Is Avatar just another anti-imperialist film with fancy special effects? *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Nov 11 2009 at 3:49 pm | Filed under: Hollywood
The big buzz is about James Cameron’s Avatar, which is supposed to be to modern movies what The Jazz Singer was to the silent film: It will remake movies.
I don’t know about that, but having seen the preview a few days ago when I took some boys to the movies, I can tell you that one thing about this “new” movie is very same old-same old: the plot. As best as I could tell from the noisy, muddled preview, the film is about the evil American military trying to take a planet away from the good and pure indigenous people. Hey, it’s 1492, or 1620, or 1876 all over again — but this time, you can be sure (and I’m guessing as to the ending), a revisionistic history will destroy the evil forces in America’s futuristic military, and the pure and wonderful indigenous people will once again control their world, with a few appropriately subdued Americans paying homage to their moral superiors.
UPDATE: As Charles Martel pointed out, the military’s greed in the film Avatar comes about because the planet contains “some sort of dilithium crystal that’s worth a lebenty zillion dollars per gram and that the native village just happens to be sitting plumb smack on top of the only deposit of the stuff on an entire earth-sized planet.”
In response, Spiff left this great comment, which I simply have to elevate to post status:
I was thinking about what you said regarding why the humans cared about the planet in Avatar. It’s always some super duper resource that we want and the noble aliens live right on top of it and have no idea what they have. And so the imperialistic humans come and try and steal it.
Since sci-fi is all about taking current issues and taking them to there extreme I’d like to see “Avatar” do something new.
If the current politics or our nation continues the way it is going here is how I see “Avatar” going based on what you saw:
The original survey crew would have to file endless environmental and cultural impact reports before even setting foot on the planet.
Once there, the survey crews would have to establish contact with the local aliens and do everything in their power to befriend them, even if it meant risking the safety of the team. The Marines attached to the team for security would have Rules of Engagements that would make it nigh impossible to defend themselves from the aliens if they were in fact hostile, all this while providing all sorts of assistance and aid to the local aliens.
Once the resource was discovered, humanity would spend gazillions of space credits negotiating with the aliens to tap the resource. This would of course include massive amounts of aid, rent for the facilities and construction and security costs. And of course the humans would not get the resource, the aliens would own it, we would pay through the nose for the resource we paid and worked to remove. And this assumes the aliens like us.
When the aliens decide they don’t like us anymore they would kick us out and “nationalize” the facilities we built. They would then raise the price of the resource and their leaders would steal all the money for themselves and tell their population it’s all the fault of the humans. And of course our leadership would acquiesce and agree all the way.
Of course this would cause the aliens to fight with humans and kill them. Once again human security forces would have their hands tied to do anything meaningful to defend themselves and stop the aliens.
When it finally did come down to a confrontation, human forces would win the day despite all the rules on how to conduct the war. We would occupy the planet and hand it over to a new crop of corrupt leaders and it would start all over again.
At least that’s how I would write it.
Email This Post To A Friend
63 Responses to “Is Avatar just another anti-imperialist film with fancy special effects? *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Book, I’ve only seen a few short previews on TV, but I remember turning to my wife after seeing one for the second time and remarking, “Same old same old: Bad Americans come to destroy purple-colored black Native American Muslim housekeepers.”
I read that this little anti-Yankee hatefest cost $500 million. I hope Cameron chokes on debt for the rest of his sorry life.
I’m in a yoga class with the wife of Jon Landau, the producer of this ‘epic’.
So yeah, I’m hearing about how ground breaking and amazing this will be. Then I see the preview and it is exactly what you said: no original plot but cool CGI. I wasn’t expecting anything great, seeing who’s making it.
Btw, I saw somewhere that the Hindus are all upset, to Hinduism, Avatar has a religious connotation. So this usage of the term (and those aliens sort of look like images of Vishnu or Rama, very thin, very blue) is sort of a slap in the face to all those fake claims of being accepting, open minded and respectful of other religions. I’m not surprised, why should I be, it’s Hollywood.
I’m used to the stale, anti-West or anti-military plot crap from Hollywood. (One caveat, I love Kubrick’s Paths of Glory as well as Dr. Strangelove but I don’t see either as stereotypical.) It usually causes a substantial loss at the box office (Rendition anyone?). However, the CGI in this one is stupendous. Pure eye candy. Will it make up for a stale plot? We’ll see.
My son and I are Sci-Fi fans so we will see the movie, but likely at home on our big screen. And we will discuss the usual ignorant stereotyping, which he generally recognizes immediately. He thought the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still was the stupidest environmentalist screed he had ever seen. To quote: “they have all this incredible technology, limitless energy, even moral superiority, and all they can think to do is kill us because we are killing the planet? Not help us? If they develop time travel, will they go back and kill themselves?” (We were talking about this last night.)
From the mouths of babes, even teenage ones.
Leah, I thought I recognized something in the look of the indigenous people. At least they are portrayed in a good light. :>)
James Cameron had an extremely powerful intense interest in the story of the Titanic itself. He wrapped it in a love story, found two young, engaging stars in DiCaprio and Winslet, and created a blockbuster.
But hidden behind all of this was a very powerful “classist” viewpoint. Over and over, Cameron made the point that the elites were insufferable, incompetent, useless boobs, and all of the purer, better, and nobler human motivations were to be found with the lower classes. The only exception across the entire movie might be the engineer, named Victor, I believe.
So Cameron has his huge blockbuster behind him. He’s free now to make any movie, free of any interference, that he wishes. Michael Jackson is the perfect cautionary tale about a person in this situation; in his case, after Thriller, we saw the real Michael Jackson emerge. With Avatar, we’ll see the true James Cameron emerge.
He’s got no DiCaprio or Winslet this time. His love story is likely to be not nearly as compelling. The couple in question are, quite frankly, alien to us. There’s going to be absolutely no immediate connection between them and us; he’ll have to work incredibly hard to create one. I don’t think he’ll succeed. And I suspect Book is right about the same-old same-old tired old plotlines. Anti-military, heavily classist stuff will probably dominate, as Cameron, given free rein to express his world-view, lets loose. In addition, the passion for the Titanic itself that compelled him to focus on *its* stories is absolutely missing here.
I foresee a lot of early interest, some huge box office numbers early, then a collective yawn – “is that all there is? ” – as the instincts of most of flyover America take a look at this movie and recognize it for the meaningless Hollywood product that, at its core, it will be.
Avatar will be no Titanic. Not even close. As a science fiction enthusiast, I’m expecting a huge disappointment.
It’s funny that you say that, Mike, because I loathed Titantic — and precisely because of its stupid, dated, Marxist political message.
It’s “Dances with Wolves” in space. Military man from an imperialist super power goes native with noble savages and ends up fighting against his former comrades.
It’s nearly impossible to see a purely original sci-fi movie anymore; all the good ideas have been done… multiple times.
BTW, the humans bad/aliens good story angle is a staple of sci-fi movies; nothing new here either.
I like Cameron because of Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2. The Abyss is ok. I could have done without Titanic… that’s about where Cameron went off the reservation and stopped making movies people wanted to see. I’ll see it though; I’m curious if he got “it” back. Not expecting much though.
If you want to see a decent sci-fi movie that takes some old themes and does some good stuff check out District 9. At least in that one the United States government is not the bad guys for once (in this one it is the South African government) and the aliens are just as miserable as humans are to each other. It’s good fun sci-fi though that isn’t brainless like the Transformers (not that is bad). Not for kids though.
Another thing you might want to check it is the new “V” series. It seems to be taking some intentional pokes at the Obama cult of personality that we saw last year. I’m not all that impressed with the show overall at this point though; hopefully it will get better. I enjoyed the original 80’s series (but I was also a kid then) so I was pretty excited and curious about the new series.
That’s my 2-cents.
I’m going to confess that I devotedly watch “So You Think You Can Dance,” which is why I was able to see an extended ad for “Avatar” on the show last night. Like all here my BS detectors sounded instantly the first time I learned about the movie. But I was wondering what the plot device was for getting the Bad White Earthmen to start slaughtering helpless Aliens in Eden.
I learned from last night’s ad that it’s some sort of dilithium crystal that’s worth a lebenty zillion dollars per gram and that the native village just happens to be sitting plumb smack on top of the only deposit of the stuff on an entire earth-sized planet.
Now that I know that cameron has absolutely nothing—no freshness, no insight, no subtlety—to bring to the table, I’m going to say that Mike probably has the best crystal ball on this one.
Spiff, I agree about “V.” Near the end of the first episode, I muttered to my yellow dog Democrat wife, “How did this get on the air?” Her “What do you mean?” opened up a 10-second window for me to say, “Oh, I don’t know. The clamor over the aliens reminds me of how many people were so in awe of Obama during his presidential run.”
So, Spiff, what’s going on here? Do we knuckledraggers actually have people somewhere in Hollywood?
Charles,
I don’t know. I would bet the parallels in “V” to BO are unintentional. The original “V” was a sci-fi soap opera about the dangers of dictatorships and armed resistance. Doesn’t seem like they have strayed too far off that path with the new series; just spiffy new special effects and no big 80′s style hair. The only differnce is the aliens have infiltrated humanity years prior to the motherships landing. Kind of reminds me of the new Battlestar Galactica. I think giving them kudos for taking a chance, and being orginal with this show would be giving them too much credit.
I read somewhere that the original writer was removed right before the series started and they had to re-shoot a bunch of stuff. Speculation is that they didn’t like some of the parallels to BO they were seeing. Who knows?
Spiff
There are conservatives in Hollywood, just read the blog Big Hollywood.
But none near Cameron, except all the little people, the techies, the sound people, many of them are conservative, but I doubt Cameron is even aware those people exist.
Charles,
I was thinking about what you said regarding why the humans cared about the planet in Avatar. It’s always some super duper resource that we want and the noble aliens live right on top of it and have no idea what they have. And so the imperlistic humans come and try and steal it.
Since sci-fi is all about taking current issues and taking them to there extreme I’d like to see “Avatar” do something new.
If the current politics or our nation continues the way it is going here is how I see “Avatar” going based on what you saw:
The original survey crew would have to file endless environmental and cultural impact reports before even setting foot on the planet.
Once there, the survey crews would have to establish contact with the local aliens and do everything in their power to befriend them, even if it meant risking the safety of the team. The marines attached to the team for security would have ROE of engagements that would make it nigh impossible to defend themselves from the aliens if they were in fact hostile all this while providing all sorts of assistance and aid to the local aliens.
Once the resource was discovered, humanity would spend gazillions of space credits negotiating with the aliens t o tap the resource. This would of course include massive amounts of aid, rent for the facilities and construction and security costs. And of course the humans would not get the resource, the aliens would own it, we would pay through the nose for the resource we paid and worked to remove. And this assumes the aliens like us.
When the aliens decide they don’t like us anymore they would kick us out and “nationalize” the facilities we built. They would then raise the price of the resource and their leaders would steal all the money for themselves and tell their population it’s all the fault of the humans. And of course our leadership would acquiesce and agree all the way.
Of course this would cause the aliens to fight with humans and kill them. Once again human security forces would have their hands tied to do anything meaningful to defend themselves and stop the aliens.
When it finally did come down to a confrontation, human forces would win the day despite all the rules on how to conduct the war. We would occupy the planet and hand it over to a new crop of corrupt leaders and it would start all over again.
At least that’s how I would write it.
Spiff, I remember when Robert Englund played a nebbishy alien reptile on the original “V” who had a soft spot for humanity. Who woulda figured that he would go on to play a polar opposite character, Freddy, in “Nightmare on Elm Street?” Talk about pulling a Betty White!
Sad to say, your surmise about just how unconscious the producers are of any parallels are between V and O, seems about right. Still, if you’re setting out to show how invaders, whether microorgansisms or Marxists, can infiltrate and subvert a body politic, you can’t avoid parallels.
Leah, amen. Weren’t “the little people” what Marie Antoinette was dressing up as for a little while there?
Sorry, my last post is a little high on typo and grammer errors. I wrote it fast during my lunch.
Spiff
Charles,
Yeah, I remeber Englund as well; that is kind of funny. I heard HW is planning on remaking the Nighmare movies as well.
I was pretty young when the show was on (11 or 12 I think). So my memory of the old show is skewed. I’m afraid to watch the old show now and have my good memories ruined. It seems like everytime I watch a show from my youth it’s really crappy or doesnt live up to my memories.
Englund’s character has been replaced by an alien human sympathizer in hiding. He is a tough fighter type character who is getting married to a human woman. I like the new character myself.
The one big problem with the new series is they are moving too fast. They revealed that the aliens were lizard or lizard type in the first episode. I dont know; I guess they dont know how to pace it; seemed forced to me. Like I said I will give it a chance.
Spiff
In District 9, the bad guys were the private security corporation. A lot of the interactions are very funny, in the sense that it doesn’t operate by realistic context, but by Hollywood context. Only in Hollywood can the villain para military guy not be afraid to be in the targetting sights of a juggernaut. And the bad guys are always defined by their ability to kill, and the good guys defined and limited by their ability to ‘hesitate’. As if that was a good thing, or something only good people had.
Williamson’s Contact with Chaos produces a better spin on first contact between humanity and a less advanced planet of sentients.
I keep remembering the thing about the sun glasses showing up aliens that work alongside us, when I think of V. But that may not have been V actually.
When the Left looks at less advanced people, they see them through the eyes of the government looking on citizens. They think their duty is to ‘protect’ those people… by making them into slaves.
They think that is a good thing. They try very hard to make sure that happens, that new technology never gets into the hands of the ‘indigenous’ freaks that would cause ‘instability’. The thing is, new technology does destabilize cultures and civilizations if it is introduced at too fast a pace to the point where it disrupts socio-economic-political balances. But the Left doesn’t give a damn about that. All the Left cares about is that they control the orbitals, which means they control the economy and all weapons that would be used on the planet from the orbit. The Left really thinks they are the best to possess all that ‘money’ and ‘power’, because no other of those savages could wisely make such decisions.
It’s like England. THe Labour party of freaks and abusers of children invite in more and more Muslims, believing that they can control them. When it is proved that they cannot, they don’t really care because the only people suffering are the dumb nuts at the bottom of the English social hierarchy.
The Left always thinks at the end of their alliance with fascist freaks, that the Left will be in control.
<B>It’s funny that you say that, Mike, because I loathed Titantic — and precisely because of its stupid, dated, Marxist political message.</b>
How did they lie their way given the ‘women and children’ only ethic of chivalry, which was noted originally in the noble classes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geNv6FUK0HU&feature=channel
They’re talking about technology making the movie feasible.
But… isn’t technology the white man’s burden and a product of exploitation of the natural resources of the indigenous people? So they’re using the product of technology, American technology, to create a story about people abusing superior technology over some other culture… interesting.
Maybe, just maybe, if they hadn’t abused 500 million dollars that could have been spent to improve real lives in Afghanistan, if they hadn’t utilized tainted American Hollywood technology to do it with, there wouldn’t be an invasion that precipitates a war between humans and aliens. And that would have saved a lot of things.
Spiff, I’m with you on having misgivings about moving the alien invasion angle in “V” along too quickly. But like you, I’m a sci-fi fan from way back and will watch almost anything that has ETs in it. Can’t really complain about the new “V.” The characters seem plausible enough and they already have me paranoid about who is and who isn’t a lizard/lizard sympathizer.
Me happy for now.
I love the comments to this thread but I have to say that my favorite is Spiff’s #10, which brings a great realistic note to the manic imaginings of the far left.
Y @ #14,
I thought the commando’s were part of the agency that over saw the aliens. You may be right though as the agency was trying to reverse engineer the alien weapons. Either way it was refreshing that the US government/military wasnt the default bad guys for once. I kind of viewed the agency as a UN entity.
“Only in Hollywood can the villain para military guy not be afraid to be in the targetting sights of a juggernaut”
Agreed; in the real world they would have fallen back and called in an air strike, helicopter gunship or some other heavier form of firepower. In Hollywood military men stand there and get popped like tomatoes when faced with alien weaponry.
Either way, flaw and all I kind of thought D9 did a good thing with old ideas. It was at least entertaining.
Spiff
Charles,
I seem to remember the whole alien invasion thing was revealed slowly in the original series. Like you knew somthing was up and you kept coming back for more. The new series revealed their hand way early. The only thing left is you dont know who could be an alien paranoria (BSG did it already).
I’m with you, good sci-fi is hard to come by these days so I will give anything a chance. And up to know, other than missed opportunities to reveal the story slowly, the show is good enough to keep me.
Did you enjoy Babylon 5 and/or Farscape? Those are two sci-fi shows that I thought were pretty originial and did a good job.
Spiff
I agree with Book that spiff’s riff (#10 above) on how the politically correct would have handled Pandora was a hoot.
<B>I thought the commando’s were part of the agency that over saw the aliens.</b>
The cowboys or shooters. But in any private military contractor business, there’ll be administration and the active operators. In the opening intro, it was reported that the government of South Africa could not keep with demand so hired in an external company.
The vans were not direct enough to symbolize the UN. Also the company was run for profit, not by bureaucrats represented through national representatives.
Babylon 5′s movie story about the Earth-Minbari war was great plot and story telling. Classic space opera. Human tragedy due to arrogance exists (First Contact), but human determination and unity against a common threat is also present. An accurate rendition of the human condition. If only because military heroes are made because somebody else fauked up on the diplomatic level.
Stargate Universe is much better than Stargate Atlantis. It is also not as emotionally manipulative and soap operaish as Battlestar G on sci fi. Good space opera combines some military tradition and aspects, but namely is about one thing: human beings in the greatness of space.
I’m enjoying Stargate Universe, too, for the same reasons as Ymarsakar. Each of the characters is flawed but smart enough to understand that he or she cannot function well except as part of a group of strangers that is going to have to gel as quickly as possible.
I’m proud to say that I figured out that the starship, Destiny, was not glitching out and heading directly for a star because its circuits were addled. I sat there thinking, this old bucket has been around for several hundred thousand years, and like the Silver Surfer, has seen vast swaths of the universe. So, if I were a crafty old ship who was ravenously hungry, what would be some good fast food to fill up on?
Spiff, sorry to say I started on Babylon 5 but had to give it up for various reasons. I really enjoyed the aliens on that series; they were not heavily made-up humans a la Star Trek. They had their own distinctive psychologies and (to us) quirks.
<B>Either way it was refreshing that the US government/military wasnt the default bad guys for once.</b>
I believe this was made by someone more concerned with South African politics and history. Of course, many Leftists find their home in Europe and in the US. If it is in Europe, the movie will be obviously anti-American. And in the US, it will be anti-American as well. So that doesn’t leave much else of the globe as an option for Leftist film festivals, of course.
Charles, why did you give up on B5? No time?
SGU also had some actually good leaders and politicians. You never see that in movies, except if we are talking about Democrat Presidents fighting conservative PTSD militia freaks or jesus freaks. But, on the personal courage basis, none of em have it. It’s like verboten to even try to get the public to expect warrior virtues out of a politician or any leader. One reason why 300 was so popular, because it broke that unspoken Hollywood elitist ‘safeguard’ rule.
If there is ever an argument amongst leaders in public, the entire morale and trust in the leadership’s decisions goes down the tubes. That’s why if you ever see something like the new Star Trek’s fight between Kirk and Spock on a bridge, you’d know that ship is gone to hell on discipline. Regardless o who wins, the crew’s confidence in command will go into the toilet. Or somebody will plan and carry out a mutiny based upon precedence.
One of the most common human defects or features is that we imitate what we see others doing or having done already. When we know that it has been done, we know that it is possible and it gives us even more reason to imitate it, like monkeys. In a stressful, do or die situation, this model of human behavior becomes hyper amplified. This allows us to take inspiration from courage and self-sacrifice, as standards to aspire to, but it also means the more we see corruption and greed, the more likely we are to act the same, if only to preserve ourselves. Hollywood knows this behavior very well, hence the hyper sexualization, anti-Americanism, and materialism.
Ymar #14,
I believe the sunglasses were from They Live with Roddy Piper.
Spiff #22,
I may get booed, but I believe that Farscape was actually the best of all the TV offerings that have been talked about so far. Original on so many levels.
I did enjoy Babylon 5, and agree with Ymar about the Earth-Minbari movie, but really had a problem with the French 18th Century clothing used for the Minbari. Always bugged me, but the only thing I think detracted from B-5, which was better by far than the last 3 Star Trek series.
As for Stargate Universe, I am finding it very intriguing and look forward to watching it develop. The mix of the drama and character-driven plot lines is softer than BSG which is a good thing. Less manipulative. BSG was unrelenting and near humorless. I would like to see more revelations about the ship Destiny, as well as the seed ships, but I’m sure that will come. One thing, I think the Stones and the sub-plot with Earth is a distraction that I wish they had left out. Better had they found them second season or that the crew were simply on their own wondering if they would ever know Earth again.
The best science fiction as seen by me, aside from individual genius works of creative output such as B5 or Firefly, created by one mind not a conglomerate of idiots or Hollywood fake libs, resides in military science fiction and space opera.
Mot all military science fiction applies, but there’s reason why the majority does. For one thing, if you are writing about the military, you normally have two options: you can write about the present or you can write about the past. Science fiction in a military setting can write about the future, in the past, or about the past, in the future. It is interchangeable, which means any weapons that humanity has ever used can be read in conjunction with weapons humanity has never used.
If you are speaking of space opera, then the best space opera is humanity vs alien invaders out to extinct the species. And that requires military background, strategy, and war logistics. The best stories about war are also the best stories about the survival of a nation or species: the epic story telling mode such as the Odyssey or Beowulf. Epic story telling in this mode is essentially about a hero attempting to accomplish an end, military or political, and in the process he has to go through one set of challenges after the other, with each challenge becoming progressively harder.
The US’s history, for example, can be told in the epic story mode, but Democrat and Leftist history professors never do so. Because they know the power of the Epic. They don’t want any of the younger generation getting an interest in things like the Spartans or Ancient Greece after seeing 300, as may be expected. Even those who dislike ancient history, loved 300 because… well they don’t even know why. But I’ve told you why.
You’ll never hear about the downtrodden and underdog humanity, fighting an alien species more barbaric and more technologically advanced than our own, from the Left. That would, by the Left’s logic, put humanity as the Good Guys. That’s verboten. It’s like incest and child prostitution or rape to the rest of us. But to Hollywood, those things are glorified and promoted with cash and propaganda, so to Hollywood it’d be like trying to portray military members as the best ‘community organizers’ around. Verboten.
To a certain extent, leading a military force against great odds is democratic. If the soldiers don’t believe in the leadership and trust their lives to the orders of their superiors and their buddies, they won’t win. Especially not against a numerically superior force (which is often the case in David Weber’s universes). But it is only democratic to a certain extent. There is no voting, except when a soldier votes with his feet and rifle to either engage or run the heck away from the enemy. In the rest of all matters, the military is a benevolent dictatorship. At the same time that soldiers don’t have a choice, they also do have a choice. They have a choice of following orders because they must, or following orders because they believe. It’s far faster and better to create an elite military organization based upon belief than coercion.
Y @ 24: I guess I will have to watch it again; I missed that bit about the agency being a private agency.
Ariel @ 27: I agree, Farscape was probably one of the most original series in a long time. Too bad sci-fi channel killed the show at its peak. But then again sci-fi channel killed the B5 franchise as well.
I still enjoyed B5 better though, probably because it was one of the first sci-fi shows with a long story arc that was told over multiple episodes. Oh, and the real world physics in space combat helped draw me in (at the time the show started I was in Physics 1A in college).
Y @ 28: I’d have to agree with you on that. “Aliens” was one of the best sci-fi military movies that come to my mind. Cameron did a good job setting up and introducing us to the marines. When they inevitably got nailed, you actually cared about the characters. That was something the follow-up movies couldn’t seem to get. Of course the whole Alien franchise is a lecture on the evils of big corporations, but for me Aliens is still one of the best sci-fi movies out there. It has had a huge influence on military sci-fi movies/games genre (Halo immediately comes to mind).
I enjoyed the original Stargate movie, but never got into the SG-1 series. Same goes for BSG.
One show that started out good, showed a lot of potential and was killed way before it’s time was “Space Above and Beyond”. Any show about space marine aviators that had R. Lee Ermy as their drill instructor in the series had potential. Too bad Fox canned it for Sliders; I never forgave Fox nor gave Sliders a chance (hated it from the start).
Y, you should check out the series of books written shortly after the Stargate movie, but prior to SG-1. I think Alan Dean Foster wrote them. They’re pretty good and it continues the story past the movie, but not related in the least to SG-1 at all.
Y, you should also check out the preview for the remake of the “The Clash of the Titans”; looks promising.
We don’t go to movies. Not for any particular reason, we just don’t. So I’ve had nothing to contribute to this thread….
But…
Now I do! Sortta…
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/11/13/100-most-overratedunderrated-films/#more-9586
So those of you who have opinions on various movies can go and offer _more_ opinions!
<B>Too bad Fox canned it for Sliders; I never forgave Fox nor gave Sliders a chance (hated it from the start).</b>
Fox is ruled by absolute numbers. To a certain extent, Fox News is dictated by that criteria as well, but Fox news selected the conservative niche of truth and justice. Many reporters there, like Gretta Van Sustern, actually believe their duty is to tell the truth, to inform on injustices, and thus resolve them. And they aren’t hypocrites either, for they put their claims to action. In other news networks, you only report what the Left tells you is okay to report. The editors call what you may or may not produce, and even when you publish something, the editors change the heading and perhaps even the order of what you say, highlighting the most important (Anti-American biases) to the front.
Thus Fox cancels Firefly because while Firefly appealed to a niche segment of the market that was very loyal, the same is true for military esque fiction as well. But Fox isn’t a network dominated by individuals that care about niche or long term market penetration. They care about absolute numbers, like any democratic assembly. A story and cast that appeals to a wider audience will always receive higher priority. They even remove the news reports, unlike CBS, in order to devote prime time to their broad casts of entertainment shows. Something the Left tried to make an issue of, because Fox did not broadcast Obama’s speech. As if this somehow meant Fox News didnt…
<B>But then again sci-fi channel killed the B5 franchise as well.</b>
I think the rights were owned by Fox, actually. The broadcasting station. They sought to interfere with J M’s creative design, so JM pulled the plug on Crusades.
SG-1 is like a sit com about the team. It’s not soap opera, of course, but the form is the same. Every time you enter a new world, like sliders, and all kinds of new things can happen, depending on the writer’s creativity for each episode. So it came out that some episode arcs were rather good, and some others were forgettable.
I liked the post about how any American military force would have to file endless amounts of environmental impact statements and have ROE (Rules of Engagement) that make it very difficult to shoot back at the people trying to kill you. I say this because I am part of the American Military and so feel I have some first hand knowledge of those things.
One thing that I have yet to see portrayed in any movie where the natives are the morally superior heroes and the invaders are always morally bankrupt/evil, is where are the bad natives? Where are the ones that are out for themselves? The ones that don’t care who gets in their way? The ones that would not think twice about killing their own kind…just because?
Let me use a real life example. A couple weeks ago one of our patrols was out, doing a walk thru a town. It was supposed to be a nice little stroll thru this town, we’ve been there before and while the LNs (Local Nationals) there don’t universally love us, they don’t hate us all that much either. We always wave and smile and toss out candy to the kids as we walk thru (last time I gave out a stuffed bunny). We never take anything from them, no stealing of their corn or winter wheat or what not.
So our patrol is exiting the town, RTB (Returning To Base) when one of those peace loving, morally superior natives decides to shot at us with his RPG. Thankfully his aim sucked and it missed any of us. It did however hit the wall next to us. What was also right next to that wall? A little LN girl, maybe 4 years old. The wall fell on her crushing her from the waist down. The shooter ran after that and we didn’t pursue. You know what we did do though? We called in a medevac (Medical Evacuation) chopper for the LN girl.
It wasn’t our fault, we didn’t shoot her and according to the rules we weren’t allowed to call for the medevac since she wasn’t hurt by CF (Coalition Forces) fire. Guess what? I dare anyone with any kind of heart in their body to listen to her screams and not want to do anything you could to help her. So we got the bird to her in time to save her life, flew her out to our closest base with a hospital capable of handling that severe an injury.
Now I ask you, where was that native RPG shooter’s concern about innocent native civilian causualties? Where was his buddies? How come only we Americans acted to save her life?
THAT is what I would love to see in a movie that deals with natives Vs invaders issues. Any movie like that should really show it how it is and not just a 1D viewpoint. I’m probably too close to the subject matter though, most people just want to see something purely entertaining and without nasty things like that interferring with their enjoyment of it.
Went and saw Avatar last Friday night on the IMAX here in Sac. Anyone interested in my thoughts?
Spiff
Spiff,
I: Go
[...] viewpoint Toc [...]
Ok, I’ll write something up more detailed and post it here sometime tomorrow. But in a nutshell, it is pretty and spiffy, but essentially adolescent. Cameron didn’t go full “Lucus” on us, but he came close.
Personally, I hated it. It was too clichéd and predictable… so predictable that I found myself rooting for the bad guys (who so happened to be former marines).
I’ll post a more detailed analysis for you later though.
If you want to read mine, it’s on my blog as of the last few days. We were also talking about it on the Last Open Thread here at BK.
Avatar, what do I say about it? It was a massive disappointment for one. I guess I will start this out with the obligatory spoiler alert (I don’t know why though, you see the whole story in the trailers).
Humans have depleted the Earth’s resources and environment. On the moon Pandora, the Research Development Agency (RDA) is mining a resource that could help to solve the energy problem. Known as “unobtanium” (this is an actual term used in engineering and R&D; it refers to a material that either does not exist or is incredibly difficult to obtain). Unfortunately, the RDA is having difficulty with the local indigenous population; tall blue skinned cat-like monkey people, the Na’vi. To help research and find a way to negotiate peacefully with the Na’vi, the RDA developed the Avatar program. Basically, humans are able to put their consciousnesses into clones of the Na’vi. This allows humans to interact with the Na’vi. Up to this point, though the program has had little success.
Enter Jake, a wounded combat vet who has lost the use of his legs (apparently the VA of this time won’t buy him new legs). When his brother, a scientist working for the Avatar program, dies Jake is recruited into the program because he has a similar genetic code that will allow him to operate his Avatar. Jake sees this as an opportunity to get the use of his legs, or at least walk again, even if it as a big blue monkey alien.
The mining post is lead by your typical corporate weenie who is more concerned about the “quarterly figures” than diplomatic solutions. The mercenaries are lead by a psychotic and charismatic ex-marine. The mercenaries fill all the standard archetypes: stupid and bloodthirsty who refer to the scientists as “liberal tree huggers”. Speaking of the scientists, they fill the standard archetypes as well; they are sufficiently liberal and the lead scientist is gruff and abrasive, but she has a heart of gold. All the boxes are checked.
Jake has three months to make contact with the Na’vi and get them to move. Otherwise the mercs will move them forcibly (well their giant tree house is sitting right on top of a big concentration of unobtanium). At the same time the Colonel recruits Jake to feed him intel on the Na’vi. Jake gets separated from the team and is rescued by the hot (by alien standards) daughter of the chief of the Na’vi. All of the noble savage cliché archetypes are filled: the chief’s daughter, strong and vulnerable at the same time; the warrior leader who grudgingly accepts Jake and eventually accepts him as a brother; the wise and strong chief; the chief’s wife, wise and mystical at the same time. All the boxes are checked.
Now you know the rest. Jake gets accepted by the tribe and at the same time comes to love them (and the Chiefs daughter of course). The humans force (with missiles) the Na’vi to move. Jake chooses the Na’vi. A large battle ensues with Jake at the lead. In the final battle, the Na’vi face off the humans. Just as all seems lost the planet itself strikes back and beasts back the humans. Jake confronts the Colonel and wins. The humans are evicted and Jake and the Na’vi live happily ever after… or at least until the humans come with an orbital rail gun.
This movie could have been good. But it is so predictable, so clichéd and so adolescent that it basically amounts to Disney’s first PG-13 CGI cartoon. It’s like “Dances with Wolves” and “Pocahontas” in space. It’s so predictable that I found myself rooting for the bad guys (humans) in the hope that there was some kind of twist or new revelation. But there was none. The plot unfolds as expected with no surprises.
Many (including myself) have tried to analyze and look for a deeper message. But there is none. It is an obviously anti-war, pro-green message. Anything deeper is just sci-fi geeks doing what we do.
There is so much wasted potential: the biosphere or planetary biological net work only comes into play at the end to tip the balance in the final battle. The humans and Na’vi are so one-dimensional with no depth that it is almost laughable.
Basically, this movie is so simplistic and adolescent that it completely undermines any political message. It’s almost a parody.
Cameron did a sufficient job of telling the story though. It’s not bad, but it’s not good either. He breaks no new ground and does nothing that hasn’t been done before, other than put it into a nice new spiffy package (which really isn’t that big a deal nowadays). The actors do well with what they are given.
If you like being dazzled with cutting edge CGI; then you should see it on the widescreen. Otherwise you are not missing anything.
Ultimately, Avatar will do well; it’ll make its money back, probably win a few awards… but will only be remembered for its nifty special effects. The story just isn’t intriguing or interesting for anything more than that. It should have been released in the summer, because that is what it is, a summer popcorn blockbuster. The only Oscar it should get is for special effects, but it won’t. Conservatives have made enough noise about it that it all but guarantees that the movie will get more attention from the academy.
Essentially, I hated it and was massivly disappointed. After 12-years, (and supposedly he thought this up 15-years ago) this is the best Cameron can do. Hell, if the story had been less predictable and not such a retread I could have over looked the asinine political messages. It’s like it was written by a 14-year old. Anyways, that’s my 2-cents.
Spiff
I just spent 4.3 hours watching Starship Operators.
1000% greater entertainment value than Avatar. Now this is space opera.
You can download the series at this website. http://www.bakabt.com/
The registration is standard fare, and the video can be played on VLC.
It’s a sort of high energy and condensed form of the longer and more complex Legend of Galactic Heroes. Different universes, with better space battle tactics, and with 13 episodes rather than 110 episodes.
Conveniently, LoGH is also available there.
I wasn’t disappointed in Avatar. Book and company have, as this thread attests to, already determined its value long before I watched it. But if you’re looking for some real entertainment, check out some of the best stories of this century and the last.
I had hoped that the story would have been told better, despite the standard Hollywood playbook messages. Had it been better, I might have looked past that and enjoyed it for what it was. But it was so cliched and adolescent it just made the politics even more objectionable.
I’m not a big anime fan anymore. But I may check out your recomendation sometime. I’ll let you know if I do.
Spiff
Thanks for the Avatar update, Spiff. My family went, but I stayed home, worried about both motion sickness and boredom. I find Cameron’s movies way too bombastic to be entertaining, and I don’t need to spend 3 hours of my life watching special effects.
My buddy who came with us was pissed when he found out after he bought his tickets that it was three hours long. He hated it. But he also hated how long the Return of the King was as well. For being a vet he is kind of whiny.
I enjoyed Cameron’s other movies prior to this; espicially Aliens. I love explosions and action in my movies. But I also like a story and character development as well. Thats probably why enjoyed the new Star Trek and District 9 as compared to this. Both of those took old themes and either packaged them well or took original and creative spins on the themes.
Nowadays special effects are so easy to do that many movie makers have forgotten that you need a story. Special effects enhance the story… they should not be the story or an excuse for a lame one.
Spiff
They lost the ability to tell stories once their reality perception was fixed to their luddite theology of White Man’s Original Sin and the wickedness of all their political enemies.
It’s hard to do story telling if you can’t make multiple perspectives sympathetic in some fashion.
Everybody, especially the villain, thinks what they are doing is justified and makes sense. Hollywood doesn’t think Big Oil has any justifications, so doesn’t even bother to see it from their perspective. That has consequences, especially in diplomacy or character development. Without an intimate understanding of the motivations of people, all kinds of people, and the ability to delve into them and portray them to a neutral or biased audience, you don’t have a story. You just got a sequence of events done by marionette puppets.
That’s why I don’t go to theaters. I watch movies on my computer. And if I want to take a nap, I pause, take a nap, and come back. And if I want to eat, I’ll eat. And If I want to leave, I’ll leave.
Seriously, how does anyone ‘think’ through a movie long enough to grasp what the hell happened if they can’t pause it?
Part of the impact of SO is that during the opening and ending songs, I sit there and listen. And I remember what I felt when I saw the events of the story. I don’t just lock my mind on a track set by the director and see and think what he has intended people to see and think. There’s time for reflection, critical thinking, consideration, memory, and logic.
The Japanese creators have also perfected an amazing art. They can tell a story while the opening/ending songs are playing. And it works better than it would have been without the song. It is very aesthetically pleasing.
Thanks, Spiff. Your point about the movie being too adolescent even to be political sounds like what I’ve heard. John Podhoretz says that the movie is reflexively anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-military simply because Cameron believes that those are easy story tropes for audiences to understand (and, sadly, like). Sort of like the way fairy tales begin “once upon a time.” It’s expected, and simply provides the framework for all the other stuff.
Spiff, I doubt you can answer this question, but if Jake is using a manufactured body but is operating it from afar, how does he simply stay on Pandora?
Or is that one of those sophomoric aspects of the movie? Once he joins with the na’vi suddenly those laws of being an avatar simply fade away?
<B>how does he simply stay on Pandora?</b>
That’s actually one of the more technically well done parts. He unloads from the Avatar when he goes to sleep, then wakes up back in the lab.
Far more important is how come there is no lag given the bandwidth considerations.
<B>Once he joins with the na’vi suddenly those laws of being an avatar simply fade away?</b>
Not immediately. But at the end, the cliche ending is there.
Give me a good Philip K Dick any day, Blade Runner, Minority Report, Surrogates, sure science fiction, but plausible.
@Leah and Y: How Jake permanently becomes one with his Avatar (and how becomes fully a Na’vi), is actually one of those areas that I thought was wasted and a massive lost opportunity in the movie. One of the underlying themes is that what ever is going biologically on Pandora is more important than the unobtanium. It was some sort of biological worldwide network or the planet itself was a living organism and all the life on the planet was part of that (hence the ability for the Na’vi to download their consciousnesses into the “Great Mother”). In the end, Jake is able to download his consciousness into the planet and upload into his Avatar permanently. One of my friends theorized that Pandora was some sort of super-tech left over from a long dead super-civilization (were sci-fi geeks, that’s what we do).
In essence, that was a really cool idea and somewhat original. Assuming he even did this on purpose, he only touched on it lightly and used it as a vehicle to tip the balance of the final battle and allow Jake to become a Na’vi permanently.
Cameron had so much he could have worked with here. He could still have touched on his anti-war, anti-corp, pro-green themes and still told a much better story. He spent all that money and time creating a realistic alien environment and filled it with visually believable aliens and the best he could do was deliver a story that is so clichéd and predictable that it could have been written by any aspiring 14-year old writer.
Any good sci-fi requires that the viewer accept premises’ and or ideas that by today’s standards are impossible or fantastic (i.e. faster than light travel, aliens, laser guns, etc). In order to do that the story also needs to be plausible and believable; motivations of characters, reasons for being there, character interactions, etc. This movie asks the viewer to set too much aside. That is easier for kids to do; not so for adults. This movie asks too much to be considered serious sci-fi. It is a summer blockbuster movie, nothing more.
I go on and on about because up to now, Cameron has not made a movie I didn’t like on some level; hell Aliens is one of my all time favorite sci-fi action movies. So I came in hoping that all I had read and heard about this movie was false. I had such high expectations and I was so massively let down by this movie. Like Lucas, another icon of my youth (I grew up on Star Wars), Cameron is shown be just another tool.
I agree with Podhortz that Cameron probably did this on purpose to market his movie to what he considered the most people. I don’t think Cameron is stupid… intellectually lazy and out of touch would be more fitting.
@Y: I hear you on the pausing movies… I usually save the deep analysis you’re talking about for DVD… I’m not computer savy enough to find a good download of Avatar. And I’m not going to see it again on widescreen nor do I plan to buy it on DVD. So, the only way I will see this again is when it is shown on network TV… and only if I’m incredibly bored and there is nothing else on the other channels. So, I have to analyze this movie from memory.
I may not like anime because I haven’t seen what you would consider good anime. When I did watch it, I watched stuff like Akira, Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell. It may just be a cultural difference in the way they tell stories that I can’t get over.
Spiff,
Thanks for the explanation, I’m not a sci-fi geek, but I do enjoy the genre when it’s done well. And that is when there is a real story line, real characters and some real conflict that either is or isn’t resolved. 14 year old level story telling is not good sci-fi.
So Cameron takes a very respectable genre, uses and abuses it and we are supp0sed to applaud?
Princess Mononoke struck me as very original, you had both the idea of saving the environment along with the need for people to live, create and prosper in their man made world. I don’t think there was any resolution, simply presenting both ideas. Meanwhile as anyone with a brain knows, once a society becomes very technologically advanced and prosperous, many solutions are found for protecting the environment.
It’s never all or nothing, there is always a very delicate balance that must go on. Which is probably what Cameron and the left are missing these days, balance – they want all or nothing.
You know, I’ve been thinking about this more. I wonder now if Cameron really is even really intellectually lazy or overtly politically leftist. He may just be a good businessman. Like “The Abyss” and “The Titanic” he is using a movie to basically market his new film technology. So why make a complicated movie or controversial movie? Why alienate your customers?
Go look at the user reviews on IMDB and MetaCritic. The average users are gushing over this movie. Most are saying this is a ground breaking movie, with an epic story. It goes on and on universally. These are the average people who take the time to comment publically on this. Movie critics, for the most part, like it as well. The general comment is the story is basic but the effects are magnificent? So, I ask you, why should he work harder to tell a good story if it isn’t going to change anything? As for that, why should Hollywood in general try harder? If their customer base likes what they are feeding them what motivation is there to be controversial and/or creative? This actually says more about the average viewer than it does about Cameron. He delivered a product and the customers ate it up.
Had he took any chances with the story, left the standard play book, and been, as how he probably saw it, controversial he actually would have stood a chance of getting negative reviews and hurting the marketing of his new tech. In a way, one could view this as one of the most expensive commercials ever made. Sort of like those Shell commercials showing how they protect the environment, invest in alternative energy and save animals… but on a much greater budget. When I look at it that way, I find myself actually kind of liking the movie. J
I should remind everyone that Cameron, in general has shown the military (man of the ground) in a positive light (Aliens, The Abyss) and, prior to 9/11 made one of the only movies that had Muslim terrorists as bad guys (True Lies). The underlying themes in most of his movies have always been critical of corporations… so why should this be any different. I’m not saying he is conservative, but I don’t know if I could call him a card carrying liberal either… maybe more of a businessman… but he definitely is not an artist anymore (assuming he ever was).
<B>When I did watch it, I watched stuff like Akira, Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell. It may just be a cultural difference in the way they tell stories that I can’t get over. </b>
I know of them and have seen them. But I was never interested in them much, because the themes are actually not staple elements of current Japanese anime. Such things inspired manga and anime authors, of course, but you’d have to almost be Japanese to get under the layers between technological humanism and gaia environmentalism as seen from the Japanese, rather than Hollywood, perspective. Without such investment, it’s just sfx.
Many of the recent and the not so recent productions are more diversified in terms of subject matter and style. Actually, anime as a whole can be said to be too diversified. If you don’t know what you are looking for, it’s going to be a quest to find the straw in the liberal federally regulated haystack.
Unlike Hollywood, anime has no ideological restraints. Thus any creator can get his stuff published as a manga, and then if people like it and spread it by mouth, it becomes animated and the rights are bought by big corporations and then we have toys and cult followings like Dragon Ball Z, which even transcends national boundaries. Which is funny. Hollywood also translates national boundaries… but only with Westerners and other select motifs (like the eternal Hollywood happy ending), which are not the modern Hollywood cream of the crop because the culture of the West is looked down upon by insufferable elitists as being backwards.
Because often times the manga writer does the story sketch, dialogue, art work, and world/character background all by himself, what you get is individual diversification and less of a bar to accomplished status. It doesn’t take millions of dollars, like Hollywood movies or even sit coms.
That means there’s almost something for everybody. The OVA type movies you mentioned belong selectively to the techno, advanced future, dystopia branch of anime. It’s like Goth music and Western culture here in the States. If you don’t like it, you won’t get into it regardless of how much you get see it. And there’s no reason to waste time if you are looking for something else. Something else meaning something else science fiction to name one genre.
Networks here in the states cancel things like Firefly and crap all over Michael J for Babylon 5: Crusades, because it’s a sort of semi-monopoly with either limitation by production costs or limitation by lack of competition. Much of the Japanese manga business is low cost and fueled by fan bases, rather than cooked up by elite executives. They’ll publicize and produce the advertisement for the popular animes, like Bleach, DBZ, Naruto, etc, but that’s after the talent is recognized by a loyal following, not before. While there are stupid network decisions like any, including infamous ‘filler’ episodes based around some anti-author’s idea of what the author would have created, there isn’t as much of a critical failure. One decision can destroy Firefly and hold the network rights to it and that’s it. Even with extraordinary fan loyalty. In Japanese anime, there are so many shows around, that even if you include the bad CEO decisions, there are also a lot of good productions and even exceptional ones like LOGH. Like Miyamoto Musashi’s book of 5 rings, Sun Tzu’s Art of War, and Clausewitz’s On War, it’s a cult classic.
On a philosophical level, I like how Japanese authors create and communicate what they have built. It won’t affect the artistic result, however, since ethics and aesthetics aren’t the same thing.
Also, it’s far better to watch japanese anime in the original Japanese, while reading the subtitles in English, because the Japanese VAs are the most dedicated and talented around. Here in the US, our voice artists just aren’t paid the big bucks, so they usually go into singing or theater acting. The things that can be done to a Japanese anime by putting it in English dubs is not worth describing.
As a relative comparison, there’s nothing unique about the japanese experience except in so far as the authors are… Japanese. For example, on a purely creative level, Americans can produce just as good a world and character list as the Japanese. Look up Safehold or Honor Harrington by David Weber as an example. Babylon 5′s 5 seasons telling one grand inter-connected story. Firefly. Westerners.
It’s all about competition. That is what lets the good rise to the top and sinks the bad to the bottom. But then, I don’t suppose I need say that given what non-idiots can see happening in America.
<B> That is easier for kids to do; not so for adults</b>
The Left is full of adult-children. They eat it up because one should not expect otherwise.
<B>Movie critics, for the most part, like it as well. </b> Like an abused spouse, they won’t leave or criticize their partner because they fear the alternatives and disbelieve that it can be better by letting go and forming another relationship. After all, don’t most people believe Republicans are baby eating evil people that create myrmidon kill bots to kill/rape indigenous populations? If that was one’s only alterantive, one might have little choice but to stay with the flawed but still good intentioned cult of the Left, anti-humanity screeds or not. <B>So, I ask you, why should he work harder to tell a good story if it isn’t going to change anything?</b> Creative individuals create because that is their love. The money is nice, since they need to eat and can use it to create some more, but it is not their primary motivation. If one’s primary motivation is profit, then… what’s the difference between that person and the greedy corporations Cameron portrays? And if Cameron is producing gunk for the proletariat to lap up, then what is the difference between Cameron and the company in Aliens? (Btw the Pc games were funny and weird as hell. I got motion sickness first time I played as an Alien face hugger climbing over walls.) <B>As for that, why should Hollywood in general try harder?</b> They’re on welfare and have a semi-monopoly. As such, innovation, creativity, and what not suffers. <B>Meanwhile as anyone with a brain knows, once a society becomes very technologically advanced and prosperous, many solutions are found for protecting the environment.</b> Check out the post on China’s pollution. The Left thinks by destroying wealth and making everybody eat from a single, static pie, that they can ‘save Gaia’. What a laugh. <B>Had he took any chances with the story</b> he could be made a Mel Gibson. As in crucified if ideological boundaries aren’t followed in Hollywood. And the Left likes to claim they are all about anti-censure and anti-blacklists and what not. Hypocrites, again, as usual. Energic hypocrites, which are sort of like locusts. <B>The underlying themes in most of his movies have always been critical of corporations</b> The best message against corporations would have been him using his money cash to make movies that destroy Hollywood’s monopolistic practices. Instead, he funnels them money. Which I suppose is as good an indication of corporatism as anything he artificially created as a case lesson in his movies. <B>I usually save the deep analysis you’re talking about for DVD</b> The primary consideration I used when I mentioned it was that people wouldn’t mind if movies were too long, if they could not be held as a captive audience for the entire length. Sitting in one place for several hours at a time, is after all, the same way young children are steadily brainwashed and attention deficit starts happening. I wouldn’t recommend people keep doing this as adults while labbing up sensory information from movies without any mental filters. I just wouldn’t. I know of too many ideological control mechanisms and have seen the result of them employed (look up Jones Town).
Preview crunched my comment format. Delete it, please.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html#1644871837063965394
<B>When I did watch it, I watched stuff like Akira, Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell. It may just be a cultural difference in the way they tell stories that I can’t get over. </b>
I know of them and have seen them. But I was never interested in them much, because the themes are actually not staple elements of current Japanese anime. Such things inspired manga and anime authors, of course, but you’d have to almost be Japanese to get under the layers between technological humanism and gaia environmentalism as seen from the Japanese, rather than Hollywood, perspective. Without such investment, it’s just sfx.
Many of the recent and the not so recent productions are more diversified in terms of subject matter and style. Actually, anime as a whole can be said to be too diversified. If you don’t know what you are looking for, it’s going to be a quest to find the straw in the liberal federally regulated haystack.
Unlike Hollywood, anime has no ideological restraints. Thus any creator can get his stuff published as a manga, and then if people like it and spread it by mouth, it becomes animated and the rights are bought by big corporations and then we have toys and cult followings like Dragon Ball Z, which even transcends national boundaries. Which is funny. Hollywood also translates national boundaries… but only with Westerners and other select motifs (like the eternal Hollywood happy ending), which are not the modern Hollywood cream of the crop because the culture of the West is looked down upon by insufferable elitists as being backwards.
Because often times the manga writer does the story sketch, dialogue, art work, and world/character background all by himself, what you get is individual diversification and less of a bar to accomplished status. It doesn’t take millions of dollars, like Hollywood movies or even sit coms.
That means there’s almost something for everybody. The OVA type movies you mentioned belong selectively to the techno, advanced future, dystopia branch of anime. It’s like Goth music and Western culture here in the States. If you don’t like it, you won’t get into it regardless of how much you get see it. And there’s no reason to waste time if you are looking for something else. Something else meaning something else science fiction to name one genre.
Networks here in the states cancel things like Firefly and crap all over Michael J for Babylon 5: Crusades, because it’s a sort of semi-monopoly with either limitation by production costs or limitation by lack of competition. Much of the Japanese manga business is low cost and fueled by fan bases, rather than cooked up by elite executives. They’ll publicize and produce the advertisement for the popular animes, like Bleach, DBZ, Naruto, etc, but that’s after the talent is recognized by a loyal following, not before. While there are stupid network decisions like any, including infamous ‘filler’ episodes based around some anti-author’s idea of what the author would have created, there isn’t as much of a critical failure. One decision can destroy Firefly and hold the network rights to it and that’s it. Even with extraordinary fan loyalty. In Japanese anime, there are so many shows around, that even if you include the bad CEO decisions, there are also a lot of good productions and even exceptional ones like LOGH. Like Miyamoto Musashi’s book of 5 rings, Sun Tzu’s Art of War, and Clausewitz’s On War, it’s a cult classic.
On a philosophical level, I like how Japanese authors create and communicate what they have built. It won’t affect the artistic result, however, since ethics and aesthetics aren’t the same thing.
Also, it’s far better to watch japanese anime in the original Japanese, while reading the subtitles in English, because the Japanese VAs are the most dedicated and talented around. Here in the US, our voice artists just aren’t paid the big bucks, so they usually go into singing or theater acting. The things that can be done to a Japanese anime by putting it in English dubs is not worth describing.
As a relative comparison, there’s nothing unique about the japanese experience except in so far as the authors are… Japanese. For example, on a purely creative level, Americans can produce just as good a world and character list as the Japanese. Look up Safehold or Honor Harrington by David Weber as an example. Babylon 5’s 5 seasons telling one grand inter-connected story. Firefly. Westerners.
It’s all about competition. That is what lets the good rise to the top and sinks the bad to the bottom. But then, I don’t suppose I need say that given what non-idiots can see happening in America.
<B> That is easier for kids to do; not so for adults</b>
The Left is full of adult-children. They eat it up because one should not expect otherwise.
<B>Movie critics, for the most part, like it as well. </b>
Like an abused spouse, they won’t leave or criticize their partner because they fear the alternatives and disbelieve that it can be better by letting go and forming another relationship.
After all, don’t most people believe Republicans are baby eating evil people that create myrmidon kill bots to kill/rape indigenous populations? If that was one’s only alterantive, one might have little choice but to stay with the flawed but still good intentioned cult of the Left, anti-humanity screeds or not.
<B>So, I ask you, why should he work harder to tell a good story if it isn’t going to change anything?</b>
Creative individuals create because that is their love. The money is nice, since they need to eat and can use it to create some more, but it is not their primary motivation. If one’s primary motivation is profit, then… what’s the difference between that person and the greedy corporations Cameron portrays? And if Cameron is producing gunk for the proletariat to lap up, then what is the difference between Cameron and the company in Aliens? (Btw the Pc games were funny and weird as hell. I got motion sickness first time I played as an Alien face hugger climbing over walls.)
<B>As for that, why should Hollywood in general try harder?</b>
They’re on welfare and have a semi-monopoly. As such, innovation, creativity, and what not suffers.
<B>Meanwhile as anyone with a brain knows, once a society becomes very technologically advanced and prosperous, many solutions are found for protecting the environment.</b>
Check out the post on China’s pollution. The Left thinks by destroying wealth and making everybody eat from a single, static pie, that they can ‘save Gaia’. What a laugh.
<B>Had he took any chances with the story</b>
he could be made a Mel Gibson. As in crucified if ideological boundaries aren’t followed in Hollywood. And the Left likes to claim they are all about anti-censure and anti-blacklists and what not. Hypocrites, again, as usual. Energic hypocrites, which are sort of like locusts.
<B>The underlying themes in most of his movies have always been critical of corporations</b>
The best message against corporations would have been him using his money cash to make movies that destroy Hollywood’s monopolistic practices. Instead, he funnels them money. Which I suppose is as good an indication of corporatism as anything he artificially created as a case lesson in his movies.
<B>I usually save the deep analysis you’re talking about for DVD</b>
The primary consideration I used when I mentioned it was that people wouldn’t mind if movies were too long, if they could not be held as a captive audience for the entire length. Sitting in one place for several hours at a time, is after all, the same way young children are steadily brainwashed and attention deficit starts happening.
I wouldn’t recommend people keep doing this as adults while labbing up sensory information from movies without any mental filters. I just wouldn’t. I know of too many ideological control mechanisms and have seen the result of them employed (look up Jones Town).
You can delete 54 as well. Since I forgot to excise that portion from the copy and paste.
The link is to the Chinese environmental state I mentioned to L.
Maybe I should present the reasons why I like some titles I have mentioned here.
DBZ: Epic story telling in the mold of Sparta, the Odyssey, Beowulf, and breaking past recorded achievements through grit, determination, and work.
Legend of Galactic Heroes (LOGH for short)=It’s almost like porn for those that like to read military history, philosophy, political science, how military battles affect political decisions and vice a versa. I say porn, because if you see how much blood is in the ground fights, it really stimulates the limbic system of the average human male in terms of battle strategy, real violence, and political discourse. The 3 areas most notably left unchecked by the absence of a real classical liberal (read Greek logic and hoplite physicalia) education.
Starship Operators= Funny as hell Engrish and unintended side connections relating to US-Japanese relations. War Drama in the truest sense of the term; telling the story of normal people in extraordinary circumstances that bring out the best and worst of human emotions and character.
Naruto= Very well crafted ninja battles, a good philosophical ethic on work vs inborn intelligence, and is much better educational material for the younger generation than Leftist propaganda.
Bleach= Extraordinary epic story arc during the first arcs concerning individual power and motivation. Both it and Naruto suffer, after a few seasons, of the Long Series problem, which scrambles the quality and inter-connection of the manga lot to be replaced by popular esque fillers and other unmentionables. This is, notably, something never seen in LOGH, which had 110 episodes when most anime series have 10-24 or are stand alone OVA/movies.
So, in point of fact, the reason I like these things is the very reason why I like reading or doing anything. Because it interests me. Military history interests me. Political science and the manipulation of individuals and masses, interests me. For most others, it may not be so. And as such they won’t see what I see, they won’t think what I think, and it won’t matter to them as much vis a vis their life experiences.
Most people don’t study enough politics, let alone military history, to connect the dots. That’s why, historically, there were low culture and high culture. Now a days, Liberal Hollywood thinks they set the definition on what is ‘high culture’. I beg to differ. They’re the pimps and brother keepers of low culture, not high culture. Same goes for the Awards, and the Peace Prize, and I can keep on going.
On a final note, these anime stories are also popular in Japan and other parts of the world because… they connect to people on many levels. They are a true myth of the human condition, and one need not be of a specific profession or interest group to appreciate it. The story of self-sacrifice is not a monopoly of any ideology or group, contrary to the claims of Leftist religious fanatics.
My favorite James Cameron movies – Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, Titanic – all featured compelling portrayals of female protagonists. And by the end of each movie they had all changed and grown so very much. Sarah O’Connor is iconic now. In Aliens, Ripley starts out detached and tough, but has to rescue battle for and care for a substitute daughter, and it changes her. Rose is freed by Jack’s sacrifice at the end of Titanic to fulfill her every potential.
Also in Aliens, we had the thoroughly alienated son who, by the end of the movie, could hardly be called alienated anymore.
True Lies was great fun and remains one of the few movies where the Islamic jihadists get their asses handed to them. But character development and arc? Not that kind of a movie, which is why I guess it remains only vaguely memorable to me. The Abyss was even less memorable this way – but perhaps the director’s cut was better; I haven’t seen it.
I’ll probably see Avatar at a $1 theatre later. I’m interested to see if there’s any character progression, or if this is a static character movie.
Here’s a review I think you’ll enjoy:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-review-more-than-just-dances.html
[...] pretty funny, interesting, and comprehensive take on American entertainment. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Explore posts in the same categories: Anime, [...]
I just realized that I jumped really fast between attacking the Left and making poignant points about entertainment and anime.
At the time, it felt like a great balance. And it is pretty funny to re-read and combine those thoughts. My way of showing my thoughts about the Leftist regime of 2009: movie or no movie.
This was also a thread where I greatly enjoyed reading what other people, Martel, Spiff, and Ariel included, liked or disliked.
Of course, I naturally dislike the Left. When there are movies or Avatar or anything else, even if I dislike it, I won’t say much of anything about it. But I will about the Left. Thus while there are things I disliked about Farscape, it wasn’t important enough for me to give it much consideration, let alone write it down.