Avatar is stupid

[iguana_tonante]

because that accent has a tendency to pronouces words naturally, as they're inteded to be pronouced,

Emphasis mine. There's a way words "should" be pronounced?

Look in a dictionary, next to the word there's usually a pronunciation/phonetic key to tell people how to say a word correctly, or the way it's intended to be pronounced.

Do you mean... an American English dictionary?

You will find that international dictionaries report the standard pronunciation for American, British, Australian, etc. if there are any variations between them.

 

[Forbin]

Hugh Laurie, Bob Hoskins, Gillian Anderson and Kate Winslet are four English actors who immediately come to mind who can do American aceents very well to the point where (at least in the case of the first three) many people find it hard to believe they're not Americans.

Gillian should have an especially easy time, being from Chicago.

 

[Forbin]

I think Worthington was made to have an American accent because the military force in the film was supposed to be a commentary on the evil, brutal American military and its evil, brutal, uncalled-for invasions of peaceful countries like Viet Nam and Iraq. [/irony mode]

 

[Temis the Vorta]

He was supposed to be an American character because nobody's gonna take a military seriously as a threat unless they're American.

James Cameron did give himself a fig-leaf right at the beginning (did everyone miss it?) where he noted that the 'real' military fights for freedom back on Earth (which I guess is an ecological disaster, so how much can freedom really matter, but I digress) and the baddies on Pandora are evil corporate mercenaries who are a mere degraded shadow of the noble warrior caste from whence they came, or something like that.

 

[stj]

^^^It's been noted. Of course, anyone who wonders exactly why we're really fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (the reasons given have been exposed, or have expired,) is quite free to think the US military is de facto a band of mercenaries.

 

[Trekker4747]

Hugh Laurie, Bob Hoskins, Gillian Anderson and Kate Winslet are four English actors who immediately come to mind who can do American aceents very well to the point where (at least in the case of the first three) many people find it hard to believe they're not Americans.

Gillian should have an especially easy time, being from Chicago.

She was born in Chicago, she's not from there. She grew up, for the most part, abroad and most of that time was spent in London. She returned to America in her late adolescence and even today her accent sort-of jumps between English and American.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

^^^It's been noted. Of course, anyone who wonders exactly why we're really fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (the reasons given have been exposed, or have expired,) is quite free to think the US military is de facto a band of mercenaries.

If that's how you're inclined to think, sure. But Cameron's voiceover non-ironically makes reference to fights that are legitimately for freedom, leaving open the question of what in the real world today that refers to? The US military's humanitarian efforts in Haiti, perhaps?

As ever, people attribute to movies whatever ideas they want to attribute. If they like the movie, the ideas they attribute are "good." If they dislike it, the ideas are "bad."

 

[Hartzilla2007]

He was supposed to be an American character because nobody's gonna take a military seriously as a threat unless they're American.

James Cameron did give himself a fig-leaf right at the beginning (did everyone miss it?) where he noted that the 'real' military fights for freedom back on Earth (which I guess is an ecological disaster, so how much can freedom really matter, but I digress) and the baddies on Pandora are evil corporate mercenaries who are a mere degraded shadow of the noble warrior caste from whence they came, or something like that.

Which when you think about it seems a popular interpretation of private contracts on TV these days see an episode of Law & Order as well as a lot of episodes of Jericho. Plus it doesn't help when you watch the news and find these guys doing loots of douchy stuff that the army could never get away with and manage to get away with it.

 

[stj]

^^^It's been noted. Of course, anyone who wonders exactly why we're really fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (the reasons given have been exposed, or have expired,) is quite free to think the US military is de facto a band of mercenaries.

If that's how you're inclined to think, sure. But Cameron's voiceover non-ironically makes reference to fights that are legitimately for freedom, leaving open the question of what in the real world today that refers to? The US military's humanitarian efforts in Haiti, perhaps?

As ever, people attribute to movies whatever ideas they want to attribute. If they like the movie, the ideas they attribute are "good." If they dislike it, the ideas are "bad."

Since the voice-over is content free, as you correctly point out, only if the audience arbitrarily invests it with validity can it serve to remove the actual US military from the crosshairs. Some people who like the movie but disagree with the tougher minded interpretation will do so. Why not? Cameron wrote the dialogue as an invitation to do so.

Other aspects, such as accents (badly done or not,) visual references to Vietnam, 9/11, the notorious shock and awe reference, directly contradict it. Those allusions are pervasive. But only a single voiceover offers an escape clause for viewers more uncomfortable with the US as villain. Well, a single fig leaf is all it takes to make it decent.
But why so certain it is un-ironic instead of commercially prudential?

 

[Harvey]

Having just re-watched the film, one thing that I noticed was the Colonel's reference to doing tours (with the U.S. Marines) in Venezuela and Nigeria. For Cameron, at least, it's a surprisingly subtle nod to the U.S. engaging in further wars for oil resources (which both countries have in abundance).

References like "shock and awe," "fighting terror with terror," and "hearts and minds" are much less subtle.

stj -- what are the visual references to Vietnam and 9/11 you're seeing in the film?

 

[Forbin]

I assume the 9/11 reference is the scyscraper-like Home Tree being felled.

 

[Harvey]

That seems too tenuous to mark as a visual reference to me. The mode of attack was different, the way it collapsed was different, the meaning of the structure itself was different, and the purpose for destroying it was different. So where is the link, besides something being destroyed and falling down?

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

That seems too tenuous to mark as a visual reference to me. The mode of attack was different, the way it collapsed was different, the meaning of the structure itself was different, and the purpose for destroying it was different. So where is the link, besides something being destroyed and falling down?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-camerons-avatar/story-e6frg8pf-1225809286903

After the Na'vi homes collapse in flames the landscape is coated in ash and floating embers in scenes reminiscent of Ground Zero after the September 11 attacks.

Cameron, who was born in Canada, said he had been "surprised at how much it did look like September 11. I didn't think that was necessarily a bad thing".

So, maybe the reference was unintentional, but even the director noticed the similarities.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Which when you think about it seems a popular interpretation of private contracts on TV these days see an episode of Law & Order as well as a lot of episodes of Jericho. Plus it doesn't help when you watch the news and find these guys doing loots of douchy stuff that the army could never get away with and manage to get away with it.

You're forgetting FlashForward, the seventh season of 24, or the bad guys from District 9... hell, an evil PMC even seemed to be the villain in an episode of the new Knight Rider, when I stumbled across the show once (ugh... *shudder* ). Blackwater-like private military contractors have become the new stock villains, it seems.

That seems too tenuous to mark as a visual reference to me. The mode of attack was different, the way it collapsed was different, the meaning of the structure itself was different, and the purpose for destroying it was different. So where is the link, besides something being destroyed and falling down?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-camerons-avatar/story-e6frg8pf-1225809286903

After the Na'vi homes collapse in flames the landscape is coated in ash and floating embers in scenes reminiscent of Ground Zero after the September 11 attacks.

Cameron, who was born in Canada, said he had been "surprised at how much it did look like September 11. I didn't think that was necessarily a bad thing".

So, maybe the reference was unintentional, but even the director noticed the similarities.

"That's 9/11!" was one of my first thoughts when I saw the tree burning and falling in Avatar. Of course, it's entirely possible that Cameron is lying about the similarities being unintentional. He always aims to make his stuff acceptable to people from all camps. I guess that's also the reason why the exact nature of the troops (mercenaries? regular military?) was intentionally left ambigiuous. Everyone is able to see what he/she wants to see in the movie.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Which when you think about it seems a popular interpretation of private contracts on TV these days see an episode of Law & Order as well as a lot of episodes of Jericho. Plus it doesn't help when you watch the news and find these guys doing loots of douchy stuff that the army could never get away with and manage to get away with it.

You're forgetting FlashForward, the seventh season of 24, or the bad guys from District 9... hell, an evil PMC even seemed to be the villain in an episode of the new Knight Rider, when I stumbled across the show once (ugh... *shudder* ). Blackwater-like private military contractors have become the new stock villains, it seems.

I actually haven't seen FlashForward and don't really watch 24 and I did forget about District 9 and Knight Rider.
Also again on PMCs being the bad guys, well it's not like they're covering themselves with glory out in real life.

 

[stj]

People who would prefer not to consider the movie as directly commenting on the current US military and US wars can seize on the mercenary comment, then ignore the rest.

I can't agree that the fall of Hometree is tenuous. Cameron could easily have visualized the trunk cracking and falling in segments.

The whole emphasis on helicopter gunships, instead of missiles and drones, was reminiscent of Vietnam. The daisy cutter load looked like primitive tech. It almost certainly was conceived that way because the whole look was modeled on Vietnam war footage/movies. I seem to remember napalm/white phosphorus type weapons. Given the special cruelty and habitat damage, which one would think would be at least a consideration, that too seems to be harking back to Vietnam. The jungle locale is also part of it.

 

[Harvey]

Thinking further, the use of flamethrowers, as they were in Aliens, are likely an allusion to Vietnam (the U.S. stopped using them in 1978).

I can't agree that the fall of Hometree is tenuous. Cameron could easily have visualized the trunk cracking and falling in segments.

Surely he could have depicted it that way, but the felling of Hometree as depicted in Avatar still strikes me as equally unlike the destruction of the World Trade Center, which collapsed in upon itself rather than toppling over.

Reading the pertinent sections of the article linked above, however...

After the Na'vi homes collapse in flames the landscape is coated in ash and floating embers in scenes reminiscent of Ground Zero after the September 11 attacks.

Cameron, who was born in Canada, said he had been "surprised at how much it did look like September 11. I didn't think that was necessarily a bad thing".

...and the ash-covered victims are definitely legible as visual allusions to Ground zero and the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

People who would prefer not to consider the movie as directly commenting on the current US military and US wars can seize on the mercenary comment, then ignore the rest.

A rather insane piece of commentary at Forbes attempts to do just that. But that seems impossible to reconcile with both the obvious references to Iraq as well as the more subtle cues about the Colonel previously serving in Nigeria and Venezuela that I pointed out earlier.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

A rather insane piece of commentary at Forbes attempts to do just that. But that seems impossible to reconcile with both the obvious references to Iraq as well as the more subtle cues about the Colonel previously serving in Nigeria and Venezuela that I pointed out earlier.

Wow, Avatar is now the most neo-conservative movie ever made? Well, like I said, everybody is able to see what he/she wants to see in the movie. Cameron is a true genius.

 

[Amaris]

I just watched it on DVD. Finally.
Before I saw the movie, I figured I would strongly dislike it. I also felt slighted because it one the GFX awards at the Oscars over Star Trek.

Um. Okay, I can see why now. The visuals are positively stunning, and that's without 3D, and overall, I have to say I really enjoyed the movie. Loved the whole Gaia aspect, loved the Na'vi, loved the whole thing. Great movie, one worth watching many times over, and I am surprised to see me say that.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You know I just thought of something.

The bad humans in Avatar actually got off better than a similar group of humans in an episode of the 90s The Outer Limits. Those idiots killed a bunch of "primitive aliens" on some planet to get its resources and it turned out to that they were really that species' version of a boy scout troop, these aliens were in fact more advanced than the humans, and when these aliens' their parents found out their kids had been killed they sent a warship to destroy the humans on the planet and then go to Earth to take their vengeance.