Does 'Avatar' Contain Hidden Messages?

Originally posted by TriggerFish
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

The whole time I watched this movie all I could think of was the old Richard Harris movie "A Man Called Horse" in sci fi.

Loved that movie.

Everything about it reminded me of the Native American culture.

It is sad that our ancestors were so ignorant as to wipe them out into almost non-existance.

Originally posted by peponastick
The problem isn't so much the movies as it is with our culture.
We as a culture relate more to Hollywood than history with which we base our opinions on. If our favorite Movie star, rock star, or athlete has a certain opinion on political hot topics we tend to favor their view.

We need to change the culture. If their is something nefarious about this movie then we as a culture have brought upon our selves. TPTB know that we worship at the church of Hollywood. People are influenced more through media than just about anything.

I could not agree more.

People tend to be ignorant of history and instead worship the motion picture industry.

I choose to remember history, searching it for the remembrances of cultures, people, and their story, so I can see the future coming through the current present.

If only everyone loved history as much as I, because I see so many ignorant people who have no clue as to things that have happened, good, bad, or in the middle ground of the world, and I see this as a sad time.

People do not realize that history repeats itself, always, and we are currently re-living history this very moment.

Originally posted by TheOracle
Avatar is a milestone in cinema, no because of its script but for the visual experience, the emotions and the messages it sends in our times of climate and environment negligence and destruction.
I also wanted to point out that trees on Earth communicate with each other, we are far from knowing exactl how our plants and our ecosystem works, I wouldn't be surprised if it has a conscience.

I could not agree with you more.

The planet is alive, whether we choose to see it, or not, whether we are in tune with it, or not, and whether we respect it, or not.

I see you.

(this is not aimed at the OP of this thread)


Isnt it funny how conservative/liberal idiots will find a way to politicize anything?


This is just like when Batman: Dark Knight came out and some whack job called into the Rush Limbaugh show to say how he thought it was representative of our country's struggle with terrorism and that the director was trying to show a message to all of us.


Jesus Squeezus i just hate stupid people.

movie was excellent to say the least

"Soldiers are just dumb and stupid pawns used to further our foreign policy" - Kissinger

the soldiers at the end who finally saw the light should be an inspiration to all troops!

Originally posted by Snarf
(this is not aimed at the OP of this thread)


Isnt it funny how conservative/liberal idiots will find a way to politicize anything?


This is just like when Batman: Dark Knight came out and some whack job called into the Rush Limbaugh show to say how he thought it was representative of our country's struggle with terrorism and that the director was trying to show a message to all of us.


Jesus Squeezus i just hate stupid people.

Realizing you were not directing that comment at me, but still seeing the truth behind the scenes, you do know that Hollywood does play an active role in propaganda for Government, correct?

They had a large role in this during WWII and never stopped after that war was won, because they got addicted to using it, like a crack-baby hooked for life, and their quitting cold-turkey would mean that Hollywood would lose a lot of good stories to sell as being originally theirs.

Hollywood's Blockbuster Role for Product Placement

Motion Pictures and Propaganda

Confessions of a Hollywood Propagandist : Harry Warner, FDR and Celluloid Persuasion

The truth is, Hollywood, slants the views of both the Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, politicians and power elite, but most people are too busy bickering about which side is right, and not bothering to notice that they are being played against each other because of their stupid loyalty to picking one of those two sides through the false dichotomy that they are actually a part of that system, but are instead sheeple being sheared in the middle and the butcher is preparing for a B-B-Q.

I think youll find most things have hidden messages. One thing to point out is that movies have obviusly come out of theater. and anyone know who knows any background back theater knows that a lot of directors, actors and play writters. often use their work to get their point across. This is pretty much why theatres been banned for so many times. I think its great that directors are using this same technique in film.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
movie was excellent to say the least

"Soldiers are just dumb and stupid pawns used to further our foreign policy" - Kissinger

the soldiers at the end who finally saw the light should be an inspiration to all troops!

ModernAcademia, that is the truth, as I stated to Snarf prior to seeing your post, we as society are being played for fools.

While I respect the soldiers who fight, little do they realize they are being used as a corporate bully, in order to push a religious agenda, in Hegemonic overkill.

While I grew up learning, living, and reacting through the Art of War, I grew to understand that war is not everything, and turned it into the Art of Peace, learning, living, and teaching through proactive measures how to stop needless conflict by seeing the conflict and neutralizing both sides, without taking any more action than seeing it, providing the proof of its happening, and making both sides see just how ignorant they were being towards each other.

Originally posted by superdebz
I think youll find most things have hidden messages. One thing to point out is that movies have obviusly come out of theater. and anyone know who knows any background back theater knows that a lot of directors, actors and play writters. often use their work to get their point across. This is pretty much why theatres been banned for so many times. I think its great that directors are using this same technique in film.

Movies always have hidden messages.

It is whether they are benevolent, altruistic, or deviant that is the problem.

And as well whether the person is seeing the message with open eyes, or eyes wide shut.

I think this movie is essentially a satire/criticism of:

1) The takeover of the Americas and genocide of their people by European settlers

2) Our government committing acts of terror in the name of stopping terror.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
I think this movie is essentially a satire/criticism of:

1) The takeover of the Americas and genocide of their people by European settlers

2) Our government committing acts of terror in the name of stopping terror.

You noticed the use of that magic word to, huh?

"Terrorism', it's what's for viewing.

This is why I do not support counter-terrorism, because countering terrorism with more terrorism is only commiting the crimes you see others doing, through hypocrisy, you become the monster you wish to stop.

Anti-Terrorism is the only way to stop terrorism, because fighting terrorism with more terrorism, only perpetuates the negative cycle, and will never push towards a positive cycle through breaking the negative chain of events.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
I think this movie is essentially a satire/criticism of:

1) The takeover of the Americas and genocide of their people by European settlers

2) Our government committing acts of terror in the name of stopping terror.

You noticed the use of that magic word to, huh?

"Terrorism', it's what's for viewing.

This is why I do not support counter-terrorism, because countering terrorism with more terrorism is only commiting the crimes you see others doing, through hypocrisy, you become the monster you wish to stop.

Anti-Terrorism is the only way to stop terrorism, because fighting terrorism with more terrorism, only perpetuates the negative cycle, and will never push towards a positive cycle through breaking the negative chain of events.

Terrorism is nothing more than a buzzword. ANY violent act can be called terrorism.

Most terrorism is state-sponsored. The only reason the Islamic world is hostile to the West is because OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE HOSTILE TO THEM.

The media wants you to believe that evil, wacko Muslims are hell-bent on nuking Western cities and killing innocent patriots, but the truth is, Western governments are hell-bent on taking over the Islamic world and while the Muslim world has a lot of problems, and they shouldn't get revenge on us, they have every right to be angry!

Sigh, I wish people would stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Terrorism is nothing more than a buzzword. ANY violent act can be called terrorism.

Most terrorism is state-sponsored. The only reason the Islamic world is hostile to the West is because OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE HOSTILE TO THEM.

The media wants you to believe that evil, wacko Muslims are hell-bent on nuking Western cities and killing innocent patriots, but the truth is, Western governments are hell-bent on taking over the Islamic world and while the Muslim world has a lot of problems, and they shouldn't get revenge on us, they have every right to be angry!

Sigh, I wish people would stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

I know that "terrorism" is nothing more than a buzzword.

It is an abstract idea, that is loosely defined, no one defition throughout the world, done this way on purpose, because as each event happens, whether as an actual "violent event", or machinated false-flag, it drives the mentality of the world into a hive-mind.

The idea is that through the Hegelian Dialectic, they can introduce an abstract idea, like terrorism, then a negative event happens, and it becomes concrete in the mentality of the people who are victims, family members who survived, or the world stage who is watching, through whatever medium, whether it is Hollywood, televisions, or being live on the stage in the theater of combat.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Dialectic : Hegelian Dialectic

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a three-fold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.

Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation.

Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.

Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete.

Sometimes Hegel would use the terms, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

Hegel used these terms hundreds of times throughout his works.

The formula, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, does not explain why the Thesis requires an Antithesis.

However, the formula, Abstract-Negative-Concrete, suggests a flaw in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience.

The same applies to the formula, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

For Hegel, the Concrete, the Synthesis, the Absolute, must always pass through the phase of the Negative, that is, Mediation.

This is the actual essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.

To describe the activity of overcoming the negative, Hegel also often used the term Aufhebung, variously translated into English as "sublation" or "overcoming," to conceive of the working of the dialectic.

Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations.

(Jacques Derrida's preferred French translation of the term was relever).

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts).

When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.

As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage.

For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens.

The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis.

Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective.

Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis.

In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses.

The problem with the Fichtean "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things.

Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things.

This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

Hegel has outlined that the purpose of dialectics is "to study things in their own being and movement and thus to demonstrate the finitude of the partial categories of understanding"

One important dialectical principle for Hegel is the transition from quantity to quality, which he terms the Measure.

The measure is the qualitative quantum, the quantum is the existence of quantity.

"The identity between quantity and quality, which is found in Measure, is at first only implicit, and not yet explicitly realised.

In other words, these two categories, which unite in Measure, each claim an independent authority.

On the one hand, the quantitative features of existence may be altered, without affecting its quality.

On the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, by exceeding which the quality suffers change.

[...] But if the quantity present in measure exceeds a certain limit, the quality corresponding to it is also put in abeyance.

This however is not a negation of quality altogether, but only of this definite quality, the place of which is at once occupied by another.

This process of measure, which appears alternately as a mere change in quantity, and then as a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality, may be envisaged under the figure of a nodal (knotted) line".

As an example, Hegel mentions the states of aggregation of water:

"Thus the temperature of water is, in the first place, a point of no consequence in respect of its liquidity: still with the increase or diminution of the temperature of the liquid water, there comes a point where this state of cohesion suffers a qualitative change, and the water is converted into steam or ice".

As other examples Hegel mentions the reaching of a point where a single additional grain makes a heap of wheat; or where the bald-tail is produced, if we continue plucking out single hairs.

Another important principle for Hegel is the negation of the negation, which he also terms Aufhebung (sublation): Something is only what it is in its relation to another, but by the negation of the negation this something incorporates the other into itself.

The dialectical movement involves two moments that negate each other, a somewhat and an another.

As a result of the negation of the negation, "something becomes an other; this other is itself somewhat; therefore it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum".

Something in its passage into other only joins with itself, it is self-related.

In becoming there are two moments: coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be: by sublation, i.e. negation of the negation, being passes over into nothing, it ceases to be, but something new shows up, is coming to be.

What is sublated (aufgehoben) on the one hand ceases to be and is put to an end, but on the other hand it is preserved and maintained.

In dialectics, a totality transform itself, it is self-related.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I see you too, brother!

No.......no hidden messages......the message is in plain sight....it shows the moral of today industrialists, the heartless business people who choose profit and personal gain above the enviroment, society or whatever moral obstacle in their way. This kind of thinking has brought our planet in the state it is today.
Just dumb the waste somewhere nobody can see or feel it. Erect that factory where those poor people are so I can take advantage of their needs, produce cheaper and make more money for myself.
Before I go completely off topic I just what to add that everybody who buys a product is also responsible for what that product does to what I just summed up. But not everybody is that smart or can feel that responsibillty so, in first place, this responsibillity lies with the one who created the product....he is to blame first.

reply to post by zatara


Like I stated previously, James Cameron left it neutral, and I believe on purpose.

People draw their own conclusions based on their perceptions.

I would much rather have more of that and less of propaganda.

The definition of a good film hides messages ;]

Resounding yes, from anyone who knows what they are talking about, as a musician, artist, or writer.

Abductee

Just got back from seeing it. Incredible, visual smorgasborg. And the tie-in to what was done to the N/A indigenous tribes was certainly there, as well as their connectivity to nature and their ecosystem. Being of N/A descent myself, I have a deep connection to all of nature and respect of the spirit that runs through all things as well, so this movie hit home for me. I wonder if one day we can reconnect the way my anscestors did
(and many of the amazonian tribes do). I sure long for such a day.

I watched the movie yesterday, and I must say I enjoyed it. However, when the movie was over very few people clapped as I think they felt guilty about the things that happened in the movie.

After reading all the hype I took my Fiance to see it. We watched it in 3-D. Great movie.

I give it two thumbs up.

It reminded me of another movie with Hidden Messages

FernGully


[edit on 2-1-2010 by SLAYER69]