Living in the bushes does not amoral make...

I disagree that a society can't be 'honorable?' and at the same time live without advanced technology (or whatever a non-savage is, unless they are by definition not honorable, and then what the hell is a noble savage? lol). Case in point would be ideals the like of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi .

What is a savage, anyway? I've always thought that savage meant a combination of 'vicious' and 'hostile'... but to me this applies to peoples of any technological or social progression. What exactly do we mean by 'savage'?

And what do we mean by 'noble' in this case as well...? Honor is subjective, and which definition are we using? All of this has to be on the table if we are to understand why a 'noble savage?' is a fallacy.

(December 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm)Synackaon Wrote: I get that people see logic in weaving a story to rail against particular trends, but I also make the argument that Avatar blew everything out of proportion.

How does a fictional story blow something out of proportion? It was written to be big, bold and exciting. Pocahontas 3000, if you will.

(December 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Oh well. At least I got to see my fellow audience members be titillated while watching servicemen, whom apparently are pawns of companies, die in numerous, rip-squish-chomp ways. Maybe its just the dozens of journals and Vietnam veterans I talked to coming back to haunt me.

The film made it very clear at the beginning that these are mercenaries.

Does fictional on-screen death always trouble you?

I'm always disturbed by people who take fiction seriously. Then again the majority of people believe in some sort of religion.

I don't think that the world is spiritual, that islands can fly, and a people could exist with a neural brain consisting of a bunch of fucking trees, or that a savage determination to keep a home in tuned with nature and never change it is all ideal and true. I just liked the movie. The plot, for what it was, was great, as far as I'm concerned.

People mock it for being a combination of Fern Gully + Dances with Wolves + The Last Samurai, but you know what? I LOVE those movies, and most plots that exist are reused in other movies anyway. It's how you develop the story, make the characters unique and believable, etc... that separates them all out, and I thought Avatar was great on it's own.

I once had a guy tell me he can't believe I'm liberal and watch 24. For those who don't know, 24 is a FOX television show that features Jack Bauer, a counter-terrorist agent who has to stop a terrorist plot in a day. Each episode consists of 1 hour of a 24 hour day. The show prominently features torture as a "Something is going to explode in 20 minutes unless this dude talks right. fucking. now. and torture is the only thing that will work" scenario. As a result the show has been demonized for it's unrealistic applications of torture and for the fact that Republicans have used it to justify the torture program in the U.S.

Fact 1: 24 is just a fucking TV show, it does not and should not dictate US policy
Fact 2: Those who would attempt to justify torture on the basis of a TV show need a labotomy.
Fact 3: IT'S A FUCKING TV SHOW.

I like it because it entertains me in cheap and childish ways. I don't suddenly think torture is good because of it, and that whatever happens in the real world is at all reflected in the show.

So when people complain about Avatar for it's social commentary, I just shake my head in disdain.

As an artist, people can express their viewpoint on society through their medium. That's their prerogative. As a person you can either dislike it or like it, that's your prerogative and furthermore you can like it and not completely agree with the commentary being made.

The point I'm making, is when people start saying a movie/show is terrible because it doesn't mesh with their view of the world perfectly or they somehow perceive a social commentary that should be taken seriously, that's when I lose people.

I haven't seen the Avatar, but I may... Sound good from your reviews, and I'll be sure to not take the movie literally! lol

(December 29, 2009 at 4:13 am)Pippy Wrote: The savages were a lot more noble than they were savage on this planet.

Fascinating - where did we get to 'this planet'?

(December 29, 2009 at 8:52 am)Dotard Wrote: I'd also like to know what a "Noble Savage" fallacy is.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Noble+Savage

It is part of the naturalistic fallacy, that the 'savage' is better not because of character, good works but because they are in tune with 'nature' etc.

(December 29, 2009 at 10:47 am)chatpilot Wrote: I loved this movie and it totally reminded me of what was done to the American Indians in the U.S. I did like the Nav'is love for nature and all living things and found that their religion was very similar to that of the native americans. There is no suicide message here at least in my view and how anyone would get that is beyond me, unless you are contemplating suicide yourself. The main character fell in love with the aliens and their way of life and he had to die to become one of them. He as myself became disgusted with his species and his poeple.

Next time read what 'suicide fantasy' is in this context. And thanks for stating the obvious - well noted.

(December 29, 2009 at 7:22 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Claiming that it harbours a suicide fantasy is a completely over the top statement of the jaundiced eye and a case of misplaced identification with the portrayed bad guys (Dr Zero: "During the big battle scene, as dinosaurs were chowing down on soldiers, the middle-aged couple seated next to me were grinning happily… delighted by the defeat and destruction of their own miserable species."). Was he happily laughing at the flying Na'vi bodies? He could have but he chose to act the victim part. Go rinse your brain out with peanut butter I'd say. Dr Zero really pays credit to his name when he jumps from his own teenager suicide fantasies to the believe that this movie is the ultimate wet dream of teenage payback time. His column being in the hardcore jerk of genre for maximum effect itself.

Thanks. Whenever I'll need a mind read, I'll turn to you to tell me of their limited decisions, so limited that, like a machine, they can be expected to choose in a simplistic manner. Obviously, being delighted by "flying Na'vi bodies' or playing the victim card are exclusionary actions? Right? That is what I get from your flippant mind read of the column author. And since he theoretically could be tittilated by such, then he surely mustn't complain and expect his complaints to be taken seriously. That is what you seem to make as a point, though I am most interested in "washing [one's] mind with peanut butter". Please, do tell about that, in a PM. "Dr. Zero"'s use of his anecdotal evidence is indeed troublesome, until you consider how difficult it is to prove intent behind a movie beyond a shadow of a doubt. I posted this as it rang true with how I felt. It most likely is wrong or incomplete (if only we could read minds of the writers and directors for the intent behind the silverscreen) - I get that people see things differently and bias themselves for particular characteristics they like (hmm, like religion? Humbug).

Why do I find that Zero's take on teenage payback intriguing as he reduces down the movie to it's base components? Because of the simplicity of the plot, the childishness of mass audiences, the sex scenes, the fall back to special effects to keep attention, etc,. Certainly, I love being entertained, but I sure as hell don't like being flat out manipulated like an animal with another appeal to my lower brain.

(December 30, 2009 at 3:57 am)Saerules Wrote: Living in the bushes does not amoral make...

I disagree that a society can't be 'honorable?' and at the same time live without advanced technology (or whatever a non-savage is, unless they are by definition not honorable, and then what the hell is a noble savage? lol). Case in point would be ideals the like of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi .

What is a savage, anyway? I've always thought that savage meant a combination of 'vicious' and 'hostile'... but to me this applies to peoples of any technological or social progression. What exactly do we mean by 'savage'?

And what do we mean by 'noble' in this case as well...? Honor is subjective, and which definition are we using? All of this has to be on the table if we are to understand why a 'noble savage?' is a fallacy.

Before you go off on your deconstructionist tangent, might I interest you in a mild Google search? That's is where I go before I take apart terms.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:58 am)Meatball Wrote:

(December 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm)Synackaon Wrote: I get that people see logic in weaving a story to rail against particular trends, but I also make the argument that Avatar blew everything out of proportion.

How does a fictional story blow something out of proportion? It was written to be big, bold and exciting. Pocahontas 3000, if you will.

(December 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Oh well. At least I got to see my fellow audience members be titillated while watching servicemen, whom apparently are pawns of companies, die in numerous, rip-squish-chomp ways. Maybe its just the dozens of journals and Vietnam veterans I talked to coming back to haunt me.

The film made it very clear at the beginning that these are mercenaries.

Does fictional on-screen death always trouble you?

I was under the impression that the military was used by companies, like a military industrial complex.

Let's say onscreen I begin dissecting a live puppy. Yet most people won't be swayed by my logical pointing out that nothing was actually hurt in the production of it. They'll be troubled and angry at it. Should you make fun of it?

Since you took my specific statement about servicemen dying and blew it out of proportion, I can only conclude that you are attempting to troll me in some context.

(December 30, 2009 at 12:13 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I'm always disturbed by people who take fiction seriously. Then again the majority of people believe in some sort of

religion.

Being passionate about something is nothing to sneer at. Linking it to religion doesn't change it either - guilt by association doesn't work.

(December 30, 2009 at 12:13 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I don't think that the world is spiritual, that islands can fly, and a people could exist with a neural brain consisting of a bunch of fucking trees, or that a savage determination to keep a home in tuned with nature and never change it is all ideal and true. I just liked the movie. The plot, for what it was, was great, as far as I'm concerned.

People mock it for being a combination of Fern Gully + Dances with Wolves + The Last Samurai, but you know what? I LOVE those movies, and most plots that exist are reused in other movies anyway. It's how you develop the story, make the characters unique and believable, etc... that separates them all out, and I thought Avatar was great on it's own.

I disagree with the plot being great, but aye, eye of the beholder.

(December 30, 2009 at 12:13 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I once had a guy tell me he can't believe I'm liberal and watch 24. For those who don't know, 24 is a FOX television show that features Jack Bauer, a counter-terrorist agent who has to stop a terrorist plot in a day. Each episode consists of 1 hour of a 24 hour day. The show prominently features torture as a "Something is going to explode in 20 minutes unless this dude talks right. fucking. now. and torture is the only thing that will work" scenario. As a result the show has been demonized for it's unrealistic applications of torture and for the fact that Republicans have used it to justify the torture program in the U.S.

Fact 1: 24 is just a fucking TV show, it does not and should not dictate US policy
Fact 2: Those who would attempt to justify torture on the basis of a TV show need a labotomy.
Fact 3: IT'S A FUCKING TV SHOW.

Certainly basing policies just because of a TV show is certainly nutty sounding to me. The lobotomy you lovingly ascribe is somewhat crazy sounding.

(December 30, 2009 at 12:13 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I like it because it entertains me in cheap and childish ways. I don't suddenly think torture is good because of it, and that whatever happens in the real world is at all reflected in the show.

So when people complain about Avatar for it's social commentary, I just shake my head in disdain.

As an artist, people can express their viewpoint on society through their medium. That's their prerogative. As a person you can either dislike it or like it, that's your prerogative and furthermore you can like it and not completely agree with the commentary being made. The point I'm making, is when people start saying a movie/show is terrible because it doesn't mesh with their view of the world perfectly or they somehow perceive a social commentary that should be taken seriously, that's when I lose people.

You don't have the right to be not offended. And I dislike the movie.

<clap clap clap>

Syna Wrote:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Noble+Savage

It is part of the naturalistic fallacy, that the 'savage' is better not because of character, good works but because they are in tune with 'nature' etc.

Ohhhhh. Well yes, that would be a fallacy

I thought it might have had something to do with noble + savage = contradiction or something :S Evidently I'm not a hippie

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote:

(December 29, 2009 at 7:22 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Claiming that it harbours a suicide fantasy is a completely over the top statement of the jaundiced eye and a case of misplaced identification with the portrayed bad guys (Dr Zero: "During the big battle scene, as dinosaurs were chowing down on soldiers, the middle-aged couple seated next to me were grinning happily… delighted by the defeat and destruction of their own miserable species."). Was he happily laughing at the flying Na'vi bodies? He could have but he chose to act the victim part. Go rinse your brain out with peanut butter I'd say. Dr Zero really pays credit to his name when he jumps from his own teenager suicide fantasies to the believe that this movie is the ultimate wet dream of teenage payback time. His column being in the hardcore jerk of genre for maximum effect itself.

Thanks. Whenever I'll need a mind read, I'll turn to you to tell me of their limited decisions, so limited that, like a machine, they can be expected to choose in a simplistic manner. Obviously, being delighted by "flying Na'vi bodies' or playing the victim card are exclusionary actions? Right? That is what I get from your flippant mind read of the column author. And since he theoretically could be tittilated by such, then he surely mustn't complain and expect his complaints to be taken seriously. That is what you seem to make as a point, though I am most interested in "washing [one's] mind with peanut butter". Please, do tell about that, in a PM. "Dr. Zero"'s use of his anecdotal evidence is indeed troublesome, until you consider how difficult it is to prove intent behind a movie beyond a shadow of a doubt. I posted this as it rang true with how I felt. It most likely is wrong or incomplete (if only we could read minds of the writers and directors for the intent behind the silverscreen) - I get that people see things differently and bias themselves for particular characteristics they like (hmm, like religion? Humbug).

You're welcome. It wasn't a mind read however, but my measly attempt to comment in Dr Zero style who so clearly can probe the brain of this director while dealing with some personal trauma in the process. If you saw a mind read in it, I've made my point. Saw LOTR on the TV yesterday and was flabbergasted to find nobody in my surroundings with any empathy for those poor Orcs that get so thoroughly hammered. And that while these poor Orcs are so clearly a result of genetic manipulation of that bad ass Sauron. Sounds as social darwinism to me. How people totally lack any historic awareness these days!

The peanut butter idea must have come to me in some hallucinory flash of absolute lucidity while contemplating on the meaning of sandwich in this universe, I can't recall really. It was emotion about Dr Zero though, not aimed at you.

Don't feel offended. I'm totally OK with the fact that you don't like the movie and use over the top analogons and agitated language to stress your point. But hey, don't expect me to comment on it in my usual mode of controlled cool.

I just feel that there is a difference between fantasy and reality and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about the emotions we as humans have about fantasy. Dr Zero misses that point totally by projecting reality directly onto fantasy and base his comment on that. Did he interview the elderly couple next to him about thier reaction to on screen events or did he read their minds directly?

Synackaon Wrote:Why do I find that Zero's take on teenage payback intriguing as he reduces down the movie to it's base components? Because of the simplicity of the plot, the childishness of mass audiences, the sex scenes, the fall back to special effects to keep attention, etc,. Certainly, I love being entertained, but I sure as hell don't like being flat out manipulated like an animal with another appeal to my lower brain.

Then jettison that lower brain.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote: I was under the impression that the military was used by companies, like a military industrial complex.

It could be, I'm sure I recall a line about it being a private security company.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Let's say onscreen I begin dissecting a live puppy. Yet most people won't be swayed by my logical pointing out that nothing was actually hurt in the production of it. They'll be troubled and angry at it. Should you make fun of it?

People have emotional reactions to fiction, yes. That's fine. I was just curious why you would specifically point your finger at Avatar for showing people being killed, and cite it as a negative. Are all films that show gratuitous human death troubling, or is it American military deaths in particular?

I assure you I'm not trolling. This is a discussion forum, responding to and discussing posts is sorta the point.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Being passionate about something is nothing to sneer at. Linking it to religion doesn't change it either - guilt by association doesn't work.

I was making a joke. A small one, but yes a joke.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote: I disagree with the plot being great, but aye, eye of the beholder.

It would be silly to argue opinion, I could care less if you liked it or not.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Certainly basing policies just because of a TV show is certainly nutty sounding to me. The lobotomy you lovingly ascribe is somewhat crazy sounding.

I'm starting to wonder if you know the difference between fiction and reality. I don't seriously want to them to get a labotmy. I have a feeling you didn't grasp the mostly facetious nature of this post.

(December 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm)Synackaon Wrote: You don't have the right to be not offended. And I dislike the movie.

When did I say I was offended? I reread my post and sure enough I did not say I was. I'm not going to get offended because people don't like a movie I liked, that's retarded. The point I was making is that people like and dislike movies TV shows for whatever reason, I honestly don't care. However, I just think people who take them too seriously and apply them to real life are being extremely silly.

As Meatball pointed out, military people are killed all the time in movies, why single this one out? There are plenty movies that have all sorts of objectionable messages.