Avatar.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Spoiler:

No, but from the standpoint of what ethical message the movie sends, having the "religion" turn out to be a reality kinda dilutes it. With such an emphasis on, "But it's not just some tree huggers, there actually IS a consciousness in the forest and the planet," it begs the question, "Well then, does that mean if it were just a bunch of trees, without this neuro-network of roots, it would be okay to bulldoze the place?" I certainly don't think so, but that's kinda what the movie says, otherwise, why does it matter that Aywa was actually real? It shouldn't be okay to forcibly uproot (so to speak) a civilization, regardless of whether their religion is scientifically provable or not.

Amen, brother! And that goes for any number of other movies that include

Spoiler:

a supernatural element that turns out to be real and vindicates our heroes. Is a moral message any use if it is predicated on the reality of things that stubbornly refuse to be provably real?

[Moonliner]

I'd say it's time to drop the spoiler tags in this thread. If you have not seen the movie you won't get much out of reading the posts unless you peak anyway.

So beware: Past this point there be spoilers.

















It's his sled.




I warned you!

[Alex]

In terms of whether it dilutes things for there to be evidence that the planet is sentient in some way and the religion based on something real, I don't really see how it was possible to avoid that since otherwise the only outcome for the movie is for the Na'vi to lose and be annihilated.

Also, since it is the very rare movie indeed that can present faith without also preventing evidence so that the audience can buy in I don't really hold that against anybody.

But if evidence dilutes the message, then doesn't it also dilute the message that the good guy is only convinced to do the right thing once he himself has come to believe in the religion? Wouldn't the most powerful message be for him to not only have no evidence that the planetary religion has a factual basis but to in fact believe it to be silly nonsense and yet still be willing to risk death protecting those people from what is coming?

Though the tact to take with the company representative was not to say "hey, they're religion is real" but rather "hey, it looks like their religion is based on the fact that biosphere is a single sentient entity, how much fricking money do think that might be worth if we can learn to work with it?"

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

But if evidence dilutes the message, then doesn't it also dilute the message that the good guy is only convinced to do the right thing once he himself has come to believe in the religion? Wouldn't the most powerful message be for him to not only have no evidence that the planetary religion has a factual basis but to in fact believe it to be silly nonsense and yet still be willing to risk death protecting those people from what is coming?

Yes, that's implicit in that observation. I thought that much was equally dumb. But only when I take the time to delve into the story, which I didn't do while watching, and only am doing afterwords for laughs. It hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the movie, seeing as I never intended it to serve as my moral compass.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Somehow I don't think he would have been swayed by the religious argument either.

More importantly that argument had already been made (the natives attachment to the place was the whole reason Sully was given three months to try and find a way to convince them to leave peacefully) and obviously had not carried the day so it certainly would not have been effective for Sigourney Weaver to argue it again.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Alex

(the natives attachment to the place was the whole reason Sully was given three months to try and find a way to convince them to leave peacefully)

Sully really dropped the ball on that, too. Talk about procrastination. "I'm one of you now. Oh, by the way, they tanks are here. Um, I guess you all had better leave right away. Oh, and I knew this was going to happen three months ago. Sorry, dudes."

[Capt Jack]

dug it. wanna see it again. I think I'll try to go IMAX this time.

[RStar]

I loved it, also! It reminded me a loy of "Ferngully", mixed with the American Indian history and the way we treated them.

The one "plausable problem" I saw was that huge planet that was so close it seemed like there would be gravitational pull issues.

And yes, that was a much more substantial arrow that went through the glass.

[Jazzman]

The Wife and I were going to go ahead and see Avatar in IMAX 3D this coming weekend, but then I found out how much tickets cost. $15.50 to see Alien Smurf Hippies!?! I don't f-ing think so! If I want to see 3D hippies with anti-capitalist ideals running around raging against The Man, I'll go hang out in downtown Portland. And if I want them to be funnily colored hippies, I'll go hang out at the Saturday Market. Besides, isn't it a bit disingenuous to make a big movie all about how humans are evil, Western nature rapists, and then charge $15 to see it? Seems a little un-hippy-like to go all mega-capitalist on the admission price to see your anti-capitalism movie. Shouldn't they be charging, like, beads or carbon credits or organic, free trade coffee for admission or something? Anyhow, I'll see it when it hits Netflix. Sorry Mr. Cameron.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Your beef isn't with Mr. Cameron. IMAX always costs that much.

You do have the option of seeing it sans IMAX, and sans 3D, for normal ticket prices. I didn't think IMAX was worth it to me so we went for just 3D.