James Cameron: ‘Avatar’ is a ‘Tribute’ to Marines — PLUS: What the Sequels Might Look Like

My daughter and I saw this and her remark was that the movie was "Dances with Wolves" only with blue people. I must agree. It was a military man going civilian. Both of them.

Basically Cameron if he does go to a PC area of Iraq will be sheparded around and they will keep people who have negative impressions of him or his film away from him. Sort of like how they screen mostly women and people of color to sit around PEBO when he "visits" the troops.

The movie is less anti-Marines/military than it is anti-Western civilization/business. The predictable plot is informed by the claptrap leftist view that the West, corporations and whites have done little more than displace innocent, peace- and earth-loving non-whites in order to exploit their resources for selfish gain. Only this time it's in outer-space! There are few obvious references to the Marine Corps in the movie. The marines just like to get offended by things so they can say "don't mess with us; we'll kick your ass, etc." The best, maybe. Not the brightest.

Let's face it: Avatar is a big, fat, left-wing fairy tale for children. It's a liberal's wet dream. As such, it's not supposed to make sense, it's not supposed to be subtle, it's not supposed to address "the issues" with anything like an adult's concern for realism, truth, or common sense. It's especially not supposed to be explore the full implications of its kindergarten-level "message."

What it's supposed to do is make people go "Oooh, aaah" a lot and leave them with vague "wouldn't it be nice if…" feelings about "the environment." Nothing more. That Cameron chose to include jarring political/social commentary just shows he let his liberal anger interfere with his art.

(I posted this in the open thread but I moved it here.)

So I saw Avatar yesterday… Imax 3-D and everything. I thought it was a grand spectacle – not perfect mind you but still pretty good. Cameron can still direct a film like nobody's business and his action scenes, unlike in so many other films, are actually coherent, with established geography, a minimal use of shakey-cam, and feature shots that last longer than .25 seconds. And the visual effects and craftsmanship – damn near flawless. I know I was watching things that couldn't possibly be real but at one point, my brain simply decided to accept it.

I understand the criticisms and lately, Cameron seems to be getting hit from all sides, right AND left. As for the whole Earth-worshipping tree-hugger stuff, hey, different strokes for different folks.

Now my hypothetical question to the room is: armed with the same story and characters, if Cameron asked you to do a quick polish of the script (something I wish he had hired someone to do), what would you change to make the film a little more palatable?

Me? I'd do two things. I'd establish that RDA is not an American company. In the film, it isn't mentioned but we can only assume based on Giovanni Ribisi's character. If that character were played by, say, an Asian or even Middle Eastern actor, that could possibly change the dynamic. Then you'd have a former U.S. Marine up against a foreign corporation that is possibly engaged in illegal activities.

With what he was given, I think Stephen Lang was great as Col. Quaritch (all things considered). And even though they state early on that they're all hired guns, I can understand the anti-military comments. Perhaps if they implied that most, if not all all of those guys were NOT ex-military but came from other, less reputable areas: criminals, bounty hunters, pirates, what have you.

I don't know, I'm just improvising here. With all the money, talent, and technology at his disposal, I really wish Cameron had simply hired someone to polish a few paragraphs of dialogue. My politics are more middle of the road but even I know "evil corporate CEO cliche #47" when I see it.

Scott, I have to admit that I haven't seen it yet, but having read a lot about the plot and seen some of the previews, how's this for a start: try to treat the motives of all sides fairly instead of stacking the deck, and then write the script accordingly.

Kind of?

"….I think people are thinking about it too simplistically. …"

The only thing simplistic is the story. Cameron ripped off like 6 different movies and has the balls to say he spent 15 years writing it. The stroy, script, hell even the soundtrack (think Lion King) are all re-treads. There's not an originial thought that went into this movie other than the special effects.

And to be honest, the preview for the NASA film in IMAX 3D makes Avatar look like a saturday morning cartoon. So I don't know where Cameron thinks his movie went over anybody's head, this movie has been done many times before and much better IMHO….

Then he should have made most if not all the mercinaries either not former military or they could have been dishonerably discharged or something. I will take him at his word and give him the benifit of the doubt but he did not pull it off. It is probably a good movie in the sense that it does big box office but the script writing is simplistic and ham fisted. Cameron is a good director but not a good screen writer but Cameron is too full of himself to realize that. I enjoyed Titanic but it too was way too simplistic. He could have easily cut another 20 to 30 minutes from the film and probably made it even better.

He can talk about it being a tribute all he wants. In my mind, if the people he claims to be honoring publicly come out and say that he's tearing them down instead, that should be sufficient evidence.

well your blackwater exxon analogy has 1 HUGE MISTAKE… Cameron did not depict your rightfully described 3rd world hellhole. he described a utopia of hippy commune eco folks. he hid away the brutality and horrific atrocities of tribal enslaved gangwarfare that has always gone on till christianity threw a wrench in it.

well… we need to teach them. just as they and I were brainwashed… we need to teach them truth. not revisionist history.

At the risk of repeating almost everything that has been written, here is how I see it.

Cameron made the Marine Corps as an institution, yes former Marines, the bad guys. He also made the individual (who coincidentally happened to be a Marine) the good guy.

Here's the thing. The military isn't just an entity all to itself. The military serves at the behest of our foreign policy directorate. If anything, i think the movie highlights the power, responsibility, and consequences of using force and aggression. Military is a broad sword and not a surgical scalpel. Any sovereign entity's military should be used to preserve and protect liberty, freedom, and property rights and not to violate the natural rights of others unless it is in the act of self defense (hence the self evident truth of the 2nd amendment). I know it's uncomfortable for the "human/americans" to be on the wrong side of this concept in Avatar, but sometimes it does and has happened throughout the course of history. This not a "blame America" excuse, rather reality that sometimes we have made mistakes as have other countries. I personally don't agree with 90% of Cameron's politics and think he goes over the top allegorically in his movies. My personal take on Avatar: http://bit.ly/5QTZAp

Horse shit vs. filet mignon. What more can be said?

Another thing that irks me about white liberals and their Indian fantasies is that American Indians are portrayed as one amorphous, peace-loving blob. The various North American Indian tribes were as diverse as the nations of Europe, and were roughly as peaceable.

It's dehumanizing when whites deconstruct a culture's rich history so they can reshape it to reinforce their beliefs and prejudices.

It's sarcasm.

Yes, definitely it should show cannibalism, infanticide, slavery, ritual sacrifice, and inter-tribal warfare. And no $%#@ magic ponytails to plug into animals and the ground for instant communion with the Mother-Goddess. Real primitive humans were often disastrous for the environment. Look at the deforestation of Easter Island and the extinction of the New Zealand moa — both caused by early humans. In other words, if this is not pure fantasy but is really about "the environment" and "indigenous peoples" then tell the TRUTH.

I'm sure this film is exactly what are Marines in Afghanistan want to see – what morale booster, eh James?
Now, if Cameron was going to Afghanistan to show this film to the Natives (Taliban), I think they would love it!

“Avatar 2: Gays Vs. Straights” : You nailed Cameron on that one Nolte. Cameron's idea of "tribute" is topsy turvy. He's backpeddling and he knows it. What's next: declaring Dances with Wolves a "tribute film" for the US Calvary?

Also, I'm not sure I would call them "leftist hair-splitters." I think "Avatards" is the official name for them now.

Yep. At last count, Avatar had ripped off Pocahontas, Ferngully The Last Rainforest, Dances With Wolves and even Return of the Jedi. And books that were an obvious source of "inspiration" include The Word for World is Forest by Ursula Le Guin and Call Me Joe by Poul Anderson.

It took him 15 years to find enough people to rip off….

Mmmm… maybe he's right.

What part of Sci-Fi and Fiction don't people understand?

If the guy made a movie that was suppose to be an actual depiction of the U.S. Marines you might have a case against him. But the movie is Science Fiction set in the future on an imaginary planet. If that scenario is going to upset you, because you’re pre-disposed mindset is to be looking for something to offend you, then, well, you’re going to live a very unpleasant, self-righteous, miserable life.

Okay, you just took that in so many directions that could have been left alone. I have absolutely nothing to say in response.

You must be criticizing James Cameron because the guy who, you know, wrote and directed the film is claiming Avatar is relevant to today — a "tribute" to the Marines.

So peddle that "it's just science fiction" argument Cameron's way.

I agree. When will Hollywood start makiing movies that reflect the true heart of those who serve? Semper Fi!

Honestly, nothing Cameron (or anyone in Hollywood for that matter) could ever do or say to make me think ill of our Marines. They are the best of us without dispute.

My problem is that the movie is just plain stupid. It's a turd wrapped in big shiny special effects. All this focus on Cameron's "message" whatever the eff that is, is a waste of time. The movie is lousy and if it weren't being shown in IMAX 3D, I doubt it would be doing the BO numbers it's doing. Giving it any more importance is not productive. If you want to trash this movie (because it really is a terribly done film) then trash it for being a bad movie, not for some "message" Cameron thinks he's pushing.

My problem is that Hollywood believes in the power of film to affect real change in the world and I agree with them. If I didn't I wouldn't do what I do for a living.

My other problem is that right now, all around the world, people are cheering on the deaths of U.S. marines.

The Best Maybe? There's no Maybe about it. You must be an illiterate and new to this country. As far as not being bright. Marines are bright enough to know a shit-bird when they see one. You know what I mean …Birdie.

Thanks.

Point taken.

I just don't want to give a hack like Cameron more credit than he deserves. If he intended to push a message that was anti-Marines, then he did it very poorly IMHO. To me, it was more of an anti-industry message, and it fell flat.

But I see what you're saying, and the only way to turn that type of thinking around is to contest every inch.

So let it be written, so let it be done……

Cameron, taking a page out of the Obama Book Of Back-Handed Apologies and Excuses:

"If the Public doesn't like something you do or plan to do, just tell them in the nicest way possible that it is actually a good thing and they are just too stupid to understand it."

Perhaps the real problem, Mr. Cameron is not that WE are looking at it too simplistically but rather that YOUR cliched, totally in your face, so obvious a baby could have written it, Leftist propaganda — in what could have been an otherwise good film — was so simplistic that there is no nuance or subtlety whatsoever.

Hard to say. At the risk of being repetitive, I think Avatar is a fairy tale that Cameron managed to pollute with grown-up shit. If he made a movie about Hansel and Gretel, he'd make sure the audience came away knowing that gingerbread houses have a lot of cholesterol and are bad for their teeth. He's a middle-aged guy with middle-aged concerns, and he puts them into his movies.

This vile man has done this before. The piece of mindless tripe that was Titanic was a nasty swill of anti-British racism. The crew of the Titanic were caricatured as aristocratic Nazis when in reality they were brave and selfless during the sinking. In England there was a particular outcry over one portayal of one officer who was portrayed as a selfish coward. In fact he was one of heros of the sinking and gave his life so others might survive (apologies for not having the reference/name at this point). It got so bad that Cameron's producer had to go to the man's home town and apologise to his descendants. He also gave a large sum of money to a local charity, as part of his weasel apology. Since that time I have made a point of telling other English people what an anti-British creep this man is.

Avatar is a well crafted movie – it doesn't matter if you agree with how each character is drawn or not. The story "works" on every level and until conservatives learn how to cleverly "work" our own ideological angle into blockbuster entertainment we will be stuck on the sidelines wondering why no one will green light our films.

Instead of pointing out what's wrong with the movie – learn from it what's right about it and why it connects so strongly with an audience.

One example; Jake Sully is a brilliant character. We first see him in a wheel chair, which creates instant empathy for him when it's revealed to us later that he will be able to walk again once he's in the Avatar. Very simple story telling here – "Hero" can't walk. Then because of this fantastic world and science he is transplanted into an alien body and what's the first thing he does? He runs, feels the wind, tastes fruit, moves his toes – THIS is excellent character building, and, it connects the audience to the Hero from the start. You WANT him to use his legs. You WANT him to run with the Aliens — all because of the set-up that he couldn't walk before.

Cameron delivers set-up and payoff better than any tent-pole movie maker. And ultimately that is what draws people into seats. Don't agree with me? Look at the movie like this — Imagine It's just two alien races that meet. Forget about Earth and Humans. Imagine they are warriors from another planet and want the resources on the others planet. If you can do that you will see how Cameron is a master story-teller from start to finish.

Oh, I think he's A-hole too. But I know good craftsmanship when I see it. There's more to learn from Avatar than there is to complain about it.

Me, I wouldn't have tried to lecture the audience about a goddamn thing. I would have shown them my brilliant CGI world, thrown in some Spielberg/Lucas-style action and adventure, and left it at that.

The Marines would have been a small group of rescuers or explorers (a la Aliens) who thought they could handle anything, behaved unwisely and perhaps destructively, fought with the Na'vi but ended up depending on them for survival. The Na'vi would have taught them to live in the unique environment of Pandora. The Na'vi would have had their own issues and conflicts. They would have had an external enemy – perhaps another tribe or a different species – and the Marines would have helped them to defend themselves.

In the end, despite conflicts and mutual misunderstandings, the humans and Na'vi would have parted amicably. The Earth people would either promise to leave the Na'vi alone or would have figured out a way to deal with them in a non-exploitative manner.

Uhh… I got the sarcasm….

Seriously, I think Tomtom's right on: that's exactly what Cameron's thinking. We're all just a bunch of hicks who don't get the subtle nuances of his masterpiece!!

John:

When are the sequels coming out? Hopefully, Cameron will let the Farrelly brothers direct. That way, the sequels can be funny as hell and yet heartfelt and inspiring. I can't wait!

"But I know good craftsmanship when I see it."

Seriously?? This movie was cobbled together from about 6 different movies. I don't think Cameron knows what an original idea really is. The "story" is a re-tread, the script\\dialogue is weak to say the least. The acting is stiff and predictable. The so-called character building you speak of is also weak and predictable. Anyone with more than a few brain cells will be a little more critical, especially when it comes to introducing the "hero" in a wheelchair. Do you automatically assume that a person in a wheelchair deserves sympathy?

Maybe that's what Cameron was talking about with his simplistic comment. because if you think Avatar is good film making then wow, you need to get out more brother….

The only thing holding this movie together is IMAX 3D.

Self-righteous? We're just bitching on a blog. We're not the ones making half-billion dollar movies lecturing people about the environment and evil corporations.

To the folks defending this as "only a movie" I would like to ask if they understand that by portraying the Marine like caricatures as evil they reinforce the negative stereotype of our soldiers . A black-white or gay-straight scenario is quite apt. It would be viewed as nothing but an attack on the blacks or gays.

So basically, we're all invited (moviegoers and book- buyers) to participate in Sully's and the "activist's" Quixotic struggle against the monolithic entities that threaten to destroy Pandora and, by extension, the Earth. Whether this includes killing a lot of Marines, miners, evil corporate types, scientists studying the planet, or everyday people who get in the way, neither the book nor the movie make clear.

You're right. I think he's got a much bigger beef with the Evil Corporation than he does with the military.

What he's really paranoid about is the military *working for* the Evil Corporation. Or a company like Blackwater (or whatever it's called now), which is both a military AND an Evil Corporation. That's the ultimate nightmare for him – and probably what he was trying to depict in Avatar.

First of all, Hank – let me just state that I do not think there is a such thing as an "original" story anymore. I believe that all stories are in fact inspired by and based on The Bible, which is the complex and accurate account of Human nature being saved by the grace of God. In modern stories this becomes the good Hero doing the right thing or laying down his life for others.

If you really want to pick apart Avatar into stolen ideas it goes way deeper than just other movies. I saw a direct steal of two video games – Starcraft and Everquest. The aliens in Starcraft are called Protos and look nearly identical to the Na'Vi. To me, watching Avatar was exactly like playing Everquest in regards to the alien world and all the illuminated sensory bits. But what both Starcraft and Everquest are missing is the story. If it bothers you that Cameron merely takes Dances With Wolves and puts it in space then you still have a lot to learn about Hollywood.

The Jeffrey Dahmer example is very weak and you know it. He is already a known serial killer. We know going in that he is bad. But I understood what you were trying to say.

I was not suckered. I went to see a "popcorn" movie and had a great time.

According to folk like Yipster we need much more Dead Indian and Dead African history in our curriculums.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the original idea issue.

Picking apart Avatar is easily done, I'm not a gamer so I didn't know about the video game connection. It doesn't bother me that Cameron took Dances (and quite a few others) into space, what bothers me is that it's being hailed as some sort of monumental break-through in film making. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My Jeffrey Dahmer point was spot on. You wouldn't empathize with him in a wheelchair because you already know he's a scumbag. But no character development was done with Sully. None. Cameron just puts him in a wheelchair because he knows that no one will dare to not empathize with a person in a wheelchair regardless if they know anything about him. This is where he suckered you friend. You automatically empathized with Sully without knowing a thing about him other than his handicap.

You say you went to see a "popcorn" movie. But then you say things like "But I know good craftsmanship when I see it. There's more to learn from Avatar than there is to complain about it."

Sorry but we'll have to disagree on this too. It was a "popcorn" movie, but the only thing keeping it from being a complete waste were the special effects. The rest of the movie could've (and probably was) written by a 5th grader.

Well it takes one to know one DJBALL….or d-bag #1

All of this application to today's events (by anyone, including Cameron or the author of this blog) reminds me of one of the first scenes of Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy" (not the greatest of movies but this scene is hilarious). In it the main characters get into an argument about how much sci-fi films like the Star War Trilogy are about white supremacy. This discussion concludes with one of the participants getting shot. The punch line is that neither side is taking the argument seriously, cares about the outcome, nor believes Star Wars is really about white supremacy: the whole argument is used as a promotional tool for a comic by manipulating the polarity of the audience.

dont shoot the messenger buddy.
we need the marines in washington dc and on Wall Street restoring the republic.