I can only imagine what would happen if someone said this to you.

The truth is that no, Jake is not better than any random Na'vi at anything. I try to avoid bashing something I haven't seen past "I don't like the premise/genre/author/what I've heard of the plot" and if I was to discuss it, I'd make sure I did my research in a more in-depth manner than wikipedia - even if I don't get every detail of the worldbuilding, understanding basic plot points isn't unreasonable.

That said, maybe I do take things like the link in the OP too seriously. After all, what people think doesn't affect me; that was the entire reason stopped reading tvtropes after all, because they were causing me too much stress and aggravation with their worthless views. I should be more careful with similar people elsewhere, including the link in the OP.
:(

Here is another article that discusses the issue of race in connection with Avatar:

When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"?

I have never understood why anyone thinks that's a viable interpretation.

Guilt is so irrelevant. They sure do think they're clever though.

redpaintednavi, why are you even posting this crap? This is why people think you're a concern troll.

HNM,

I find the articles posted here interesting; and I fail to see the harm in posting and discussing them.

Please don't be so fast to dismiss views other than your own as worthless to others.

- Mikko

You've never been to tvtropes, have you? :P
That was my point - a lot of people just jump onto a bandwagon to bash Avatar because it was successful. Bringing argument from authority into it makes it even worse, especially when the claimed authority is completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Again, I would ALWAYS do the research if criticising a work on an in-universe point. I wouldn't say that Dr Who sucks simply because humans aren't immortal, because I know that he's not actually a human, and that is a simple plot point on par with the fact that Jake is NOT better than any Na'vi at anything.

As I actually said within the context of earlier:
I hate it when people assert otherwise and use that as their entire basis for bashing Avatar.

I would also say that here of all places, do we really need to know what such people think?

redpaintedna'vi, maybe I misread your intentions for this thread, and maybe you don't agree with those links you are posting, but we do not need links to people going on about how much they hate Avatar. It just isn't necessary or nice to post here. Maybe I've jumped to a conclusion too quickly and you aren't actually being sincere and agreeing with all this anti-Avatar stuff, but we do NOT need to know 'how the enemy thinks' either. Just leave it alone and let people enjoy Avatar how it comes to them without telling people they should only care about Earth or not find Neytiri attractive or anything else like that.

(HNM: If you don't read any other part of this post, read the block under the second-to-last quote.)
I did not get this impression from the film. Where's it stated? (Honest question, no sarcasm.)
Also, there's a difference between basics, and being able to rally a small army around you. Even with the Messiah-like advantage of being Toruk Makto, doing that, having used the body for 90 days, is rather surprising.

...I don't see what you mean. Nobody deliberately makes mistakes. (Except for advantage somewhere else, but that doesn't apply here.)

I understand that the "good reason" is, "Oops, we've been discriminating in your favour for the last 80 years."

Sorry, I was being overly pedantic. I meant that although the Na'vi certainly look like mammals, biologically they can't be, since they're aliens.
However, reading back, I think the author is referring to pretty much everything else, rather than the Na'vi. Noticeably, there's nothing furry.

Oops, I misspoke. I meant to say that most people are Chinese, rather than the majority.

I honestly can't find a way of interpreting that that isn't racist in some way, whether on your part or (more likely) Hollywood's.

Would you expect the same balance of science/military/etc proficiency in 140 years time as there is now? It might have even been an interesting bit of world-building if all the scientists had been Indian and the military American. (Even more so if they gave Grace flak for being "dumb".)

The only reference to him being in the US is his mention of VA, and Quaritch's mention of his background. You don't have to change the film that much to take those out, if you had to. (And IMO, you don't have to. There are minorities in the USMC, after all.)

I seem unpleasable because we're talking about the bits I dislike. :P See below.

Tbh, when I wrote that post, I was forgetting about the Daily Mail readers who like to write in about these things. Apart from them, I can't think why anyone would complain about a decently developed non-white character. e.g. AFAIK nobody complained about Vasquez, and nobody complained about Trudy being a minority.

Personally, I think you're overreacting a little. People aren't all out to get you, or the film, and I don't think anyone seriously thinks Avatar is the "Worst. Film. Evah." The article in the OP isn't even talking about the film that much in terms of actual cinema; it's talking about the reaction some people have to it, and why it's a bad idea to interpret the film a certain way. That's all. (In that light, you might want to take a closer look at whether you're getting worked up over something worthwhile. Nobody should get stressed out over worthless things.)

That said, my view on the film is that it makes some mistakes (as does every movie, to one degree or another) but is brilliant in spite of that. Some of them are minor (IMO, the pacing's a little front-loaded) others are more major, (how do the RDA's finances work?) but there is plenty that the film gets right as well - and what it does right it does brilliantly. I was depressed for pretty much the entire winter of 2010, thanks to Cameron's throwing me into Pandora. (The final battle sequence also shows that Cameron is among the [if not the] best at cinematic action.) To add to his credit, he even manages to get me invested in characters I would otherwise think rather thin.

However, I don't want to aggravate you or anyone else. I'm not out to attack you, and I don't really want to fall out with you. You obviously put a lot more importance on the film than I do, so if you don't want me offering my (IMO, pretty mild and well-informed) opinion, I won't. I'd like to, though, since I have learned some things from what you've said, and I like discussing film. I know I've annoyed you already; I'm sorry, I got a bit carried away. :(
Can I get a hug, please?

That's a rather bad example. It's a perfectly valid criticism of Who that there's no in-universe explanation for humans (and the companions especially) being mortal. Resurrection has even been demonstrated a couple of times, and becomes plot-important at one point.

I'm a little late to the party here (okay, quite late), but I do not see the problem with having a controversial opinion be the topic of a thread. That said, I have no idea where this particular thread is going, so I'll leave it at that :xD:

Edit: I'm not going to do this. All the parts I shouldn't have responded to have been removed.

It doesn't have to be verbally stated. It's clear as day if you actually watch the film.

There is no precedent for taxonomy of non-Earth lifeforms; it is perfectly plausible to build a parallel class tree defined under the same criteria. Since not everyone who follows the film and related topics has an advanced Biology qualification, to most people mammal has less of a specific definition - it's like race for species in just about every scifi and fantasy work ever - technically incorrect, but everyone knows what it means.

Because all mammals have a full covering of fur, right? Oh, wait, no, they don't :facepalm:.

Also incorrect.
The word you are looking for is plurality, and at the country level.
People should not be obliged to have every minor statistic mirror Earth 2012. If you REALLY care enough to be bothered by the lack of tokenism, just tell yourself China got wiped out in WW3 in the Avatar universe or something :P - might help explain the general state of Earth too.
Yes. I get a bit carried away too, just in the opposite direction to you - I just get so sued to defending it everywhere else that it hurts when I have to do it on a site that is about it, which is normally friendly; somewhere I used to go when I needed respite from the endless hipsters with their copypasta arguments. :(


My point was that I know he isn't actually a human despite looking like one, so criticising it because he is immortal and humans aren't (implicitly assuming he is one) is outright incorrect; it's the direct equivalent of criticising Avatar for Jake being good at things - it's outright incorrect because it relies on a premise that is not true.

What's funny, is that the officer in Dances With Wolves never became the leader of the tribe. He just became a man of worth.

When people Question Rather James Cameron wrote Avatar as a attempt to represent Native Americans "and a number of film reviewers have made this mistake" , here is James Cameron himself responding Directly to that Question.
10 Questions for James Cameron - YouTube

Here is a Review on the film from a young Native American filmmaker she has quite a positve respectful positive outlook on the film and slams other film reviews in her look at the film.
part 1:
Avatar Review Part 1 - YouTube
Part 2:
Avatar Review Part 2 - YouTube

Perhaps because Avatar is not a religion for him. One can actually like or even love something but still find some aspects to criticize. There are few (if any) things in the world that are perfect, still one can like them.

Oh dear, now RPN's post doesn't make sense. (Though I'd agree with him, apart from calling it "religion.")

I didn't see it. It's true that Jake can't speak Na'vi that well, and can't ride worth anything, but that doesn't have any sort of impact after he becomes Toruk Makto. At that point, thousands start following him just because he can pull off that one act of acrobatics... despite the fact that he's a Sky Person. (which should be P.R. suicide, considering how xenophobic the Na'vi are.) It might technically be true that he's not the most badass Na'vi currently alive, but it certainly isn't shown that way, IMO.

Hence my aside about the author likely missing the fact that people are technically mammals. There is not a lot on Pandora that resembles what laypeople generally think of as mammals, e.g. dogs, cats, rodents.

They aren't. I think we're mixing up contexts again. To clarify:
1. I am disappointed that Avatar matches US c.a. 2012 demographies so closely. Cameron has 140 years to play with, so he could have any demography mix he could care for IMO, and its laziness on his part to go with what already exists.
2. I was trying to show that your logic was incorrect, by making up the example of most people being Chinese, thus a film marketed to everyone should have a Chinese protagonist, to appeal to the most people. We both know this is nonsensical, but it's the end result of the "make sure the audience can relate to them" logic. (This line of thinking pops up in that "When will white people..." article as well.)

I'm not going to invent backstory so that Cameron's clearly out-of-universe decisions are justified, sorry. However, if he did that, I'd appreciate it; it'd at least mean he was acknowledging the issue, which is more than can be said for a lot of film-makers.

I don't know about RPN, but I try to be friendly, really. :embarrassed: I try to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt, and I've never wrote an argument just to annoy anyone. I do think there are problems in Avatar, especially in terms of worldbuilding, race and disability; however, it's your site, and if you'd like an echo chamber, than you can have one, and I'm not going to impinge.