>> ^demon_ix:
(and the 3D doesn't hurt a bit ).

actually http://io9.com/5477698/science-proves-3+d-movies-hurt-your-brain

Your video, Avatar and Pocahontas - Two movies using one storyline?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you look hard enough, then yes, you can liken the story in Avatar to most movies. However, comparing it to Pocahontas, you don't have to look hard at all.

Yeah, it's well known. There are so many movies you can say Avatar ripped off, but for some reason, no one seems to suggest they ripped each other off...

There's Pocahontas, Fern Gully, Dune, Dances With Wolves, Firekind (an old comic), The Jesus Incident (another Frank Herbert story), and many more, I'm sure.

So, either Avatar stole the original idea from every single one of these movies/books/comics, or you sort of have to concede that the story is so generic and basic that it's been done and will be done again and again. Avatar just happens to do it really well (and the 3D doesn't hurt a bit ).

If you look hard enough, you'll find similarities everywhere. Examples:

Star Wars - Young warrior joins band of freedom fighters and leads them to victory over the big mechanical empire.
The Matrix - A computer programmer disconnects from the machine he's been hooked up to all his life, discovers he's The (chosen) One and goes on to free his band of freedom fighters from the big mechanical empire (this time with actual machines).

I'm sure I can go on, but this post is long enough, and I've made my point

I'd argue about the navi being too perfect. Did no one else notice the broken hearted warrior who was cast aside by the chick cos she got to mother some hot foreigner? That seemed pretty sucky to me and I was acutely aware of the hypocrisy of the girl's virtue throughout the movie. (Spot the dude who's been fucked over in the past...) You also had their ignorance of the human culture (i.e. not wanting to know) which seemed a bit rich.

The marines... they were there for the money, not the murder. I figured every man there must have had a pretty crappy back story to need to spend however long in cryogenic sleep to come to a foreign planet with a high fatality rate knowing that when they got home everyone would be 20 years older. There were doing a job with a hope of a better life at the end.

I also thought that the greed of the higher positioned people made sense, at least from today's perspective. 1-dimensional people do exist and non-human entities like corporations will employ 1-dimensional people to suit their aims.

Maybe I just made up my own themes to make the movie more enjoyable for myself but I thought Pocahontas 3d was great - that's just my 2 cents.

>> ^gwiz665:
http://i.imgur.com/KPSJo.jpg
.. i stand corrected.


It looks so real.... Also, familiar.

@Drax:

>> ^Drax:
When someone hands you 350+ million to make a movie, I doubt it's because you told them you where trying something bold, fresh, edgy, dark, and challenging in this day and age.
But blue digital butts with tails??! GO FOR IT!!!


Ironically, an original franchise with weird looking blue aliens filmed with untested technology for ridiculous amounts of money was exactly the bold, fresh, edgy and challenging kind of filmmaking that no production company dared to finance. Despite Cameron's track record, it was still notoriously difficult for him to find the money, and Fox eventually stepped in only when two other companies agreed to share the risk.

Meh, archetypes is nothing new. Personally, I found Avatar more similar to The Last Samurai than to Pocahontas. Only much better, of course.

But Pocahontas wasn't 3D.. you lose.

I actually think they were wise to let everybody know that the plot was gonna be Pocahontas in the trailer. That way when most people actually saw it, they weren't expecting something unique, and they let the actual performance and visuals give them the impression.

Anyway, I agree, and I'm glad you liked it

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Saw Avatar, the plots was kind of stale, but that 3-D was spectacular!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by Desviada:
>> ^enoch:
what about the deists?
everybody is so worried about the atheist and the theist,but what about the deists?
ya know what?
i dont really care,cuz if you dont chew big red then FUCK YOU!


I care about deists! I also like animism. Both are belief systems that I find attractive and non harmful to society (such as imposing one's morals on others, or fundamentalist-driven wars). I believe quite a few of the USA's founding fathers were deists, and if the lyrics of Pocahontas's song from the Disney movie are any indicator, the Native Americans were animists ;-) I do think both belief systems should get more recognition. The problem is defining religion in the first place. There really is no line between certain religions, philosophies, and belief systems. So, imho, there are actually many more atheists in the world currently, and historically, than people realize.

Honestly, I'd rather have this conversation in a classroom, or drunk, or both.
i was bein a smart ass,and i wanted to use that awesome line from tallidega nights.
there actually is a definition of religion,which i have posted..and it got me nowhere.i think people conflate certain properties much too easily concerning theism and deism.
you are correct about america's forefathers being mainly deists..also freemasons.native americans have an incredible array of belief systems concerning the great spirit.
i loved the video you posted =)

Hmm . . . yeah, I knew you were being a bit of a smartass, but I use any excuse to act pretentious and discuss difficult topics.

I don't actually agree about there being a definition of religion, but yes, I agree that the Native Americans have a variety of amazing belief systems (and not just the ones in North America). This semester I studied the Lakota a bit, and learned of Wakan Tanka (did I spell that correctly), and I've studied the Maya quite a bit. There are so many things we can learn from the cultures we've destroyed/are destroying. So, I don't understand why people are so anti-atheist, when atheists seem to appreciate the "array" as you put it of dying religions, and it is often the fundamentalists of the current era that crush those cultures and their religions. Have you ever read Lame Deer? If you haven't, I think you would love it.

:-)

Edit: ha, I feel like a dumbass after looking more closely at your profile. You teach comparative religions? From an anthropological perspective? And which definition of religion do you ascribe to? Geertz? I'm very curious. Btw, I'll probably post the other videos featuring Albert if I can keep getting them sifted.

In reply to this comment by Desviada:
>> ^enoch:
what about the deists?
everybody is so worried about the atheist and the theist,but what about the deists?
ya know what?
i dont really care,cuz if you dont chew big red then FUCK YOU!


I care about deists! I also like animism. Both are belief systems that I find attractive and non harmful to society (such as imposing one's morals on others, or fundamentalist-driven wars). I believe quite a few of the USA's founding fathers were deists, and if the lyrics of Pocahontas's song from the Disney movie are any indicator, the Native Americans were animists ;-) I do think both belief systems should get more recognition. The problem is defining religion in the first place. There really is no line between certain religions, philosophies, and belief systems. So, imho, there are actually many more atheists in the world currently, and historically, than people realize.

Honestly, I'd rather have this conversation in a classroom, or drunk, or both.
i was bein a smart ass,and i wanted to use that awesome line from tallidega nights.
there actually is a definition of religion,which i have posted..and it got me nowhere.i think people conflate certain properties much too easily concerning theism and deism.
you are correct about america's forefathers being mainly deists..also freemasons.native americans have an incredible array of belief systems concerning the great spirit.
i loved the video you posted =)

>> ^enoch:
what about the deists?
everybody is so worried about the atheist and the theist,but what about the deists?
ya know what?
i dont really care,cuz if you dont chew big red then FUCK YOU!


I care about deists! I also like animism. Both are belief systems that I find attractive and non harmful to society (such as imposing one's morals on others, or fundamentalist-driven wars). I believe quite a few of the USA's founding fathers were deists, and if the lyrics of Pocahontas's song from the Disney movie are any indicator, the Native Americans were animists ;-) I do think both belief systems should get more recognition. The problem is defining religion in the first place. There really is no line between certain religions, philosophies, and belief systems. So, imho, there are actually many more atheists in the world currently, and historically, than people realize.

Honestly, I'd rather have this conversation in a classroom, or drunk, or both.

It's been almost 48 hours without a single vote and it's clear this is headed for my PQ. Well, I don't care what you douchebags think, this video is hysterical. It's got original music, puppet dancing, funny rhymes (rhombus, jaundice, Pocahontas) and best of all: the animal slapping sound.

You bastards don't know what's funny.

I come from an upper-middle-class liberal suburban place pronounced Missour-EE within a red state called Missour-UH in the United States of Jesus. My high school had a very high percentage of children of professors at Washington University, and if you added up all the jews, blacks, asians, and mixed people, that was probably over 50%. My mother hails from UCC, which is probably the second most welcoming and nondogmatic of sect of Christianity behind Unitarian Universalism (Barack Obama is in UCC). My father was a woowoo evangelical. Some of my recollections on the subject of religion during childhood are:

1. In third grade, some kid started going around asking everybody, with a dichotomous intonation, "Are you Catholic, or Christian"? I suspect he was an evangelical. I don't recall giving any reply, but even at the time I had doubts due to the lack of any fulfillment of prayer. I had grown to distrust all adults and authority figures as a reasonable extension of my discovery, as a five or six year old, of Santa Claus, the first thanksgiving, Pocahontas, and many other lies. I had also grown to suspect something was terribly rotten in our society due to the cruelty of many homophobic bullies who called me names that weren't even true and the teachers who didn't care. Because of my alienation, I was not inclined to presuppose that the majority opinion was more likely to be correct.

2. Around this time, my (divorced remarried noncustodial) father also took me to see a faith-healer. I don't recall what he was trying to cure me of. He attended some crackpot semirural megachurch, and his business was "no money down" real-estate, another religion.

3. Within two years afterward my father was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for schizophrenia because he believed he could communicate directly with the spirits of Joan of Arc, Jesus, and other saints, and they told him to fight demons by committing arson. He later said the charges were trumped-up and unsuccessfully tried to get out with a religious freedom argument.

4. Teachers from sixth through twelfth grade stressed the importance of critical thinking and incorporated it into the curriculum.

5. In seventh grade, I recall being asked of my religious affiliation, and replying that I was sitting on the fence between agnosticism and atheism. There was no retribution or suprise or stigma. I was already an outcast and had nothing socially to lose, anyway. About a year prior I first acquired persistent unsupervised access to the internet, which I have had ever since. In the following two years I did quite a lot of research online and debating in online bulletin boards. This drew me closer to atheism by gaining a greater understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. In other words, a greater understanding of how the world came to be the way it is. However, I would still call myself a teapot-agnostic.

6. In high school, I found a clique of atheists and agnostics. Shortly after 9/11, when the Missouri legislature enacted a bill that compelled schools to recite the pledge of allegiance at least once a week, some of my classmates and I openly expressed our disapproval on the grounds of separation of church and state. No gasps were heard. This was long before the Newdow case. When the Bible As/In Literature was taught in English class, several of my classmates and I expressed our disapproval again on the same grounds. In classroom discussions on that book, I recall many viewpoints being expressed with no great gasps of shock. I, the nerd, said openly that I thought the bible was a collection of fairy tales, poems, and forgeries, while the big football jock next to me expressed a predilection for biblical literalism in not so many words. I recall a very hot semi-orthodox Jewish girl who told me she would only date Jews.

I agreed with, or even said openly online, much of what is contained in the God Delusion, before the book was published. I suspect some others have had similar experiences. Not every consensus is a flock.


The ID movement, and the fact that every single suicide hijacker/bomber is faith-based, and the loosening of taboos by (e.g.) the Daily Show, have probably been three of the most important factors that led to the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. In Dawkins' case, the ID movement alone may have been the most important factor because of his biological profession. Hitchens tends to write books extremely quickly (averaging a book a year for the past 24 years), and it's very plausible that he began writing his after, and because of, the success of The God Delusion.

Most nonatheist people's comments on the Sift about Dawkins accuse him of being too shrill. Accusing one's opponent of too much enthusiasm (stridency, shrillness) is irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. I personally find nothing unpleasant about Dawkins' manner of speech except his affinity for hooptedoodle. His grotesque description of the god of the old testament is spot-on. A book only appears strident in relation to one's perception of orthodoxy, and neither the orthodoxy nor one's perception of orthodoxy are necessarily correct. Rather, debate the substance of the issue. Neither Dawkins nor any of his followers is advocating curtailing the religious freedom of believers, so his opponents have nothing to fear but the holes in their theories.