About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I prefer Overlord, in keeping with the sci-fi theme. Marching hammers await.

Post 41

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Honestly, I think the whole anti-technology angle ascribed this film is a faulty assumption... for several reasons.

First and foremost is that the whole "how could primitive people successfully defend themselves against an advanced army" concept has been played out in innumerable books and movies for a long time. It is always fascinating to people to wonder how it could be done (the truth is-not really). Spielberg had a ball with the concept in "Return of the Jedi". So looking for an anti-technology angle seems wasted effort.

Second, the military technology shown in the film was, frankly, relatively pedestrian - that is not shown as that far removed from technology we have today. The threw in a couple of 'cool looking weapons' to stand in for tanks, but... there was not so much to make a fuss about. Most likely, the filmmaker stuck to conventional styled weapons because he at least had a clue as to how those could be simply incapacitated (serving the plot).

Third, the most remarkable technology - their Avatar link-up - was shown to be naturally duplicated by nature (in Pandora). Most technology today consists of lessons or examples of things we have seen done in nature (photosynthesis anyone?).

The primary criticism, I think, that can be said of Avatar is that it chose what Hollywood has thoughtlessly and unfairly embraced as an easy target- big business. Yes, this choice shows a weakness of philosophy. It as well shows a lack of imagination, an inability to think about an intellectually honest and even-handed representation of business. I strongly suspect that had Avatar simply presented the villain as being government, many here would have gladly endorsed it.

In the end, the villains in the movie ARE BAD, and the heroes in the movie ARE GOOD AND BRAVE... and movie popcorn is generally pretty tasty. I'd still recommend seeing it, enjoying the graphics, and enjoying the 'good fight'.

Sometime, its too easy and tempting to over-intellectualize things. Besides, it sure beats seeing George Bailey fall into that pool again.

jt


(Edited by Jay Abbott on 12/24, 8:45pm)


Post 42

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bailey... Bailey?? prefer Bad Santa...;-)

Post 43

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bad Santa!? Oh, no!

Too many Objectivists get the wrong idea about George Bailey and Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life"

jt

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay: "Sometime, its too easy and tempting to over-intellectualize things. Besides, it sure beats seeing George Bailey fall into that pool again."

"At Comic Con 2009, Cameron told attendees that he wanted to make "something that has this spoonful of sugar of all the action and the adventure and all that". He wanted this to thrill him "as a fan" but also have a conscience "that maybe in the enjoying of it makes you think a little bit about the way you interact with nature and your fellow man".[47]

Jay, I hope you don't call yourself an Objectivist. Otherwise, YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF. Merry Christmas.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 12/24, 8:59pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Apparently, Ed Hudgins over-intellectualizes, too, because he just wrote a critical piece of AVATAR:

AVATAR'S SAVAGE MESSAGE

"If you want great special effects and an action-packed popcorn thriller, you'll certainly enjoy Avatar. But hopefully Cameron has so overplayed his hand with his politically correct plot that audiences will leave the comfort of the theater with an appreciation for technology and no desire to flee to a jungle or support the sort of public policies that would reduce our civilization to savagery."
------------

Thanks, Ed. I do have to add that I heard a bit of quiet laughter during the movie...in all the wrong spots. There certainly wasn't any outbreaks of applause or "hell yeah!" moments.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 12/24, 9:18pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 9:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

полезный идиот

"Third, the most remarkable technology - their Avatar link-up - was shown to be naturally duplicated by nature (in Pandora). Most technology today consists of lessons or examples of things we have seen done in nature (photosynthesis anyone?)."

Q. What do you think of Science Fiction?

A. It's a legitimate form of literature, but its seldom good. Science fiction used to be original and sometimes interesting. Today it's junk. I dislike it because it's too freewheeling. You can invent anything you wish and say that's the science of the future. They go too far that way.

Ayn Rand Answers, p 222.

"In the end, the villains in the movie ARE BAD, and the heroes in the movie ARE GOOD AND BRAVE."

Well that's a shock.

But is the badness of the villains realistic, because that's the way corporations and U.S. Marines are? Or is their badness an arbitrary construct the nature of which one must evade to accept? Is the goodness of the heroes realistic, because that is how we expect stone-age mother-goddess worshipping tribesman to be? Or is that an arbitrary construct the nature of which one must swallow blindly to accept?

In case you don't know the true nature of mother-goddess worshipping tribesman, think of the reputation of Hera. Think of the reputation of Kali. Think of the pre-Indo-European goddess-worshipping peoples of Europe and the near east. Until the horsemen came out of the Russian steppe those cultures were agricultural police-states ruled by witches. They used poison as a tool of state and they hobbled men at birth or before using them at stud. Their goddesses survive in myth today. We call them Lilith, Circe, Tiamat, hags, harpies, medusae, All the chthonian combination snake-woman-vulture monsters of classic mythology are what remains in our culture of theirs.

All of which information you may find it even easier to evade because from our Universities, to our Sit-Coms, to the Primate of the Anglican Church we are taught that god is a jolly fat black lesbian, and that the rapist, the exploiter, the destroyer of worlds is a white man in a business suit.

There is a word for the Oprah-fan who doesn't think she has anything to do with the fact that we just raised the debt limit to 12.4 trillion ($41,333, not per taxpayer, but per US citizen) and the person who thinks that his royalty payments to hollywood leftists have nothing to do with a stolen senate seat and a 60-39 vote to socialize medicine. Lenin had a phrase: poleznyj idiot.



(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/25, 2:57pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Here are the lines:

... attempt to connect to Vietnam imagery, the way they jump off helicopters. I take that thread further back to the 17th and 16th centuries and how the Europeans displaced indigenous people from the Americas.
Here, Cameron views Vietnam and the colonization of North America as nothing other than naked plunder.

The quote presumes that communists and savages are folks who should be respected in the sense of leaving them alone to do their own thing and to live life in their own way. This is a form of Nietzschean egotism, wherein one feels entitled to be left alone to live a life which doesn't even have to respect individual rights. That's wrong, however. No one has the right to be left alone so that they can "freely" violate individual rights. Instead, folks who don't respect rights are sort of "free reign" (until they come to their senses).

You go back to the Roman Empire and further where we have this tendency to take what we want without asking ... that’s how we treat the modern world ...
But the Roman Senate was corrupt.

The real "tendency" is for the most evil people in a society to become politicians, because evil wants illegitimate and arbitrary power over others -- rather than bearing the responsibility of being productive. People like "Nazi" Pelosi and B. "Hussein" Obama (and Kim Jong Il and others) are arguably some of the most evil people in this world right now. That's what arbitrary power does -- it draws the most intensely-evil persons to it. Cameron thinks the problem is human nature, but the actual problem is wrong philosophy (the sanction of pockets of arbitrary power in societies).

The real answer, then, is not that there is something inherently wrong with human nature, but with human thinking -- specifically, the kind of thinking of someone like Cameron, who clamors to interpret history as man trampling upon man with reckless and bloodthirsty ambition.

We’re not going to be able to just rip our clothes off and run back into the wilderness. First of all, there’s no wilderness left. Second of all, that’s not going to work for 8 billion people.
This is the same, wrong interpretation that Karl Marx had in the Communist Manifesto (see my blog for a 10-part review). It's what either Michael Shermer (or Steven Pinker?) calls "The Beautiful People" myth. It's the longing for the primitive union with nature -- not just over-and-above, but -- in place of a union with the products of man's mind. I think that Rosseau might have officially-popularized this wrong way to think about reality (and man's relation to it). Cameron definitely carries the 'primitively-made' torch on this one.

It's ironic that the mind-hating torch he bears actually has the opposite effect of a torch-light -- it increases the darkness and confusion in the world.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For some reason this song seems proper to my feelings about the film. >_>



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

James Cameron curses out fan who asks for Autograph

The Video Here

"I don't owe you a f**king signature ... just get out of my f**king personal space."

So, does this outburst show that Cameron is, deep down,

(1) Actually an egoist and capitalist with the proper Objectivist notion of his property rights and lack of duty to his fellow man? Or,
(2) A crude, petulant, hypocritical bore whose altruistic regard for the common man is a a front for his elitist desire to be treated as one of the world-state's philosopher kings? Or,
(3) A decent chap in a black turtleneck and blazer who's just under a lot of stress?

We report. You rationalize.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/25, 8:30am)


Post 50

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Season's greeting to you too.

jt

Post 51

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, "Ho, ho..." to y'all...
[the other ho's for me...;-D]

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All,

I'll stick with my assessment in post 41.

Aside from Cameron's choice of villain, everything else works well unless you a)can't resist over-intellectualizing a run-of-the-mill storyline, and b) are spoiling to start a fight over a cherry-picked interpretation.

Honestly, I think that interpretation is being stretched so as to enable starting a fight, and also I think that when we start fights over questionable interpretations or premises, that we undermine our credibility, and therefore our ability to make the points when it is really crucial to be heard.

I think the honest complaint against Avatar is solely in its depiction of "big business" (capitalism) as the villain. The other arguments, I think, are more a representation of over-reaching personal bias, than of any serious validity.

Consider this, most of the people with whom we interact every day probably do not share our Objectivist ethical premises. Do you spend your time seeking out the differences and basing your interaction with them solely upon the differences in your thinking? Or do you simply recognize those differences, and interact with them based upon your respect of those values you have in common? In other words, do you always seek out the worst to base your decisions, or do you also recognize what is good when basing your decisions?

We can find evil everywhere, easy enough. We don't have to focus all our energies in trying to find it. Try too hard, and sometimes you miss the whole point, or worse, that there wasn't any point really being made except what you wanted to see.

I'm no Pollyanna, but I just can't see the value in trying so hard to find the wrong message. It's like playing the "White Album" backwards.

jt



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

What some people call over-intellectualizing, other people call admitting the obvious.

Once again, this movie may have aspects that are admirable. Those aspects may be prominent enough that some people may actually be able to enjoy the movie.

But you've already paid $12.50 to see Cameron's film Why should you have to do the work for him of finding admirable aspects that simply aren't there, or of evading the quite explicit evil themes that he himself has said are there?

The beauty of the useful idiot strategy is that like unwitting birds raising a cuckoo chick that has killed their own offspring, the intended victims of the Left will do the Left's work for them.

Why do Cameron's job for him?

What could be more grotesque than if the adult birds feeding the cuckoo chick that has killed their offspring were to sing its praises for, say, its admirable appetite and its valiant struggle to survive?

The erstwhile parent birds are acting on instinct. It would be one thing if you were arguing that the bad elements that have been identified were not really there. But you are not denying their existence. You are telling us not to identify them consciously. The drive not to "over-intellectualize," the drive to evade, the drive to blank out, the drive to not think is not just some natural animal instinct. It is a human vice. It is the human vice.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/25, 10:32am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was uncomfortable with the background theme of both the Alien series and the Terminator series. The first Alien is the only one I watched in the theater.

The problem with technology is you can't un-ring the bell. The Soviet Union managed to produce scientists engineers and technologists enough to support a formidable and high tech army navy and air force. A future world could be high tech and not free and look very much like Cameron envisions. His mistake is calling his warning vision an extrapolation of "Capitalism". Instead it illustrates the failure of capitalism. A high tech world run by tyrants not traders. He's got it ass backwards. I fear tyrants with high tech communications, surveillance, encryption, and advanced weapons and a disarmed population of slaves. Which is why I don't like the libertarian strategy of letting them get in power so people will be convinced that they don't want them. Once they're in power it's game over. That may be our future. Perhaps I've watched too much Sci-fi.

I will probably watch Avatar at some point. Not in a big hurry.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay,

It just isn't possible to "over intellectualize" anything, friend.  Either something can be understood on every single level, or it can't. When concepts, like this movie, are being analysed, understood, and explained on an intellectual level, that's a good thing.  Cameron's motives are suspect for a reason.

It's a mistake to claim people shouldn't think too much about anything, especially in the cultural sense.  There is no enjoyment, or repulsion without cause. Every emotion has an intellectual root.  Discovering those roots only adds to the enjoyment of your values.

Would you tell people not to think about what's in the needle being pushed into their arm, as long as the result is pleasant, somehow?  Your mind works the same way. The mind isn't a dumping ground, open to every bit of garbage hoping to find a way in. Bad ideas need to be discovered, exposed, and discarded. 

I'm no Pollyanna, but I just can't see the value in trying so hard to find the wrong message.

No, no, you're missing the point.  No one is "trying" to find the wrong message. Its right there for everyone, with enough intellectual and history background, to see. Movies use abstractions. What is/are the abstraction(s) used in this film? I think its way more than "this particular big business=bad," while offering as the only alternative a population of "one with nature" beings.  You don't have to be a mental heavy weight to see what's going on.

P.S. Joe is a hard core hero worshipper, and thems fightin' words. :)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay:

First and foremost is that the whole "how could primitive people successfully defend themselves against an advanced army" concept has been played out in innumerable books and movies for a long time. It is always fascinating to people to wonder how it could be done (the truth is-not really). Spielberg had a ball with the concept in "Return of the Jedi".


And that's a hugely retarded concept. George Lucas had said the Ewoks were supposed to represent the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War and the Empire was supposed to be America,

Nevermind that the NVA was heavily equipped with Soviet arms and armored vehicles. Like this:



That is the T-54, for it's time it was a highly advanced piece of weaponry that rivaled NATO tank technology. If Lucas really wanted the Ewoks to symbolize the NVA, they'd be equipped with AT-ATs



Instead they're fighting with rocks and spears



Take also that ridiculous scene where the Ewoks destroy an AT-ST walker with two swinging logs sandwiching the vehicle and disintegrating it:



It's physics as told by an 8 year old. Did Lucas think for one second if a tree could crush an A1-Abrams tank for instance? Did he stop to think...hmmm....yes heavily armored vehicle...destroyed by a tree....yes that makes sense.

I guess when you are 8 years old, you don't think about those things, because when I was little I thought the Ewoks were really cool. Now I think they're absolutely ridiculous.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Post 58

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
teresa,

Okay, instead of saying "over-intellectualizing" , I will just say "convincing oneself of something that is not reasonably in evidence" which is the gist of what I meant to convey. I do still think that some try too hard to see the worst in everything. If you're a glassmaker, you may see a brick on the sidewalk as a missile. Anyone else may just see a brick.

I am not at all disputing that Cameron's choice of villain - big corporations/ capitalism- is bad. In fact, I think it is bad on many levels. But the other arguments suggested here are, I believe, overreaching and without sufficient evidence.

John,

Where on earth did you find that statement you've ascribed to George Lucas. That statement certainly sounds retarded. Certainly I don't know anyone who ever would have taken that meaning from the movie.

When I talk about overreaching though, your post 56 really helps. Thanks...

but you scare me sometimes, John. : )

Ted,

Funky! Do you know the lyrics. : )

Happy holidays,

jt




Post 59

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The brick analogy was good, Jay. As rational thinker first, and a glass worker next, I would see it as a "potential" missile. 

Good intellectuals see bad ideas just as potentially dangerous.  No one spends 400M to make a movie that doesn't have an agenda outside of telling a good, relatable, worthwhile story. There's more in it for them than that.

Good art critics see things in sculptures we may not see. Good intellectuals see ideas we may not be familiar with, but should be.  

Read the blog entry Robert linked to. The writer makes an interesting case as to how far Cameron went in thinking his audience is made up of idiots. The writer is not an intellectual, but clearly cares about ideas. He knows enough not to be taken in by all the sparkle and pretty colors in this movie. His conclusions match Michel's and Ed's. None of these people know each other. It isn't a coincidence.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.