By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MontanaHatchet on 27 January 2010
Edit Thread
tarheel91 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
tarheel91 said:
rocketpig said:
MontanaHatchet said:
rocketpig said:
I didn't realize anyone in this thread had a financial stake in this movie and therefore had a reason to cheer its box office gross.

Avatar was a decent movie. Visually fantastic with a predictable story and characters. It also had an overbearing message that unnecessarily weighed down the movie with its heavy-handedness.

District 9 was a far better film in every respect other than visual effects.

Maybe people are cheering for it because they like the movie? I mean, why cheer for anything unless you have a personal stake in it? Plus, beating Titanic can only be a good thing for cinema.

Also, was I the only one who didn't "get" District 9? Why was it so good? I just watched that movie with a blank face most of the time, waiting for the parts that were supposed to make it amazing as I heard.

I can understand wishing for something to do well because you liked it (and therefore will see more work done by the creative team behind it) but I can't see the point in celebrating its passing of a pointless milestone.

I liked District 9 because of its fresh take on an alien "invasion", which basically turned to enslavement. It also had an interesting way to tackle bigotry. On top of that, the director did a good job of taking the main character and turning him into a sympathetic character after spending 45 minutes thinking he was a giant douchebag. The camerawork was also good, though that shaky camera style is becoming a little stale.

In short, it offered fresh ideas while Avatar had none.

Fresh take on an old story/genre?  That seems to me exactly what Avatar is.  Point out ONE novel or movie on imperialism that did any of these things:

  • Made it's MAIN appeal to viewers/readers through the world created in the movie/novel.
  • Created a scientific, logical explanation for the whole interconnectedness/circle of life system of beliefs.
  • Had the white man completely abandon his Western culture and essentially become one of the natives.
  • Make connections between the imperialism of centuries ago with what happened in Vietnam or what's happening in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I'm truly surprised by the shallowness with which a lot of people approached Avatar.  To be sure, none of that was explicitly stated or obvious, but it wasn't like this was something by Faulkner, either.

I love Avatar as much as the next guy, but you set yourself up with that one. Also, Avatar wasn't about him being white. It was about him being from Earth.

That's hardly a comparable conversion.  East Asia (read: China, Korea, and Japan) doesn't really fit into imperialism the same as other countries as they were fairly advanced and far closer in thought and culture to the West than most native groups.  They were more advanced than the West until the Renaissance, in fact.

You mean that, taken literally, Jake didn't remain human!?!?!?  The whole movie was about IMPERIALISM.  I know you're plenty intelligent enough to recognize symbolism, allusions, and references in pieces of film or literature, Montana.  What Jake did was comparable to a Western conquerer giving up all Western ties and living with the natives of wherever he was attempting to conquer.  In most movies or books within this genre, a white man siding with the native group and defending them is pretty common.  In fact, you rarely see one of these books written from a native's perspective (Things Fall Apart is the only one I can think of that does).  However, the white man remains somewhat superior than the natives usually.  For whatever reason, it is because he is a Western man among natives that he is able to accomplish whatever he does (e.g. he introduces them to western weapons, he persuades the attacking Westerners to back off, etc.).  However, in Avatar, it is only by shedding himself of uniquely human (for imperialism, read western) attributes and living that he is able to help the Na'vi.  Not only that, he chooses to completely give up his humanity at the end, implicitly stating that he thinks the Na'vi, or native way of life is SUPERIOR.  It's not just something to respect or help out.  It's something that's BETTER.

That is truly unique when it comes to the imperialism theme/story.

So you don't think western influence in Japan was imperialism? The comparisons are numerous. How about a nation or group entering the lands of another people and trying to change their ways while also attempting to take their national resources? You can read all about the westernization of Japan, from the government to the military to the economy to their own efforts at imperialism. In Avatar, Jake is forced into staying with the Na'vi. At first, they think he's weird, and they hate him and mock him. A female member of the society is forced to take care of him. However, the two eventually form a bond, and fall in love. Jake rejects the values of his native people and joins the forces of the Na'vi, eventually fighting the very group to which he once belonged. Now, for The Last Samurai, replace Jake Sully with Nathan Algren, and the Na'vi with the Japanese, and what I just said translates perfectly. Look, this is coming from a guy who loves the movie. Just give it up. Now, I'll move on to your likely very boring rant.

*Reads it*

Okay, you're actually proving my point. In The Last Samurai, Nathan Algren gives up his old way of life and becomes a samurai. He learns to use a sword and wear armor. And then, he attacks his enemies with vastly inferior weapons. SOUND FAMILIAR? Like I said, you can argue a difference in the outcome, but it is a very similar movie overall.