Do the additional CE scenes make Selfridge more evil?

[Woodsprite]

Selfridge did not deserve to die. He deserved to get taught a lesson. He isn't as firmly grounded in his ideals as Quaritch was.

I think Cameron had a reason for keeping Selfridge in the picture; he's not so blatant and one-sided as to just kill off every antagonist for the sake of pure juvenile anger...

[Sothis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

it's disappointing he didn't get ANY of what was coming to him at all in the released versions

I wouldn't be so sure of this. The script describes him as a "lost soul" at the end of the movie. For a really good character study of Parker Selfridge post-movie, read this:
The Killer in Me, an Avatar fanfic - FanFiction.Net

Originally Posted by Human No More

I think even with the deleted scenes, he still deserved to die.

I don't agree with you here; Woodsprite's response sums up my feelings pretty well. I certainly would not absolve him of responsibility for what happened, but he never wanted a war and he never wanted to be a killer. His downfall was that he was short-sighted, narrow-minded, and cowardly... he didn't fully appreciate/ foresee the consequences of his decisions and thus lost control of the situation. He made some terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean he "deserved to die."

Even if you're not convinced and still think Selfridge "deserved to die," I would refer you to the words of Gandalf the Wise:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends

[Human No More]

The script is a different thing... I certainly read the script and I was VERY happy before the CE came out that he at least got some of what he deserved... but I think to actually properly see it would be something else.

[SnowRider]

I think overall the additional scenes paint a (somewhat) more complex picture of Selfridge but basically, he is who he is.

He's a corporate stooge who is trying to do a tough job, and he basically doesn't have the courage of his convictions (if he has any) to stand up and do what's right. So instead, he goes along to get along so the corporation's bottom line (Profit) is not sacrificed.

And, in the end, he loses, because he either doesn't see or can't see the bigger picture.

[Woodsprite]

I think the bigger question we should ask is, what does the RDA represent, ethically?

If we were to go to the absolute extreme and compare the RDA to... say, the Nazis (of whom I know certain people here tend to subtley implicate), and some CEO on earth representing Hitler, who would Selfridge be? My stance: he's someone like Albert Speer. Yes, he did the wrong thing, and kept doing it knowingly. But in the end, after he was sent to earth (much like Speer was sent to prison for 20 years), he understood his fault.

[txim_asawl]

I wouldn't go quite as far back in history and rather use a comparison from corporate America: Pacific Lumber, formerly family-owned, had a policy of "sustainable growth", harvesting wood in a comparingly careful way, before a Texan named Charles Hurwitz and his company Maxxam Inc. executed a hostile takeover and changed that to a policy of strictly profit-oriented clear-cutting, without any regards to any ecological consequences. That even led to massive landslides in the area they were massively cutting trees in (Stafford, Humboldt County, New Year's Eve 1996). The events and those companies became known to the public due to activists trying to protect the trees there, foremost a certain Julia Butterfly Hill, living in a 600-year-old redwood tree for two years.

I bet that some of PL's executives must've felt like Selfridge, being stuck between the hammer and the anvil, having to comply to the big bosses' orders, profit-oriented only, regardless of the consequences.

Wiggling bare toes,

~*Txim Asawl*~