A Veteran Speaks: ‘Avatar’ Demeans Our Military
by Jack L. Treese, CWO US Army, RetiredHaving served 23 years in the military and in Vietnam, and having a son who leaves for Afghanistan this month, I look at this film through the eyes of a patriot (one who loves and defends his country).
As opposed to those who don’t.
Certainly the special effects are spectacular. However, portraying our military as fanatical crazed killers who have joined a military mercenary force to destroy a civilization so that corporations can capitalize on some rare commodity prized by earthlings is disrespectful to our soldiers, especially in this time of war.
Showing the commander of the forces on his way to destroy a civilization while nonchalantly sipping a cup of coffee and indiscriminately attacking innocent men, women and children, is meant to demean our military.
Obviously this movie takes place in the distant future but the quotes (“pre-emptive war,” “shock and awe”) are meant to intentionally draw attention to our present war with terrorism, which is now mostly located in Afghanistan. Further proof is the fact that a Marine is the main character.
Since the film in itself is fantasy why couldn’t the military force have come from some other planet besides Earth?
Knowing that 90% of “Hollywood” is liberal, anti George Bush, pro-Obama, and cowards, only confirms the anti military theme of this movie.
Anyone reading this who is or has been in the military should boycott this film.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
628 Comments
FWIW, I won't go see it. Not that old Mr Cameron will miss my money. I just do not understand Hollywood. Movies that not only question standards, but actively atack them.
My children were telling me of another cool movie they want to see, called Legion. Apperantly God sends the Angels to kill humanity in grousome displays. WTF?
And the French are apperantly the only ones making movies with US military / spies as the good guys (Taken). It is a strange world.
Chief, I agree. I have seen the movie & have expressed the same opinion several times. I have talked to people who are liberal & mass majority of them feel that demeaning the people who serve in our military is wrong, not because they feel war is right but because they see the need for the military. Basically stated, Hollywood is not even in touch with the Libs in the Fly-over Country.
It's astonishing how personally affected some conservatives are by silly Hollywood movies. How could a film — a work of fiction, pure entertainment — "demean our troops?" Does the author of this article not understand the fundamental nature of art, which is it's human beings who project their own values through their subjective point of view onto what is essentially an inaminate object? That's not to say his view is wrong — it's his view and therefore it's true for him. I saw Avatar and saw these troops as an extension of corporate villains, nothing to do with the Marines or the US military specifically.
And then to call for a boycott of the film is just pathetic. Why? Let people decide for themselves. Boycotting is nothing more than censorship by proxy and to champion such measures is to condone the suppression of speech and expression.
Conservatives, like the ones who oppose the so-called anti-military bias of this film, should be thankful that Mr Cameron is such a poor writer because this film will fade quickly in time due to its weak story, hollow characters and cringe-worthy dialogue. No pro-military conservative led boycott is necessary to diminish Avatar's popularity.
Personally, I don't think the plot of Avatar is any more realistic than the plot of Battle for Terra. I seriously doubt that if humanity found a beautiful planet full of life out in space that we would wreck it wholesale even if it contained valuable resources. Now, I doubt we would leave the resources alone, but given the way we must and do treat our backyards these days, we wouldn't be destroying it. The evil humans in this film seem to have been stuck in the era of open pit stripmining and other techniques used in the developing world. If we actually were able to fly off into outer space and discover other planets, we would have moved beyond those techniques. If we were able to fully clone creatures, wouldn't we have gone beyond that?
Nah, no interest in Avatar for a variety of reasons.
Hey, Bill, you're an IDIOT! Are you offended?!
perhaps we're just used to Jimmy 'The Thief' Cameron…
His portrayal of the military has always had that fascination/distrust thing that a lot of Canucks have for the US Colossus to the south. Whether it's his Space Marines in 'Aliens' (hard to believe an elite force would behave like motivational platoon Marines) or the wild -eyed psychotic SEAL in 'The Abyss' he has the conflicted emotions of a technogeek who loves the Gear but distrusts their uses.
This 'Avatar' anti-military thing is becoming tiresome; it is explained that they are contractors. Anyone in that field
(yes, we are) knows damn well that finding meathead trigger pullers isn't difficult. It's finding soldier/agent/diplomats that are smart AND humane to do the work is what's difficult. Several of the people we know- and who didn't much care for Eric Prince and Blackwater- saw some honest parallels in the film.
And these are patriotic conservative guys…
"Boycotting is nothing more than censorship by proxy and to champion such measures is to condone the suppression of speech and expression."
Censorship by proxy? Censorship is done by a government. If he (Treese) was suggesting that Cameron be arrested, ok, yes, that would be censorship by proxy. A boycott is FREEDOM OF EXPRESSON! Cameron made a movie using images that might offend. Cameron has a constitutional right to do that. Treese is making a statement in response to what he saw in that movie. Treese has a constitutional right to do that. That is called free speech. A boycott is an expression of that free speech. It not censorship!
Message received, Chief. Not a dime to this Cameron bum.
Bill, So "corporate villains" are fine? Noticed the unemployment rate lately? Sure hope we keep trashing "corporate villains" and letting the government take over private businesses and the economy – it's working out so well!
Actually, you agree with Mr. Treese – propaganda does work. You just don't want to admit the military is one of Avatar's targets. My nephew is in Iraq, I don't appreciate this anti-military trash!
"look at this film through the eyes of a patriot (one who loves and defends his country)."
The last time American troops fought to defend AMERICAN freedom, their uniforms were gray and they lost. We have suffered greatly since the victory of tyranny under Lincoln.
"However, portraying our military as fanatical crazed killers who have joined a military mercenary force to destroy a civilization so that corporations can capitalize on some rare commodity"
Sounds like Blackwater or Wii or whatever they are calling themselves this week.
We need to adopt a Swiss style militia and scrap the standing armies.
Okay. First off, the mercenairies portrayed in this film are NOT military! They are all EX military. They are now mercenaries. Guns for hire. If you look at this film as what it truly is: FANTASY, then you know this film in no way demeans the US Military. It DOES however demean huge corporations and mercenary organizations that do to indigenous peoples what is done by large corporations around the world for greed. I served in both the Marines AND the Army and to say I'm proud of my service to this country and proud of our military doesn't come close to describing my love for this country and our forces.
To twist this movie into something it is not is just not rational. Those mercenaries dipicted in this film are NOT US TROOPS! They are jus that: MERCENARIES hired by a greedy corporation that puts profit above life and nature.
I think you got it right about Cameron – and his "message." I think he actually likes military stuff – the technology, the uniforms, the lingo, the procedures – but he's paranoid about how the military is used.
In Avatar's case, I think the Evil Corporation is obviously the bad guy (a cliche all by itself), and the mercs are its obedient tools. The Earth government – whether it's the US government or some other entity – is obviously either turning a blind eye to or actively supporting the Evil Corporation's quest for unobtainium. Thus the Evil Corporation has become an entity to rival the State. It's got its own army and its own fleet of spaceships. And, more importantly, it's got its own "diplomatic" and economic agenda that it carries to other worlds. It doesn't represent Earth people, as a real diplomatic mission presumably would. It represents only itself, and maybe its ultra-rich executives and stockholders.
you bet- and while tiresome, and cliche' ridden it just isn't in the same league as say Oliver Stone's excoriation of the US Army in 'Platoon'- which was far more damaging to the military's image- and the truth- then this silly cartoon.
It will fade…
So Cameron's "message" is pretty obvious: Big Business has too much power. It acts like a law or state unto itself, rich and powerful enough to ignore the will of government and citizens. By having so much power yet not being answerable to the People, it subverts our democratic institutions. In Avatar, the military is just used as a prop to demonstrate how scary-powerful Big Business could be if left unchecked.
Big Bad Business is a theme most of Cameron's movies. So you could say that not only is the Evil Corporation a Hollywood cliche, it's Cameron's own, personal cliche as well.
It's a movie about protecting property rights. Get over it and stop your whining and crying
I remember when I was liberal and my arguments were reduced to saying things like, "…the mercenairies portrayed in this film are NOT military! They are all EX military."
I remember all the self-loathing that came with the splitting of such hairs, and then I decided that truth and compassion trumped ideology and all the self-loathing that accompanied such absurd and anti-intellectual rationalizations went away…
Just sayin'
He doesn't need your dime.
Meh.
It's a very strongly pro military film about protecting property rights
not as quickly as the scant attention to the conservative "outrage" over it will
It takes a small man to use big words
yes it is- and it is a tiresome 70's liberal canard as well. But it's what you're going to get from Cameron.
Don't forget the evile Teledyne corp that created 'Skynet'. He is consisitent in his fifth grade civics lessons…
I have serious doubts that a hack like Cameron can tarnish the heroic history of the United States Marine Corps. That history stands as a testament to the courage Marines have displayed for over 200 years. A movie like this, which I haven't seen and have absolutely no plans to see; will have absolutely no impact on anything. If I'm reading correctly, it's a bloody cartoon. Mr. Cameron's last blockbuster was what, Titanic?
Regardless, this veteran of 27 years and a vet of every action we've had in the sandbox since 1991 thinks this is a non-event. It's Hollywood, it's a cartoon and it's, wait for the shocker….not real.
If you think that a movie like this can tarnish the USMC, you're actually insulting the USMC more than the damn movie.
There ya go…
"I just do not understand Hollywood. Movies that not only question standards"
The world is dynamic. There is no such thing as standards. Everyone has a viewpoint and at least in America they are all free to express it. So kudos to you for expressing yours and kudos to Cameron expressing his and making a movie that 99% of the world loves.
Well, first- Cameron as much as admitted that the subtext of the film is Anti-American Hollywood rhetoric. Not specifically anti-millitary, but in this case, it's not a stretch to suggest that one is an extension of the other. Cameron even mentioned in an interview that if you disagree with the film's point of view, "{you're} obviously a Republican" — once again making the typical lib mistake of confusing Conservatives with Reps.
Secondly, boycotting isn't "censorship by proxy". That makes absolutely no sense. Censorship would be preventing the movie from release or freedom of expression. Boycotting is using the free market to keep movies like this from being made in the future. Not even close to the same thing. The film is released, it is impossible to censor it.
And thirdly, to suggest that the second highest grossing film of all time will be forgotten is naive (at best). Mr Treese is disgusted with the film's typical Hollywood, Anti-American message. It's a message that it force fed into the hearts and minds of our children. And those films will remain in our kids' memories. They won't remember the dialogue. They'll remember cool looking special effects, bright beautiful colors and subconscious themes of "corporations and government BAD!" It happened to me as a kid. I was lucky enough to be born someone who questions conventions.
'Cause he got yours ?
Yes, I agree we should scrap our military and hand over all of our wealth to other countries and all will be well in the world, as all evil emanates solely from the United States of America. Does that about sum it up for you?
I have nothing but the greatest respect for your background and your point of view. However the differentiation of the aggressors in "Avatar" as corporate mercenaries rather than actual Marines strikes me as a "distinction without a difference." At the risk of sounding like a deconstructionist I believe that, given the context of the last eight years, Cameron means this as a genuine commentary on all "armed forces." Making the marine types the henchmen of the evil corporation is just a fig-leaf to provide a partial defense against charges that he is smearing the military. Cameron knows that the core audience for this film, those between ten and their early twenties, will quickly forget the distinction between governmental and private entities and focus on the images of jack-booted military types destroying an edenic paradise populated by eco-friendly characters. Hopefully I am wrong but I don't think so.
as folk who were never liberal we ahd no such conflictions…
And that's why ultimately we have little real problem with Cameron's goony liberalism. He has always wanted to have his cake (the cool gear and explosions and stuff) and eat it too (hey, we're all about peace and non-violence) and it's a schizophrenia to be sure. We'll even buy 'the corrosive effect' argument.
But as experience has shown us, civilian contractors can be a problem, and a foreign policy that is not controlled, or answerable to the people is an issue. It's nowhere near the crisis the left would like us to think-
but there are at least some honest parallels here…
Well, said, patriot! When will Hollywood realize that no one in the American military could ever do anything wrong?
No it's not. It's a very weak story propped up with dazzling special effects and 3D. That's all this is, nothing more, nothing less. You think Cameron spent all that money and all that time on the writing?? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Mr. Cameron wouldn't know an original story if it bit him in the wallet….. He can put together good eye candy though, just don't expect an original (or even a good) story….
Ok, Let's get one thing straight. True ART is when you use your imagination to make people consider many viewpoints and invoke questions. Propaganda is when the medium is used to tell people the "correct" answers. Avatar for all its half billion dollar effects is not ART it is propaganda. It is not conservatives seeing this in the film which is quite frankly quite evident anyways. It is the director Cameron telling us that is what the movie intends.
If you want a really good anti-war film I would suggest the movie "Soldier". It shows the errors and travesty of war but still gives respect to the Soldiers that fight it. Kurt Russell's character is banished when he tries to get the young boy to kill the poisonous snake but is sought after when the father realizes why the Soldier was doing that when the boy kills a snake that was going to bite him in his bed. By the way Cameron's right to make propaganda does not mean I give up my right not to see it.
I guess the movie theaters were filled with Obama voters this weekend.
I have not, nor will I see this movie. Pretty flashy things do not impress me in the slightest, so this movie is not on the radar. Mr. Treese, thank you and your son for your and his service for this country. Your guys' sacrifice is what makes this country great, and it's what gives Mr. Cameron the ability to make movies like Avatar. He should be getting down on both knees and praising the people who have, do and will wear a military uniform, not taking cheap cinematic shots at them. But, what do you expect from a guy with no balls.
not sure what you mean by 'scant attention'…
the only story 'out there' is about how much conservatives hate the film and the left thinks it has found a divisive issue IT can use. That's why we are urging a little context to frame the argument.
It's no more outrageous than other less successful films- it is because it is a cultural phenomenon
(for now) that everyone is 'verklempt' about it now…
Get out much, Chris? The world is a rather different place compared to what you imagine it to be from your parent's basement.
Let's each just boycott the hideous thing for our own reasons…
Me, I'm with CWO Treese; the negative portrayal of military, current or former, is my reason…
Someone else can skewer this thing because of the "Evil Corporation" crap…if the corporations are so evil, why is there a Lightstorm Entertainment? Because Cameron's corporation is inherently not evil; one, because its his, and two, because its focus is so noble…sounds like the Congresscritters personal corporate pets…(the hidden number three is that they get paid off from the corporation)…
Imagine what could come out if Cameron actually made a good military movie, against nasty Jihadists who teach children to behead people? Think "True Lies" writ large and more realistic…
couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact we didn't like the portrayal of the Space Marines in 'Aliens' (one would think you could do better than raid Pendleton's motivational platoon for an elite interplanetary Raider force)
more than the civilian contractors portrayed here…
It's Pocahantas re-done, per image seen in internet.
Joe S, You have a right to your opinion, but I completely disagree. I really don't see how you could come to that conclusion.
and once again that's why we'll buy the 'corrosive effect' argument. Yes, foreigners will be subjected to US military-types who are 'roided up and shoot first and ask questions later with insane cutting edge gear.
One of these days they will show what REAL soldiers and marines do with just duct tape…
No absolute good? No absolute evil? I think you are wrong, Joe.
BTW, great way to use a partial quote, you should look into a career in journalism.
I guess you mean me. If you do, no I'm not offended. How could I be? I don't know you. Same with the movie. Let's say Cameron did make the movie with the intent to show Marines and America as being war mongering aggressors, etc. OK — so what? Do you really care what Cameron has to say? This is what I don't get — why would you get offended by the opinion of someone, even if it is explicitly demeaning. You decide to be offended. Don't give Cameron the power to offend you. That's all I'm saying.
They are protecting their property from being forcibly seized by a foreign interest, just like you and everyone else on this forum would do.
A little late to boycott it- about a billion dollars too late, to be exact.
We can only hope that this technology will be put to use by someone with more cultural literacy than Mr. "King of the World."
I do agree that the miliatry in general is being villified, of course, but only in the sense that they are an extension of an "evil" corporate entity. I will agree that Cameron probably wanted to be critical of American military more than any other because, obviously, these characters are all Americans. Presumably in the distant future, if humans are exploring other planets then they would be essentially international forces. By that time the concept of dividing lines on Earth would be archaic. But Cameron wanted there to be parallels between the fiction on screen and the reality of Iraq. Every artist (I use the term loosely) does so or else their work doesn't have any frame of reference.
So, I saw Avatar and thought it was a pretty poorly written and hackneyed story with great special effects about how the Evil White Man will destroy nature and kill the native inhabitants. It's happened before and it will happen again. Every major Western nation has done it before, so I don't see this film as being particularly anti-American. Why get offended by something so simplistic and lame as Avatar?
There isn't much in Hollywood that isn't derivative. As far as the script, I thought it was pretty awful. Artistically it was fantastic, and to me the message was great – protect and respect nature, resist the taking of property by outside foreign interests
Corporate "greed" is responsible for the computer you typed your comment on. Whatever huge corporation built that computer did not do so because it wanted to make the world a better place – it did so for profit. Or "greed," if you will. I would venture to say that the copper and silver in the circuit boards of that computer came, ultimately, from strip mines. How many strip mines do you suppose it takes to satisfy the world's demand for computers and other electronic gadgets – not to mention the wiring needed to supply power to those gadgets? How many hectares of natural habitat perished so we can sit here writing inane comments on this blog? How many "indigenous peoples" work in those mines rather than hopping around in the jungle like "real" natives are supposed to?
Condemning Big Business is easy when you can cherry-pick incidents of corporate stupidity and blame them on "greed." Just don't look too closely at your own lifestyle. The cognitive dissonance will give you a headache.
I'm sure Cameron's upcoming Hiroshima flick won't be anti-U.S. military (yes, I'm being sarcastic).
See what your $10 is funding? I value our fighting men & women more than 3D shiny things.
Cameron knows that the core audience for this film, those between ten and their early twenties
Then that is the audience's fault, not his
Based on T2 as well, Cameron doesn't like war. Hard to disagree with that position
"the only story 'out there' is about how much conservatives hate the film and the left thinks it has found a divisive issue IT can use"
I haven't seen any stories in print to that effect (the left part). Can you provide a few examples?
I'm with Mjolnir.
Chief, I thank you and your wife for your service to our country. We owe you a lot. I'll be keeping your son in my prayers. I hope you'll come back and let us know how he's doing.
I was talking to A. Men, not you Bill. I think you're spot on.
How can a message be "force fed into the hearts and minds of our children" when it's a movie people either decide to see or not? There's no force feeding being done.
Hollywood films don't have hidden messages or propaganda — they're too stupid to be able to so deftly write that into their films! Avatar clearly states corporations are evil. Nothing subliminal about it.
And believe me, right now the 3D images in Avatar are the best in cinema history, but 5 years from now they'll be thought of in the same way we think of Jurassic Park today. Kids growing up now no nothing other than CGI and computer technology. It's not like they've gone from stop-motion animation to this. They see films these days as being the norm, nothing special.
Because the story of Avatar is so bad, the film will be forgotten because once a 3D film is made with the effects and a great story is made, that will be the one that lasts.
So was " The Simpsons ".
The only thing you should be taking from this movie is the pair of 3D glasses they give you in the theater. To assign ANY importance to this 3 hour fluff-fest is a sign that you're looking for bigger meaning where there is none.
My friend picked up the game for his xbox and asked me if I wanted to play, but since I already knew what the premise of the movie was I would'nt touch it. I'm getting sick and tired of movies showing our military as blood thirsty idiotic drones.
I hate boycotts in the same way I loathe the political correctness movement that makes it impossible for certain films or TV shows to be made simply because their content goes against what is deemed "acceptable" by the PC standards. That is a tacit form of censorship, just as a group of people spurned by their own political convictions call on boycotting sponsors of TV shows or call for all "military families" to not go see a film based on nothing more than their own perceived ideas that the film is wrong to support.
I can never agree with anyone who says he or she didn't see a film because someone told me not to. Simply as that. Why not just express your opinion that the film has some offensive content and then let others decide to see it or not without calling on them to boycott?
wow make belive scares people wow now i have no hope left for the race known as human. you people suck
I've just now read all the comments on how the movie disparages the military (Marines) and the USA. Over the weekend, my wife and I broke down and went to see the show. The topic of conversation with my friends was mostly about how 3D movies had improved. The first thing that struck me was that Cameron had stolen the movie "Dances With Wolves." The similarity of both leaves no doubt in my mind at all. Check it out!!
That is wrong on so many levels. No such thing as standards?
Throwing acid in the face of young girls to prevent them from going to school? WRONG!
Attempting to purge a continent of one particular race? WRONG!
Sexual predators preying on children? WRONG!
See, it's actually pretty easy to have standards of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. That is a standard.
It's a poorly thought out mish-mash of several movies with the same premise, glazed over with some pretty wild special effects.
To assign even the slightest importance to this film is ridiculous. There is no message, there is no bigger meaning or great truth it tries to tell. I think Marines are way above any insult Cameron could muster.
I've seen the commercials for Legion. It seems to me Hollywood is just yanking the Book of Revelations out of the closet. Again. They just can't get enough of all that good old fashioned vengeful deity from the Old Testament.
Too bad none of them would take the time to learn what Revelations is really about. Of course, that takes all the fun out of using it for scripts.
So Bill, spent much time around the military have ya?
look at the links on BH over the last week- MSNBC, ABC, The LA Times- all weighed in on how much conservatives 'hate' the film. David Shuster weighed in in it as has others. They see it as a possible 'wedge' issue because it is so popular it can paint the right as reactionary fuddy duddies…
Sounds to me like you're using a standard there. I read somewhere they no longer exist.
Property rights? Aren't those standards?
I'll see it when it's free on non-pay cable channels. Until then, meh.
[...] A Veteran Speaks: ‘Avatar’ Demeans Our Military Having served 23 years in the military and in Vietnam, and having a son who leaves for Afghanistan this month, I look at this film through the eyes of a patriot (one who loves and defends his country). [...]
I went to a party in Hollywood recently and thought I'd do a little research. Every person I asked what Avatar was about referred to the soldiers as Marines. These are not stupid people. They went to elite universities and actually graduated. They work and succeed in a liberal industry and the vast majority of them are liberal. They missed the little 'mercenary' hair-splitting entirely and when I said I'd heard they weren't Marines, but ex-Marine mercenaries they basically said "whatever, they were Marines".
your mom….
" True ART is when you use your imagination to make people consider many viewpoints and invoke questions. Propaganda is when the medium is used to tell people the "correct" answers."
AMEN.
LOL. Spiderpig rocks.
"That's not to say his view is wrong — it's his view and therefore it's true for him."
Wow.
Do you believe that's true for white supremacists too? Views aren't wrong? It's their view and therefore it's true for them?
I don't believe you honestly think that. "True for you" always means one of two things… the belief is actually true for *everyone* OR the belief is irrelevant, perhaps quaint, but without impact. "True for you" is a short-cut claim to moral superiority, really. "Hey, look how tolerant and enlightened I am."
But it's not REALLY true that human values are all equal and that a person's view is their own view and therefore true for *them* because that *never* applies to things that those spouting that phrase actually disapprove of.
Like racism.
Or sexism.
Or any other personal opinion deemed to reflect a closed or narrow viewpoint. The right to have "true" opinions never goes that far. Not ever.
Blackwater had a contract with the US government to provide protection, and the government is answerable to the voters at the ballot box.
Frankly I don't see how any operation of the magnitude dramatized in this movie could happen with out at least the tacit approval of a government. And if the operation portrayed in this movie is as big as the trailers indicate, then imagine the size and the scope of the government that rules over it?
Either way, in my opinion, it leads back to government, which is what the military answers to.
he may not like war but he loves seeing stuff 'blowed up real good'…
This from the same people who go apeshit over anything that just might possibly offend the victim-group-du-jour.
What's wrong with taking exception to an insult?
Curious, though, how now the message of movies is irrelevant, the pen is not mightier than the sword.
Elsewhere in the news Chavez is telling his people that although he devalued the currency, those businesses who have inventories bought with the old currency, and who will have to buy replacement inventories with the new currency, have no reason to raise their prices. It's all a lie. Don't let them rob you!
Now, how *possibly* could another simplistic morality tale about how corporations only want to destroy and steal from people hurt anything at all in the real world?
I guess I was a strange case of modern liberalism. I was never anti-military. Perhaps it was a steady diet of John Wayne type movies, plus several members of my extended family (as well as many ancestors) served in the military and some saw action. (Some quite a bit.)
Also I don't seem to remember a whole lot of anti-militarism in the region I grew up in. There were the standard, off the shelf idiots up at the local state university, but they never amounted to very many. They still don't, even with the protests over Iraq. I don't think the weekly peace-ins ever drew more than a dozen and a half protesters.
Perhaps its the abundance of VFWs and American Legions all over town. Or perhaps a dedicated work force – this was a very loyal company town.
Either way, I don't think you can definitively define anti-military as an attribute of modern liberalism. Though it does seem to be on the rise.
no doubt…
never said this was an honest portrayal. It's a friggin' comic book. And yes, the previous administration paid in popularity for Blackwater and others. What was a political and economic neccessity- the privatization of both US foreign policy and war- had repercussions that were negative, sad to say.
We all have to stop looking at this cartoon as some sort of sage analysis of the State of Our Nation,
and treat it like the loony Jimmy Cameron fantasy it is…
I agree, and I like your handle. Wish I'd thought of it first.
Mr, Treese, thank you for your service to our nation. Please let your son know we are praying for his and all his comrades, safe return home.
You are right. And note how it still matters to Joe that he is in the majority. Apparently that is one standard he won´t give up unless it suits him. (But … 99%? Not bloody likely)
Flaying Joe S. alive with a cheese grater … wrong. I think.
So?
Bill Fenner wrote:
That's not to say his view is wrong — it's his view and therefore it's true for him.
So, I guess you believe that modern minstrel plays like Shirley Q. Liquor are okay since the actor believes racism isn't really evil:
http://banshirleyqliquor.typepad.com/
And you're okay with a group of Australian students having a pro-rape page on Facebook. After all, rapists think it's good to sexually assault women so who are we to judge:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/...
This is why political correctness is insane.
And, amazingly, it wasn't played that way.
If it was played that way Jake Sully would be re-enforcing his existing principles leading to the conclusion that the betrayal was committed by the Quaritch character. Instead he was shown to entirely cross over.
Did you happen to notice, BTW, that the Na'vi were profoundly incurious about the universe? None of them was driven to *know* anything for the sake of knowing it. No one was curious or driven to explore or discover. Not one of them had individual dreams that was different from the community consensus. Oh, the harmony and bliss!
Sorry. I wasn't clear in my comments. I was not slamming corporations. I was attempting to explain that the movie was meant to demean our military.
wow you really got teh message of this movie youll love it
I'm right there with you man. I'm starting to feel like to only one who hasn't seen avatar. And Legion? I've always hated Hollywood movies with angels- they usually through in some weird sexual context that offends the hell out of me. Pass.
idiot will believe what they want…
Most civilians know little of the military. Many people think flight #93 was shot down over Pennsylvania as well. They don't understand that firing an AMRAAM requires not just a pilot but all of the guys on the flight line and the ordinance crew and all the paperwork anytime someone goes tactical. There would be dozens of guys, some Airmen 1st class- who would be in that loop.
So it goes with contractors. The liberal elite sort of know 'of them' without drawing distinctions. There ignorance of anything outside their narrow purview is pretty astounding, actually…
@butternuts
I hope you don't freak out over the myth that Earth will explode due to man-made global warming. I bring this up because most secular liberals do believe that we human beings can control the weather.
Personally, I don´t like proclaiming boycotts for the simple reason that they must be used sparingly to be effective and even then they don´t work unless you have real buying power behind you.
I must also say that while I found Avatar´s obvious politics predictable and annoying, it is not the worst offender when it comes to smearing the military, not by a long shot. However, that doesn´t make it good. I might have forgiven it if it wasn´t so badly written.
However there is nothing wrong with likeminded people deciding that they don´t need to see a movie which telegraphs its weaks points in the trailer and every clip you can find. You are never going to see every movie, so you have to use some criteria and ours are as good as any others.
I didn't quite get the anti-war message you did out of "Soldier", though I liked the movie and even shelled out the coin to see it when it was in theaters. I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was a better anti-war movie as it's done the best job I've seen of illustrating the horrors of war. Another movie from uber-lib Steven Spielberg also graphically illustrates the necessity of war: "Schindler's List".
no, we don't…
There is a real need for privatized security, and sometimes even on a large scale. It just needs to be run well, and with the oversight of the US State Department. And the template for contractors needs to be addressed more wisely- too many guys who want to return to the Sandbox for trigger time and get big bucks for it.
Not what they need. Need diplomats WITH martial knowledge and experience. Hard to find…
They aren't Marines! They're MERCENARIES!
It's really too late for any kind of serious boycott. This movie is the 2nd highest grossing flick of all time and I'm sure Tokyo Rose Cameron will make some sequels that will make the big bucks as well.
But, as for me, I was so disgusted by this movie's messege – that I will no longer be attending any Cameron movies from this point on. Will my individual boycott amount to much? No. But, who cares. Any movie where the audience is asked to cheer every time a US Marine is killed, will not be getting any more of my money.
Also, when Cameron makes his Hiroshima film, will he be sure to include the Japanese atrocities across the Pacific? Will he include the massive bombing of China by Japanese air forces. Will he include the millions of murders, rapes and acts of torture committed by the Japanese Imperial Army? Will he include the Baatan Death March? I think not.
The truth is of course that businesses cannot escape the law or market forces for very long (and I´m fine with that). But governments can. Bernie Madoff is in jail. Chris Dodd will merely retire so Democrats can keep his seat forever. Who really escapes responsibility? Who takes more, destroys more of our money?
On that note, CNN reports that some Avatar fans want to kill themselves because the planet Pandora doesn't exist.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/...
And you thought Star Wars fans camping out to see the (really bad) Star Wars: Episode I were extreme.
You must be logged in to post a comment.