A Native Americans view of Avatar

[Clarke]

(HNM: If you don't read any other part of this post, read the block under the second-to-last quote.)

Originally Posted by Human No More

Jake is still average to bad at the vast majority of things. It's an explicit point that any random Na'vi is likely better than him at specific skills. Jake couldn't pass himself off as a real Na'vi either; yet in 90 days someone CAN learn basics.

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.

You're kind of proving my own point here... - Quaritch is an idiot. He's deliberately choosing language that is actually wrong for his own point.

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

Discriminating against a majority for no good reason is racism.

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

YES. Watch the film; look at some images; watch or read about the deleted scenes.

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.

~15% is a majority now? Nope.

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

Because many actors of other races fit VERY specific roles.

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.

The composition, including background, is as would be expected - mostly but not exclusively white (and presumably US, British and European; predominantly the former). Don't complain because a film is realistic.

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".)

It would also make less sense as to why he's in the US, and you'd complain about that.

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 know you too well, and you are unpleasable with regards to Avatar when you get onto this bandwagon. I don't really understand it, as at other times you're fine and someone I can actually get on with.

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

So you're saying that if Jake was black, idiots wouldn't complain?

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.

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

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?

I wouldn't say that Dr Who sucks simply because humans aren't immortal...

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.

[Human No More]

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

Originally Posted by Clarke

I did not get this impression from the film. Where's it stated? (Honest question, no sarcasm.)

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

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.

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.

However, reading back, I think the author is referring to pretty much everything else, rather than the Na'vi. Noticeably, there's nothing furry.

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

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

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 - might help explain the general state of Earth too.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I really don't understand how you can claim you love Avatar and then slip in hidden disparaging comments in the same breath

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.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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 - might help explain the general state of Earth too.

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.

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.

I don't know about RPN, but I try to be friendly, really. 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.