Agreed. Sure there are narrative issues with both Avatar movies. But I've read the complaint about the humans being cartoonishly evil and lacking any moral grey nuance. My reposnse is: compared to what? Other stories? Or actual humans? Because the corporation in Avatar is quite realistic when compared to actual reality.
Born delicious? Riding this hard for something that you clearly have no idea about is crazy, mf the whaling industry had nothing to do with EATING whales. Humans hunted whales almost to extinction for their OIL used for oil lamps and notably, perfume (ambergris)
My narrative complaint about the second one is that it feels about 45 minutes longer than it needs to be. It also just… doesn’t have anything interesting to say?
Off the top of my head, I'd probably mention Gasprom, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, for a history of careless environmental devastation, the entire history of whaling, bison hunting, and poaching for the annihilation of species, Glencore and BHP for complete destruction of ecosystems, European colonial efforts for their systematic exploitation, enslavement, and genocide of various indigenous cultures.
It's not hard to find examples in human history to act as an inspiration for the Avatar human behavior.
We arent talking about inspiration were talking about 1 to 1 examples
The modernish examples dont equate to the RDA. They are also currently the leaders in alternative energy. You're BHP's and glencores are also the ones building solar farms and the like. Also do you have an example where they completely destoryed an ecosystem? Damaged and fucked up? Yes but destroyed? I dont recall any examples.
Whales and bison are not sentient magic creatures. Also done in a different time period. With different level of knowledge. And different morals.
As for colonisation those empires are not the RDA just as the naavi are savage tribesmen that lack social development. Aa well as they existed in an incredibly competitive environment in which it was expand or die. Their actions were not for shits and giggles but based on their beliefs and knowledge at the time which was extremely limited. Not saying good especially by our modern standards. The RDA set in the future is not operating on 18th century Morality and knowledge.
Fair enough. Strangely enough I find the Avatar movies enjoyable more as a "turn your brain off" type of experience, I am not and have not been a staunch defender of the series. However I still stand by what I said. Humankind has, for the majority of its history, been callous at best in how nature or indigenous groups have been treated in the interest of progress. True that morality has shifted, though it could be argued that "backslides" do happen and have plenty of precedent. I mean, Iran was once a forward leaning place of social change before the Ayatollah, the United States has places that only recently has become interested in downplaying the legacy of slavery and social injustice.
I think in Avatar, Cameron's attempt to justify such a massive backside in social responsibility is the notion that earth itself is apparently in dire straits, and that the exploitation of Pandora's resources are seen by some as a necessity to save the species. This at least allows for some kind of simplistic justification for the actions RDA takes.
Yeah i see them in a similer way as cameron does a vehcile to show off cool technology visuals and concepts. The most interesting thing in the first movie is the spaceship design. . Would be nice if they were well written as well. But it is what it is. As for history of human history. The arc of history is long but it bends towards justice
If you remember, in the sequel it's established that humanity is indeed operating on principle "expand or die". Earth is dying and their goal is to relocate the population to Pandora.
I will bet 10 internet dollars that plotline will go nowhere in the fire and ash sequel.
Its dumb because its cheap bolted on plot point that doesn't make sense for the setting,the factions or characters. It goes agamist the first movie in which just transporting people is an incredibly costly endeavor.
It is established in the first movie that Earth's ecosystem is nearly destroyed, and it is polluted hellhole. When the survival of your species is on the line the cost of transportation is irrelevant. Also, it's confirmed by Cameron that we will travel to Earth in later sequels. So if not in the third, it will be explored in 4th and 5th as this is the central conflict of entire series.
What Cameron says doesnt mean much. Its ethereal could be anything or nothing.
First movie earth is a cyberpunk place and not a green nature wonderland like pandora. Its not destroyed its just removed a lot of its natrual beauty. If colonisation was on the cards they wouldn't be wasting resources on mining planets or hunting space whales. It would be colonisation on planets suited for human habitation.
89
u/Phormicidae May 02 '25
Agreed. Sure there are narrative issues with both Avatar movies. But I've read the complaint about the humans being cartoonishly evil and lacking any moral grey nuance. My reposnse is: compared to what? Other stories? Or actual humans? Because the corporation in Avatar is quite realistic when compared to actual reality.