I saw Avatar a few of weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it was one of the best movie experiences I've ever had. The 3D and CGI effects are amazing; a science fiction world is vibrantly visualized like never before. With this technology (and, currently, tons of money) sci-fi can finally be brought to the screen with little that needs to be left to the imagination (and I suppose that can either be a good thing or a bad thing)!
Some of the reviews have struck me as strange. For example, my good friend Richard Leis found the story anti-technological and anti-progress. Another transhumanist blogger, George Dvorsky, goes several steps further to add that Avatar is anti-corporate, anti-human and is "Gaianist" propoganda. With all due respect... what are they smoking?
Let's recap the story. Many reviews have pointed out similarities in plot to Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, FernGully or Princess Mononoke. None of which I have seen, so I can't comment on that. But here's Avatar in a nutshell: a Western imperialist soldier switches allegience, coming to the aid of aboriginals, leading them to a victory they otherwise would have lost. If set in a historical setting, that would be very condescending, I would think. Set in a future, distant world it is something else; perhaps lacking in creativity you might say, maybe appropriate for a style of retro-pulp Indiana Jones sci-fi, but Cameron doesn't go there. Here's the twist: the world is a living entity, and responds to the crisis with a wave of biological activity that crushes the imperialist invaders. We might add that the imperialists in the story are the paramilitary half of a corporation (the other half is R&D) seeking to mine a mineral needed for the ongoing expansion of humanity.
Now let's examine the charges....
Read More
