly summer action blockbuster made during wartime, while america was collectively losing its mind in fear of terrorism, that's pretty remarkable.

this came out during the Obama administration, right?

hamfisted = clear. and i wasn't aware the movie had to pass some kind of message = selling point test for the message to count.

this came out during the Obama administration, right?

but before CHANGE

this came out during the Obama administration, right?

it was conceived and made during he bush admin (shot in 2007/8), but yes, it was released during the first year of the obama admin

tbf I think Cameron started working on it during the Korean war

well, yeah, if you count the childhood daydreaming/crayon illustrated part

Development of Avatar began in 1994, when Cameron wrote an 80-page treatment for the film.[12][13] Filming was supposed to take place after the completion of Cameron's 1997 film Titanic, for a planned release in 1999,[14] but according to Cameron, the necessary technology was not yet available to achieve his vision of the film.

I think 1994 was when we intervened in Haiti under Clinton

star trek had a tiny fanbase in its day. it failed on TV, and its memory was kept alive for decades not by popular acclaim but by its importance to a small but dedicated minority.

and syndication

well, I do admit it's remarkable how incredibly hamfisted the message is, even for Hollywood. but I don't really consider this too important because that's not really the reason why it became a Blockbuster.

Right, but the original context for this discussion is not that it was The Anti-War March of Asses on Seats, but that it must have looked a little risky (even as the next film from that man who made all that money).

then i'm not sure what's risky about it, the movie was going to be a blockbuster regardless of how liberal or hamfisted it was, it just kind of boils down (for me) as "James Cameron is kind of a shitty dude"

political "message" of this film did not resonate/register with the general public at all afaict. they just liked shiny things that explode. also blue boobs.

exactly, unless people talk about "reasons why I fucking hated this film"

then i'm not sure what's risky about it, the movie was going to be a blockbuster regardless of how liberal or hamfisted it was

i'm not claiming that making avatar was particularly "risky", though i think it was (taking any strong political stance is always risky, even when you think the zeitgeist is with you). my point is that the film has a clear and strong message - more than one, really. it's not just "empty spectacle" as is so often lazily claimed. the fact that its messages are so "hamfisted" only strengthens this point.

nor am i claiming that avatar is a great film. while entertaining and admirable in its aims, it's got a lot of problems. it's derivative, maudlin, and simplistic. and overlong. and burdened with a tiresome "white saviour" theme. in my opinion, it's merely good - something of a triumph, given its many flaws. but i do credit it for the force and clarity with which it makes its moral and political points.

political "message" of this film did not resonate/register with the general public at all afaict. they just liked shiny things that explode. also blue boobs.

based on what? there was a lot of talk of the film's politics at the time of its release.

yes we know the Great Unwashed are too fucking stupid to get anything, look around

based on what? there was a lot of talk of the film's politics at the time of its release.

maybe I was just reading the wrong reviews? this is the first time I've ever heard anyone take the film's political content even vaguely seriously

Really, come on - the message of "Avatar," like that of most action movies (bless 'em) is that things look cool when they explode. I can barely name any non World War X action flick that does not depict military authority in a negative light, as duplicitous and manipulative. You see it in "Aliens," you see it in "Rambo," you see it "Avengers." Any message "Avatar" had was negated the second those 3D glasses went on. It was spectacle, and the fact that it pushed gently in an environmental direction meant nothing. Was it even protested by the Christian right? Because that's the gold standard response to having a message.

there was also a fair amount of criticism of Avatar for being racist
xp

PS I have never seen Avatar. Should I watch y/n?

I think I will just wait until discount theatres get 3d.

Was it even protested by the Christian right? Because that's the gold standard response to having a message.

It was protested by at least one right media-watchdog group.

maybe I was just reading the wrong reviews? this is the first time I've ever heard anyone take the film's political content even vaguely seriously

jeez, go to rotten tomatoes and check the linked "full reviews" from "top critics". most concentrate on the movie's visual splendor, but there's also quite a bit of praise of the film's moral and political agenda.

Was it even protested by the Christian right? Because that's the gold standard response to having a message.

usually to a "club em over the head" DO U SEE message

jeez, go to rotten tomatoes and check the linked "full reviews" from "top critics". most concentrate on the movie's visual splendor, but there's also quite a bit of praise of the film's moral and political agenda.

typically those aren't the critics that I read, and I guess I see where you're coming from, y'know I'm sure lots of people praised Bruce Almighty's strong Christian message too

Really, come on - the message of "Avatar," like that of most action movies (bless 'em) is that things look cool when they explode. I can barely name any non World War X action flick that does not depict military authority in a negative light, as duplicitous and manipulative. You see it in "Aliens," you see it in "Rambo," you see it "Avengers." Any message "Avatar" had was negated the second those 3D glasses went on. It was spectacle, and the fact that it pushed gently in an environmental direction meant nothing. Was it even protested by the Christian right? Because that's the gold standard response to having a message.

i don't think that aliens, rambo or the avengers are anywhere near as brave as avatar wr2 the message(s) presented. in aliens, brave soldiers are betrayed by a corrupt corporation. in rambo, vets are abandoned by the military. in the avengers, covert gov't/military organizations are duplicitous and craven. all SOP relative to avatar's wartime celebration of violent revolt against what basically equals the invading US military.

the film's environmental themes are hardly it's primary message. it's much more prominently an impassioned condemnation of imperialist genocide (easy target, sure), and a fantasy of deus-ex-machina justice overcoming the "inevitable" forward march of historical progress. it's also a pointedly specific anti-irag/afghanistan-invasion flick. sully subtly compares the invasion of pandora to war for oil. quaritch is much less subtle: "our only security lies in preemptive attack. we will fight terror with terror."

typically those aren't the critics that I read

who are the critics you read? do they typically spend a lot of time engaging with the politics of fantasy adventure flicks?

y'know I'm sure lots of people praised Bruce Almighty's strong Christian message too

i don't imagine any of the critics in that group had a single nice thing to say about bruce almighty's christian message

who are the critics you read? do they typically spend a lot of time engaging with the politics of fantasy adventure flicks?

mostly 'independant' ones, but no, they don't, because thats the part of the movie that almost always bogs it down

iyo

no surprise that reviewers who don't care about thematic content writing for an audience that doesn't care about thematic content do not spend much time analyzing thematic content

again, i'm just saying in my experience nobody really gave a shit about the political content, calling it "dumb" at best. the fact that yes some paid reviewers for big magazines decided to harp on about it (likely because they knew they had to write a good review) doesn't really change my opinion

god DAMN some ilxorz be wilfully obtuse itt

Was it even protested by the Christian right? Because that's the gold standard response to having a message.

the point was made upthread (can't remember by whom) that avatar was released in a moment of defeat and disarray for the american right. would be funny if the right's failure to mount a sufficient froth of outrage in response to avatar in turn caused it to be dismissed by leftists to whom its messages would ordinarily appeal. like it can't matter unless the right (wrong) people say it matters.

anyway, i remember a lot of online outrage about the film's demonization of the military.

god DAMN some frogbs be wilfully obtuse itt

hey jon. we've been here before, iirc.

yep. I don't have the juice to do it again. And I think I like the movie more than you!

okay contenderizer. you win! *fucks off*

contendo i'm honestly thinking you do not remember a thing about 2009 sry

not my observation, just passing it along. and it may be that i remember 2009 differently than you do. stranger things have happened...

also it is not surprising at all that this movie had absolutely no cultural currency (and it didn't, no argument)

it was lauded for being an incredible 'experience'. it did not have a compelling story or compelling characters. there's no cultural resonance for a movie without at least one of those things. no one was ever going to give a fuck about jake sulee and the noble blue people, and no one was going to go nuts over the story from fern gully and dances with wolves and a billion other movies.

xp the only people that were still shitting their pants over terrorism in 2009 was the same fringe right-wingers that are shitting their pants about it now. and EVERYTHING is controversial to them and they don't matter.

also the incredible experience of seeing avatar is pretty stunted when you're not watching it on a giant 3D screen. that's 98% of the replay appeal of the movie down the drain unless you're sitting painfully close to a big screen television.

that's stated as though no one might ever disagree, but (surprise), i do. the characters and story may be simple and familiar, but that doesn't prevent them from being compelling. i would say that avatar has both a compelling story and compelling characters (mostly among the na'vi). it lacks a strong, iconic villain and too many of its supporting players are dull. those are real problems, but they don't cripple the film, imo.

that's stated as though no one might ever disagree, but (surprise), i do.

hes right, you're wrong.

the only impact this movie had was compelling the studios to convert all their releases to 3D