Avatar

[devogue]

I thought it pissed on Star Wars.

Time flew while Avatar was on, it was easy to understand, visually breathtaking and thought provoking.

If Avatar was made first and Darth Vadar came along in his suit everyone would have laughed.

I thought time flew as well.. I can understand people feeling it lacked character development but where would you make the cuts to allow for it? There was no part of the film that to me seemed superfluous. 160minutes is the Imax maximum length.

Who wants "character development" anyway?

The colonel bloke was an evil twat - as was his boss. The blue people were nice and primitive - why is depth of character necessary - it just gets in the way of a rip roaring good story if you ask me.

[Elessarina]

The Myth of the Noble Savage writ large and blue?

That phrase really bothers me - I think is one of the most racist things in my opinion - why because someone lives without technology are they considered a "savage" or somesuch?

Who is more the savage - the people who live in harmony with the world or the ones that dig it up and rape it of its natural resources?

[Clinton Huxley]

The Myth of the Noble Savage writ large and blue?

That phrase really bothers me - I think is one of the most racist things in my opinion - why because someone lives without technology are they considered a "savage" or somesuch?

Who is more the savage - the people who live in harmony with the world or the ones that dig it up and rape it of its natural resources?

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

[Thinking Aloud]

^^^

One of the things that pleased me was that there was an attempt to explain the connection the inhabitants of Pandora had with their environment. It wasn't "spiritual", "woo"-based or magical, which would have been an easy cop-out. In this world there was a "harmony", but it was not analagous to Earth.

[devogue]

^^^

One of the things that pleased me was that there was an attempt to explain the connection the inhabitants of Pandora had with their environment. It wasn't "spiritual", "woo"-based or magical, which would have been an easy cop-out. In this world there was a "harmony", but it was not analagous to Earth.

Very good point. I felt very comfortable with the way they plugged themselves in to nature.

Very Welsh.

[Elessarina]

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

I am aware of the phrase's origin.. I still don't like it. But despite what you say your points are invalid we weren't talking about humans we were talking about Na'Vi whose moon (Pandora) is very different from Earth.

[Clinton Huxley]

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

I am aware of the phrase's origin.. I still don't like it. But despite what you say your points are invalid we weren't talking about humans we were talking about Na'Vi whose moon (Pandora) is very different from Earth.

I was responding to Dev's point that the Na'Vi made us think about our own relationship to nature and therefore my points are not invalid, thanks.

[devogue]

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

I am aware of the phrase's origin.. I still don't like it. But despite what you say your points are invalid we weren't talking about humans we were talking about Na'Vi whose moon (Pandora) is very different from Earth.

I was responding to Dev's point that the Na'Vi made us think about our own relationship to nature and therefore my points are not invalid, thanks.

Funny...perhaps we in the west are more tuned in to the importance of saving the environment, rainforests etc. than the indigenous people we feel are so wonderful.

More provokement of thought!

[Pappa]

The Myth of the Noble Savage writ large and blue?

That phrase really bothers me - I think is one of the most racist things in my opinion - why because someone lives without technology are they considered a "savage" or somesuch?

Who is more the savage - the people who live in harmony with the world or the ones that dig it up and rape it of its natural resources?

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

That's not always true. Many societies have had social constraints that encourage them to protect their natural resources. I've read about lots of different 'primitive' cultures and they show a very broad range of approaches to the word they inhabit (from culturally acceptable robbery and murder, to very careful use and reuse of resources and intelligent and careful intergroup interactions to avoid conflict. The "Myth of the Noble Savage" is as much a myth as the myth its trying to mythologise.

[Elessarina]

I was responding to Dev's point that the Na'Vi made us think about our own relationship to nature and therefore my points are not invalid, thanks.

It doesn't matter either way Dev's point is valid in that we should think more about our relationship to the planet. Using the noble savage or saying "but look what they do over there" does not excuse human behaviour.

[devogue]

The "Myth of the Noble Savage" is as much a myth as the myth its trying to mythologise.

Stop taking the myth!

[Clinton Huxley]

I was responding to Dev's point that the Na'Vi made us think about our own relationship to nature and therefore my points are not invalid, thanks.

It doesn't matter either way Dev's point is valid in that we should think more about our relationship to the planet. Using the noble savage or saying "but look what they do over there" does not excuse human behaviour.

Don't remember anyone saying it did....

[Clinton Huxley]

The Myth of the Noble Savage writ large and blue?

That phrase really bothers me - I think is one of the most racist things in my opinion - why because someone lives without technology are they considered a "savage" or somesuch?

Who is more the savage - the people who live in harmony with the world or the ones that dig it up and rape it of its natural resources?

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

That's not always true. Many societies have had social constraints that encourage them to protect their natural resources. I've read about lots of different 'primitive' cultures and they show a very broad range of approaches to the word they inhabit (from culturally acceptable robbery and murder, to very careful use and reuse of resources and intelligent and careful intergroup interactions to avoid conflict. The "Myth of the Noble Savage" is as much a myth as the myth its trying to mythologise.

Indeed, I'd agree with that. You will see a spectrum of human behaviour. In films, however, and in the mind of, say, Sting's wife, or in the Post-Modern Humanities departments of universities, you will only usually hear about the lovely, tree-shepherding indigenous peoples and not the nasty, perpetually-warring ones.

[Elessarina]

That's not always true. Many societies have had social constraints that encourage them to protect their natural resources. I've read about lots of different 'primitive' cultures and they show a very broad range of approaches to the word they inhabit (from culturally acceptable robbery and murder, to very careful use and reuse of resources and intelligent and careful intergroup interactions to avoid conflict. The "Myth of the Noble Savage" is as much a myth as the myth its trying to mythologise.

Well there is a huge difference between a culture that relies on the resources surrounding it for its sustenance and driving whales into a bay to slaughter them as some kind of "fun family event".. or a thousanda of other things the (apprently) less "savage" parts of the world have done with complete disregard for the environment or non-human (or indeed human) life

[Pappa]

The Myth of the Noble Savage writ large and blue?

That phrase really bothers me - I think is one of the most racist things in my opinion - why because someone lives without technology are they considered a "savage" or somesuch?

Who is more the savage - the people who live in harmony with the world or the ones that dig it up and rape it of its natural resources?

Don't blame me, blame Rousseau.

The myth is that so called "primitive" cultures live "in harmony" with nature. No matter how much Sting wants it to be true, it's not. Such societies exploit their environment to the extent their technology allows (whilst usually having a level of homicide that would make an inhabitant of modern day South Africa feel alarmed). It's a nice idea but its a fantasy.

That's not always true. Many societies have had social constraints that encourage them to protect their natural resources. I've read about lots of different 'primitive' cultures and they show a very broad range of approaches to the word they inhabit (from culturally acceptable robbery and murder, to very careful use and reuse of resources and intelligent and careful intergroup interactions to avoid conflict. The "Myth of the Noble Savage" is as much a myth as the myth its trying to mythologise.

Indeed, I'd agree with that. You will see a spectrum of human behaviour. In films, however, and in the mind of, say, Sting's wife, or in the Post-Modern Humanities departments of universities, you will only usually hear about the lovely, tree-shepherding indigenous peoples and not the nasty, perpetually-warring ones.

I have a book called "The Jivaro" (nowadays they're called the Shuar). At the time (50s-60s) they were still headshrinking. I think every member of the community lived in a perpetual state of fear. They could be murdered at any moment and they only people they could trust were their immediate nuclear family and perhaps their trading 'brother'.