Cameron Blows Smoke at Gamers

As the worldwide gross box office take for Avatar surpasses one billion dollars, the film’s director took a pot shot at videogamers.

In response to his movie “winning” a “black lung” rating from SceneSmoking.org for depictions of cigarette smoking on-screen, James Cameron told the New York Times the impetus behind Sigourney Weaver’s character Grace lighting up:

… from a character perspective, we were showing that Grace doesn’t care about her human body, only her avatar body, which again is a negative comment about people in our real world living too much in their avatars, meaning online and in video games.

Cameron would no doubt then be intrigued by Microsoft’s recent patent application that seeks to tie the appearance of online avatars to a user’s real-world health and fitness.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

86 comments

  1. 0
    DubiousKing says:

    I didn’t see Grace smoking as her not caring for her human body because she liked her avatar, I saw it as a way of portraying that she was an insensitive b**** (which she was near the beginning of the film) through the way she asks for it.

    "Does anyone see what’s wrong with this picture? Where’s my cigarette?"

  2. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    Now that I have read what James Cameron has said about linking people to avatars to gamers, I don’t know if I want to see the movie. I think I will wait till it comes out on DVD then get it for $2.99 for one day, since James has made it plainly clear that to me, my $ is not worth watching for $5-8. *Sigh*. I was looking forward to watching it on the big screen too. He is bad for even saying that b/c now that he has made over a billion dollars, now he can say whatever he wants to about his viewers. What a dipshit. Won’t he make more if people buy his movie on dvd/blu-ray or renting it?

    Anways, to some of you people in here that said you can’t get lung cancer from cigarette smoke……you can. It’s called second hand smoking. It is just as bad as actually smoking a cigarette & people that do smoke take 11 hours off of their life. My uncle has been smoking since he was 14. & went to the doctor for it. I also learned that in health class. I don’t smoke. I have tried but coughed & it was grosse & especially kissing a guy that smokes is like kissing an ash tray. EWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!! & a woman died where I used to work out that had lung cancer & no one ever saw her outside smoking or smoking in her car or at work. So it happens w/out smoke too. Here in Dallas/Fort Worth & at the airport when someone comes up to ask where there is a smoking lounge? I tell them it’s outside, the look on their face is priceless! LMAO! I’ve had one man ask me & I told him outside. He sighed & asked me if I smoke, I said no & he said figures. I didn’t know what that meant, but ok. & when I tell people they have to go outside & have to go back through security. They let their head down & look sad. I ask them if it’s worth it? Some of them have said f*** no or hell no or other answers that are about the same. I just laugh. 😀

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  3. 0
    gellymatos says:

    "Just because we aren’t going around killing Indians for no good reason doesn’t mean that we are any more civilized than we were 200 years ago."

    You just said it. We wouldn’t go around killing natives for no good reason. That’s my point about the movie. We wouldn’t do that, especially on a new world with scientific discoveries to be found  and an intelligent species to boot. While perhaps  "civilized" is not the best choice of words, nor really the one I wanted in the first place, my point still stands. Keep note that this assuming that we improve when it comes to humanity like we have been for the last few hundred years and don’t totally go Nazi or something.

    As for the military composition, your own argument of what kind of people the military makes up is based upon your own experience, which is inadequate unless you have met most of the U.S. military personel. Do you actually have some sort of statistic? You have nothing to show that the majority of the military is as you say. Also remember that you yourself said that they make up the lower ranks.  Those very qualities are why they are lower ranked. They don’t represent the military. They certainly don’t represent the guys in the movie. Even if in the movie the military was evil, they were still professionals. Actually, that brings me to another way the movie dissed the military which i forgot about. Throughout the movie, mentioned more that they are ex-marines than that they are mercs. In fact, I think the fact that they were mercs was mentioned once. It basically implied that the marines are bad, not mercenaries. Oh, and yes there is a lot of bigotry in this country. However, "a lot" is just like "many", it isn’t the same as "majority".

    There is one thing I think we can agree on though. Our military is often unfairly represented by the worst, mostly because people like to look for what I call the 1/3 empty part of the cup and entirely ignore the 2/3 full.

    I still stand by what I said: The movie had a naive look on war and the military (implied to be ours) was dissed. I mean, it would have been nice if they had just gone more on the fact that they are mercenaries rather than true soldiers of some nation.

  4. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "1. We currently aren’t the same people as a civilization as we were way back when. It would be unlikely that we would somehow become less civilized in 500 more years, or whenever it is the movie is set. "

    HAH! I’d make the argument that we could EASILY become less civilized in 500 years. There’s still a LOT of hate, anger, bigotry, and violence in this country, as well as others. Just because we aren’t going around killing Indians for no good reason doesn’t mean that we are any more civilized than we were 200 years ago.

    Also, as far as the Military Composition goes, I’d be really, REALLY surprised if a good 75-80% of the military don’t think just like my brother. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the lower ranked troops. I’ve got a relatively large military family, and I know plenty of other friends who come from Military families. Of those people I’ve spoken to, maybe 2 or 3 out of 10 takes thier job seriously, with regards to why they joined, the jobs they do, and how they think of people from the countries we currently occupy. I like these people, and I respect thier choices, and I always take the time to thank them for thier service. If the rest of our military was like this, I’d love it, and I’m sure our country would look MUCH better in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    Unfortunately, the other 7 or 8 out of 10 are either there because they didn’t feel like going to school, because they want to shoot some people with a different skin color, because they think all muslims should die, or because they think guns are the coolest thing since sliced bread (These are all paraphrasing from actual reasons I’ve gotten from military people). These people are the problem. Unfortunately, they also happen to be the majority, from what I’ve seen. I think it sucks that our country is represented by so many of these ignorant bastards on a daily basis, and it bothers me even more that people say I should respect these racist, gun-toting psycopaths, just because they happen to be in the army.

    If we had 10 good soldiers for every racist, ignorant, uneducated asshole, I’d think our military was awesome. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.

     

  5. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I just rant about Avatar at any excuse. The gaming angle has nothing to do with it.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  6. 0
    gellymatos says:

    And you yourself also hit the nail on the head. It was shown to an extreme and was exaggerated. Of course such people exist. But whether or not they represent all people in the military. Those such as brother and his friends don’t represent all military personel. So you know those in the military who could be considered questionable in motive and ethics. I know those in the military who are the opposite and know their job isn’t just to kill what is in their way. The Native American comparison is one thing, but the iraq one is something else. You also should notice something else you said: "I’m sure I can find many, many more example throughout history". That brings out two other issues: 1. We currently aren’t the same people as a civilization as we were way back when. It would be unlikely that we would somehow become less civilized in 500 more years, or whenever it is the movie is set. 2. I’m sure you can find such examples, but I bet you can also find examples of us helping similar tribal people or having good relationships with them. Of course, peace doesn’t make for a good movie. Oh, and the thing about the word "many" is that it isn’t the same as "majority".

  7. 0
    Valdearg says:

    What you don’t realize, Gelly, is that while the movie may have shown it to an extreme, many, many individuals have that same kind of "Take what you want, when you want it" attitude towards people who are different than them. Hell, my own brother joined the Military because he, in his own words, "wanted to kill some hadji’s." In the military, he’s surrounded by people who think the exact same way. I, personally, think that the Humans on Pandora, while slightly exaggerated, were fairly accurate in their portrayal of many, many American’s attitudes towards members of different races or creeds.

    When Jake Sully made the comment about turning someone who has something you want into an enemy so you can feel justified in taking it, he hit the nail on the head. It definitely happened with the Native Americans, and an argument can be made to identify this behavior in the Iraq War, as well. That was just off the top of my head, and I’m sure I can find many, many more examples throughout history, if I were to look harder.

  8. 0
    State says:

    When you see stories of kids in South Korea who die because they forget about all human functions whilst playing WOW, or that people care more about their avatars in Second Life of course he does have a point.

    I can’t believe it how a comment that is ever so minutely negative about games gets gamers in a rage calling for his death. He says that some people are addicted to games and people don’t like and overreact big time, perhaps he has a point in saying that some people should get real lives.

  9. 0
    gellymatos says:

    The movie was mostly good. It looked great, characters were good. However, the thing that bothered me was its naive look on war. It also seemed to diss the military a bit, though I’m not sure cameron meant to do either.

    As for the smoking, Scenesmoking.org is complaining over a flaw in a character. It’s idiotic to complain that a fictional character, good or evil, is flawed. One does not make a  "perfect" character for any fiction.

    Finally, Cameron is talking crap. Anything else I have to say about that has already been said.

  10. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    You lost the moment you switched to insults.

    And, once again, check your research, because you really aren’t paying attention.

    But since you would rather hurl insults than actually discuss tha facts, this conversation is over, it’s a pity, because I actually thought you were better than that, it’s a pity you let yourself down, because whilst trying to deny the similarities, you’ve managed to come off sounding exactly like Jack Thompson, from the opening line onwards…

     

  11. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You are right about the dose comment. If I inhale smoke once a week, rather than on a daily basis, my risk for cancer is less. If I smoke a pack a day, my risk is more. The problem is that any exposure is still exposure. Sure, if I am exposed once, my chances of cancer or illness are infinitesmally small. However, for each and every exposure I suffer, my chance of illness goes up. Therefore, I’d prefer to keep my chance of illness/cancer as low as possible. I don’t mind exposure every so often, but I’m rather glad I don’t have to deal with smokers on a daily basis.

  12. 0
    johnmarkley says:

    The dose makes the poison.  Someone who drinks a glass of wine at dinner is not going to "suffer the same effects" as someone who drinks a fifth of vodka every day.

    Correlation does not prove causation.  That goes double in the case of a lone personal anecdote, unless you think "I went to the faith healer and my cancer eventually went into remission, so don’t tell me about studies showing that laying on hands and speaking in tongues doesn’t cure cancer" is a sound argument.

    Check out my video game humor and commentary blog, Pointless Side Quest!

  13. 0
    Valdearg says:

    What are you, a fucking Moron?

    Your games logic has no place in this conversation. The logic you use is not paralell to the logic I used in the smoking.

    Lets try this again, shall we?

    1. Smoking Causes Cancer. This has been proven multiple times by multiple agencies. You CANNOT debate that fact.

    2. The act of smoking involves inhaling the smoke from a lit cigarette. You also cannot debate that fact.

    3. Second Hand Smoke is Smoke given off by a lit cigarette. Also a fact, and also non-debatable.

    You with me so far, genius? Tell me if I need to slow down, so your keen intellect can catch up.

    4. People in environments filled with Cigarette Smoke, like Bars and Bowling Alleys, are subject to inhaling that smoke, as part of the environment they happen to be in. This is, apparently, called ETS.

    5. Here’s where the logic happens. Since these people are inhaling the SAME smoke that smokers do, it is a logical conclusion that they are at risk for the SAME health effects that smokers are. Perhaps at less significant levels or frequencies, but the risk is still the same. (Some argue it is even more dangerous, because it doesn’t pass through a filter, like it does for smokers)

    So, did you follow this time? Your Video Games == Violent analogy isn’t paralell in the least. As far as your 3 out of 4 studies support no harm done by Second Hand smoke, you can shove it. I’ve seen the damage second hand smoke can cause to people. Like I said in a previous comment, I’ve got a buddy who’s mom came down with lung cancer after working in a smoke filled bar for 40 years. She was a non-smoker her entire life, and her lungs were similar to someone who smoked a pack a day. So, yeah, even IF those studies exist, they are even less valid than the study you claim to have "Cherry Picked" data.

  14. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You can’t honestly tell me that inhaling the same crap that smokers do on a daily basis won’t cause you to suffer the same effects that smokers do. Maybe it will take longer, maybe the effects won’t be as strong, but you will.

    If you disagree, tell that to my Buddy, who’s mom, a NON-Smoker working as a Bartender, came down with Lung Cancer about 7 or 8 years back. Her lungs, when they examined them, were very similar to a smoker’s lungs, in regards to lung capacity and the physical effects they suffered.

    Clearly, she MUST have gotten these effects somewhere else, not in the smoky bar where she worked..

  15. 0
    Parallax Abstraction says:

    "If you spend a lot of time around smokers and smoking people, in smoky atmospheres, like bars or bowling alleys, you are going to suffer many of the same effects that the smokers themselves suffer. It’s just the way it is."

    Actually, there’s very little actual evidence that second hand smoke is nearly as bad as first hand smoke.  The majority of studies that anti-smoking organisations cite as proof of this have been proven to be based on weak science and in some cases, just outright designed to reach a pre-determined conclusion.  I don’t smoke and don’t care for it at all, nor do I disapprove of it being banned in certain PUBLIC (not private) environments.  I do however, hang around with friends who almost all smoke and I have most of my life without suffering any ill effects whatsoever.  The simple fact is that second hang smoke and the dangers of it are largely unproven and are largely just a boogeyman created by organisations attempt to legislate personal behaviour.

    Parallax Abstraction
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    blog.digital-lifeline.ca

  16. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    So games make people violent because it’s obvious? After all the logic applies in all directions.

    3 of the 4 major studies done since the original one (which was found to have cherry-picked data in court) have found none to weak evidence for cancer being caused by ETS, fine, I’m not saying that smoking is good for the smoker, but this whole ‘death cloud’ bullshit is exactly the kind of thing that needs to stop, it’s identical to ‘murder-simulator’.

  17. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Lets try looking at some logic, shall we?

    It’s absolutely been proven that Smoking is bad for your health. It causes cancer and lowers your lung function.

    You perform the action of Smoking by inhaling the Smoke from a lit cigarette into your lungs.

    "Passive Smoking" is the act of inhaling the Smoke from a lit cigarette, as well. The only difference is that you aren’t physically sucking on the cigarette.

    Therefore, one would come to the logical conclusion that Passive Smoking can result in the same health issues that Active Smoking can. Sure, you may be inhaling a smaller concentration with every breath, but it still causes issues. I’m sure that If I felt like it, I could link you any number of studys that support the idea that second hand smoke causes health issues.

    Therefore, I have aboslutely no problem with laws that prevent people from smoking indoors, where cigarette smoke can gather and people will be subject to Second Hand Smoke. Outside, I have no issue with, because Second Hand smoke can’t gather in nearly as high a concentration as I could inside a building.

    As far as not smelling good, that’s only one of MANY reasons why I don’t like being around Smokers, and it happens to be at the bottom of the list. Suffice it to say, I prefer not to be subject to any death clouds when I can manage it.

  18. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    No offence, but your girlfriend’s nasal accuity is nothing to do with the relative danger of passive smoking, whilst, for example, sweaty people may not smell that pleasant, it doesn’t therefore follow that they are a health risk to those who smell them. If we are to judge entire swathes of people based purely on how they or their surroundings ‘smell’ compared to what we are used to, then we are going backwards, not forwards as a society.

    The thing is, it has never been proved that Passive smoking is harmful. Yes, the Health departments of several countries claim that this is so, but I really don’t think I need to point out an example of exactly the same tactic being used to victimise other groups, in fact, it is that kind of act that created communities such as this, directed towards a group identified for another common denominator.

    You may not like smoking, that’s fine, I don’t much like it, and I do it, maybe, one day, I’ll quit, but as long as people bundle me up into a little group, I am actually more inclined to stay smoking when people stereotype me in much the same way as I deliberately bought GTA 4 just to annoy Jack Thompson.

  19. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I’m referring to indoor public smoking, with regards to my second hand comments.

    I know that outdoors, second hand is negligible, and have absolutely no problem with people smoking outdoors. If they want to do that, that’s fine, as long as they aren’t blowing it in my face or something.

  20. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Second hand smoke inside bars and other buildings where smoking is still permitted is hardly "Trace." Tell that to my girlfriend who can smell the smoke from the Bowling Alley days after I bowled. It hangs in the air like a thick haze, some days.

    So, my arguments are still perfectly logical. It’s your misconception that Second Hand Smoke becomes negligible seconds after leaving the cigarette that is wrong.

  21. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    They also don’t bear much weight when you consider all passive smoking research is in regards to smoke-filled rooms and NOT outdoors.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  22. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    You were previously making the argument that pollutants in low percentages were not harmful (in regards to the pollution in large cities). Yet you then argue that 2nd hand smoke is harmful, when it becomes trace in the air in only a few seconds from leaving the cigarette.  Your arguments don’t match together.

  23. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Depends if you mean "indoor public" or "outdoor public". At least here in the UK there is a legal distinction because smoking in any indoor public location (including pubs, bars restaurants etc) is illegal.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  24. 0
    Valdearg says:

    When you drink booze around others, you are not inadvertantly harming those around you. It’s your body and YOUR liver you are harming. Now, if you get drunk and start attacking people, it’s NOT the boozes fault. It’s YOUR fault. Either way, it’s pretty much accepted that you shouldn’t be getting drunk in public, for the most part, anyways.

    It is interesting, however, that it’s understood that getting drunk in public is bad, despite the fact that the only person that the actual liquor harms is your own body, yet, smoking in public is still being debated, despite the fact that Second Hand Smoke is proven to be harmful to those around you.

  25. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Can’t hate them unless I know what they are now can I.

    The lights are on but Mr. Brain has long since departed from you hasn’t he zip.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  26. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    So taking an album from a shop is stealing, downloading a copy of that album is not stelaing. Remind me, which member of your family has the family brain cell this month? Because it sure isn’t you.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  27. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    ANd how the fuck would you know ANYTHING about trends and/or what’s trendy. Have you even left the house in the last decade?

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  28. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Hell yes I know smokings bad for people, it’s pretty much the only reason I smoke anyway.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  29. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Considering that Man has been Screwing Man since the beginning of time, lets go ahead and declare that one a tie.

    As far as Smoking goes, I was referring specifically to cigarettes. They have absolutely no positive effect on anyone. They are proven to be physically addictive, and to cause health issues.

    That being said, I made it pretty clear that if people want to get addicted and kill themselves with cigarrettes, I’ve got no problem with it. It’s your right to do it. As far as smoking in public places, where your smoke actually harms other people, who may not want to be harmed by it, it’s absolutely NOT your right to do it. Your rights end when you inadvertantly begin to cause harm to those around you when you do it.

  30. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Stop trying to troll the trolls zip it makes you look thicker than usual.

    Hey look over there, someone getting arrested for stealing stuff, go and rant about how it’s his right to steal things if he wants to! Moron.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  31. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "I’m also not commenting on the whole smoking/gay comparison, becuase frankly it is a totally fucking stupid comparison to be making in the first place."

    Agreed, here, but it was made, and I had to step in and make it clear that Smoking is far worse for you.

    "When you put cigarette smoke in the atmosphere and car exhaust concentrations in the atmosphere, I’d very surprised if car smoke was in the minority."

    I think it depends on where you are. Inside a building where people smoke, the higher concentration will easily be Cigarette smoke, unless this building has amazing ventilation. This idea is exactly why smoking is banned in many public buildings, but they are allowed to smoke outside.

    If you spend a lot of time around smokers and smoking people, in smoky atmospheres, like bars or bowling alleys, you are going to suffer many of the same effects that the smokers themselves suffer. It’s just the way it is.

  32. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Vlag

    Man has been smoking and taking herbs longer than hes been…well…. screwing man… your opioins are about as valid as the anal minded morons of the 50s….

    Frankly booze,herbs and smoking even being around it is not as much of a problem as using too much of it, of course you would rather decry hippocracy than let people have their rights… .

     

    The only reason smoking is being harped so on much is due to trend bashing(the kind kind of mornic repression that kept gays down for years) and nothign else.


    Until lobbying is a htanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  33. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I never said it was better (that’s you trying (and failing as usual) to put words in someone elses mouth). However you were going on about PASSIVE smoking. When you put cigarette smoke in the atmosphere and car exhaust concentrations in the atmosphere, I’d very surprised if car smoke was in the minority.

    I’m also not commenting on the whole smoking/gay comparison, becuase frankly it is a totally fucking stupid comparison to be making in the first place. (And therefore no suprise at all to see that Zippy was the one to make it. What would he know, he probably thinks cigarettes are a type of pumice stone.)

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  34. 0
    Valdearg says:

    It’s still a moot point, despite the fact that you misunderstood my use of "Low Concentration."

    Even at it’s absolute worst, pollution, even in LA, might make up 3-5% of what individuals inhale. Even moreso, that pollution has not necessarily been proven to cause cancer, like cigarrettes. A Smoker, on the other hand, inhales that Cancer causing crap at a 90% or higher concentration every time they take a drag on a cigarrette.

    Of course, Smoking and Pollution aren’t mutually exclusive, either. Smokers breathe the same polluted air that all people do, which just exacerbates the problems that already exist from smoking.

    You aren’t going to win this argument, DS. Smoking is ABSOLUTELY worse for you than living in a polluted atmosphere, like in LA. Of course, going back, you still haven’t argued against my main point, which was the fact that smoking is definitely worse for you than being Gay, or being around Gays.

  35. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I think the people of Los Angeles may beg to differ with the suggestion that car emissions in the atmosphere are of a low concentration round their way.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  36. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "On the subject of NOT NATURAL things, do you go around naked, eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?"

    On occasion, yes…  (I kid, I kid)

    Here’s the thing, though. Pollution/Emissions are one thing. However, there’s a significant difference between inhaling the emissions from cars, in the low concentrations found in the atmosphere, and intentionally inhaling carcinogenic smoke in a much, MUCH higher concentration on a daily basis.

    There is no comparison that can be made between car pollution and smoking, unless we take one of those junkers that belch disgusting smelling smoke that everyone avoids driving behind.

    Regardless, my point still stands, regarding the comparison between Gays and Smokers. Smoking is FAR, FAR less natural than being Gay, not to mention it’s FAR, FAR more harmful to your health than being Gay.

     

  37. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Do you drive a car Val?

    Where is the electricity that powers your PC generated Val?

    On that point, where did all the electronics and plastics in your pc get produced Val?

    And where did the electricity that powers those facilities get generated?

    I bet most of the employees at those facilities drive cars too. And own PCs and other such consumer goods made from plastics and other NOT NATURAL materials.

    On the subject of NOT NATURAL things, do you go around naked, eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  38. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Smoking is absolutely NOT natural.. What the hell are you thinking? It’s been proven to cause lung issues, including cancer and emphyzema, not to mention the fact that it weakens your lungs to a point where you can’t handle climbing stairs, let alone playing sports or exercising.

    On top of that, Smoking causes you and your surroundings to smell bad, stains your teeth a nice, healthy, brown, and ages you horrifically.

    Adding to THAT, when you smoke around others, you are causing lung damage in those you smoke around, as well. It’s a disgusting habit, and while I don’t support making it illegal, I have absolutely no problem banning smoking in places where people gather, to avoid the damage that second hand smoke causes.

    Now, compare what I just said to gays. There are absolutely no downsides to being gay. No health risks that don’t already exist among straight people (STD’s, AIDS, etc..), and being around a gay person is not harmful to your health.

    If you ask me, being a Smoker is absolutely worse than being gay.

  39. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    pretty much smoking is targed but frankly it dose not do more harm than the general crap we put into the air, smokers are no worse than gays and yet smokers are being baned from public places….don’t forget gays had half the emdical indutry agisnt them at one point and time…. I just love it how soemthing legal and almsot natrual can be treaded aginst so easily…oh thats right the US is filled with morons……..


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  40. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    I’ve just remembered why I smoke. Apparently Nicotine is a good defence against Homophobia. 😛

    Seriously though, if people are concerned about their lungs, complain at the Plastics, Motor Vehicle and Energy production industries, they do far more damage than we do. Yes, I know it’s bad for me, I wish they’d been banned before I was born, but then, pretty much everything we do is bad for us, it’s kind of sad that society always needs someone to tread on, be it gays, smokers, gamers or any other group selected by a single factor of their lives.

  41. 0
    metroidprimegmr says:

    "it’s movie goers who have seen things that were never put there to see"

    OK, on the count of three: 1…2…3!

    UNINTENTIONAL PARALLELS AND VIEWER INTERPRETATION OF PORTRAYED EVENTS

    That’s not too hard to understand, now is it? Other than that, I pretty much agree.

  42. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    "Then again, there are so many subtle narratives and character development ideas that directors have that 90% of Movie-goers, myself included, miss."

    Then again (again?), 99% of the time those "subtle narratives and character development ideas" were never actually there to begin with and it’s movie goers who have seen things that were never put there to see. But a director sure isn’t going to turn around and say "lol no my film was never meant to be subtle"

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  43. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I agree, I didn’t pick up on that motive, either, until he voiced it here. Then again, there are so many subtle narratives and character development ideas that directors have that 90% of Movie-goers, myself included, miss.

    Either way, I enjoyed the movie, and, due to a few scheduling errors with friends, ended up seeing it in theaters 3 times over my Christmas Vacation from work. Every time I went, I discovered something I missed previously, and was always impressed with the movie as a whole. It’s definitely a DVD purchase for me, when it comes out.

  44. 0
    SeanB says:

    It is an interesting take, however it’s one that i completely missed while watching the movie. you see her smoking, but i never once picked up on the "she doesn’t care about her real body" motive.

  45. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I think the better way to explain it would be that while she spends all day in her avatar body, her physical body still goes through all of the normal needs. It still needs to breathe and such, so it’s logical to believe that as soon as her mind gets back into her normal body, it feels as if she’s gone however many hours without a cigarette, and is experiencing withdrawl symptoms.

    Either way, from a character development standpoint, it’s an interesting take.

  46. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    "As well, we already got a vague "People play too many online games and ignore reality" allegory in Surrogates anyway."

    Chalk that up as another film he’s stolen an idea, plot device or theme from. All while covering his ass by saying he wrote the script 15 years ago. *coughtotalbullshitcough*

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  47. 0
    black manta says:

    Hey man, I didn’t make up the name, and neither did Cameron.  You want to blame someone, blame the 1950’s scientists who coined the stupid term.

    Like I was saying, it was a MacGuffin.  So from a story standpoint it wasn’t really all that important what it was supposed to do.  It was just a quick and easy way to explain why the Terrans were there.  The story’s not about that.  It’s about Jake and his coming to appreciate the alien world and culture he finds himself part of.  If it were all about the mineral, there’d be a shift in story focus.

    Melange was explained because it was integral to Dune’s story.  Unobtanium not so much.  And Protoculture was never really properly explained in the Robotech show itself, other than it was a super-powerful energy source and that the Invid used it for sustenenance and it gave them visions.  And Dilithium, well that was just a fancy word the Gene Roddenberry came up with to explain what the Enterprise ran on and nothing more.

  48. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     It’s because it’s a dumb name that takes no effort or creativity that stands out in stark contrast to everything else in the movie.  The main difference between this and Dune, Robotech, Star Trek, and the others is that they put creativity into their magical elements, and because of it no one really complains about them (aside from the fact that they’re completely fake, but at least they are not fake-sounding).

  49. 0
    black manta says:

    The word "Unobtanium" has been used by scientists and Science Fiction writers since the 1950’s to describe the material that would solve all the problems that not havvng that material would bring us.  In other words, it’s a MacGuffin.  Just like gold or oil was the impetus for colonization in the New World, Cameron is using a similar device here.  At least he didn’t use something even worse like "Unattainium," "Wishalloy" or even "Handwavium!"

    Sci-Fi is full of similar materials that are used to drive a story; Dune’s Melange, Robotech’s Protoculture and Star Trek’s Dilithium all fill similar purposes.  So I don’t see how Avatar’s "Unobtanium" is any different.

  50. 0
    Thad says:

    "You are a moron if you think his entire movie was some commentary on video games."

    Huh.  Wonder why I said that, then.

    "The comment was SPECIFIC to the fact that Grace was a Smoker in the movie. That’s it. It had no other meaning other than explaining his reasoning behind why he made Grace a smoker."

    He said the reason he made Grace a smoker was as commentary on how bad it is for people to live vicariously through avatars.  Given that the entire movie is about someone living vicariously through an avatar, as a positive, that would tend to undercut the metaphor.

    That’s not the same as saying the entire movie is commentary on video games, but nice ad hominem.

    "That being said, a movie can be relatively predictable and still be well written."

    It sure can!  This one wasn’t.

    "Aside from "unobtainium," which I still laugh at, when I hear it, I think the movie was very well written."

    Unobtainium, Pandora, Navis…the movie didn’t even try to be clever in naming things.  They’re like placeholders that the writers forgot to replace.

    "It was emotional"

    As opposed to intellectual.  It was a 3D movie whose entire cast of characters was ironically two-dimensional.  The villains are just straight-up bad guys with no deeper motivations than greed and stupidity, and the heroes just spout action-movie cliches.  If you think "I didn’t sign up for this shit!" is good writing, then yeah, I can see how this script might seem original, as you have clearly never seen a movie before.

    "it examined us, as the human race, in a different light than we are used to seeing ourselves,"

    Unless we’ve seen Dances With Wolves.  Or Fern Gully.  Or The Last Samurai.  Or read Speaker for the Dead.  Or, you know, any of dozens and dozens of other films and books that use this exact same premise.

    "and it was absolutely beautiful."

    Visually, yes.

  51. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Just when I think what I hear about Avatar couldn;t make it sound any more unoriginal, I find out he’s stole the "Unobtanium" material from The Core.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  52. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Agreed, 100%. The word "Unobtainium" is about the only thing wrong with the movie. Other than that, Avatar was probably my Favorite Movie of 2009.

  53. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Yeah….that part of the movie was really….lacking.  Aside from that, and the fact that the movie was pretty predictable in some aspects, it was easily one of my favorite movies for ’09.

  54. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Vlag:….semier down there laddy I think you both have the same point….. if you jsut care to read a bit mroe into it… dun be a zippy and open mouth befor you finish thinking….


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  55. 0
    black manta says:

    I have to agree.  I don’t think Cameron was particularly singling out gamers either.  And he does have a bit of a point.  The truth of the matter is, as much as we don’t like to admit it, there are people like that.  So we really shouldn’t be too upset when he makes a fairly accurate statement.  I mean, it’s not like it’s come from Jack Thompson or anything.

    Still, it’s hard not think of him as a jerk and take offense to what he said when you take a look at how he treated this guy…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dwUl9u5QW4&feature=player_embedded

    Granted, the guy was being an ass to him and the way it was edited makes me think there was more going on than what we saw and that he was antagonizing Cameron further, but it doesn’t make him look good either.

  56. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    Chill out, people.

    He didn’t say that all gamers suck.  He didn’t outright insult us all.  His words were:

    "…which again is a negative comment about people in our real world living too much in their avatars, meaning online and in video games."

    he doesn’t say gamers in particular, he doesn’t say all gamers.  He uses the term people.  This is a numberless word.  This means it could be 1, 10, or a million.  This is only saying that there is an occurrence in the real world where some gamers invest more into their online personas than they do into their own lives.

    If you’re angry about him pointing out the obvious, then you need to get out of your predisposed biases.  We’re gamers, which means we need to take the good with a bad.  We’re not a bunch of people who all get along and have no problems whatsoever and all our actions and people are nothing but sunshine, rainbows, and happiness.  We must realize that among all who are called "gamers," there are some bad apples.  

    Cameron is simply saying that the bad apples exist, and he drew upon them for inspiration with characters in his movie.

    Get over it.  It’s not the end of the world.  He’s not insulting us all.  In fact, he’s not insulting us at all (unless pointing out facts is viewed as insulting here…but I didn’t think this was the 17th Century Catholic Church).

  57. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    That probably has more to do with the fact that both logos say AVATAR rather than the actual design of the logo.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  58. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I’ve see nthe logo and made the mistake of thinking the movie was based  nthe TV series. I am not theo nly one otm ake this mistake I’m sure.


  59. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I’d describe them both as pseduo-asian-ish, but there’s not much similarity beyond that. About the only thing to do with the film NOT stolen from somewhere else in fact.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  60. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Meh over used trem is over used word,happens plenty of times…. also these days avatar is used more and more and sicne the film is about beign one and all……*rolls eyes*


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  61. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Even if that’s true (which I doubt), I can all but guarantee it wasn’t named Avatar.  Also, it seems kind of fishy that The Last Airbender is coming out not too long after Avatar’s launch.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  62. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    So Cameron says. Do you know who also claimed he had the scripts decades before he made the movies? George Lucas with his prequels. As far as I know no-one believes him, so why should we believe Mr Hasn’t Made A Good Film Since True Lies?

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  63. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You are a moron if you think his entire movie was some commentary on video games. The comment was SPECIFIC to the fact that Grace was a Smoker in the movie. That’s it. It had no other meaning other than explaining his reasoning behind why he made Grace a smoker.

    That being said, a movie can be relatively predictable and still be well written. Aside from "unobtainium," which I still laugh at, when I hear it, I think the movie was very well written. It was emotional, it was epic, it examined us, as the human race, in a different light than we are used to seeing ourselves, and it was absolutely beautiful.

    Not every movie needs M. Night Shamalan-esque twists to be good. In fact, I’d prefer that producers use Shamalan’s movies as perfect examples of what NOT to do.

  64. 0
    Thad says:

    Bullshit.

    The movie is called Avatar, it’s all ABOUT how the main character’s life inside his avatar is better than his real life, and (ENDING SPOILER but not really because every single moment in the movie is formulaic and predictable) it ends with him permanently transferring his consciousness into his avatar.

    If the message of the movie is that people SHOULDN’T use their avatars as an alternative to their real lives, then he’s pretty much failed on every level.

    (DISCLAIMER: Avatar is one of the most dead gorgeous movies I’ve ever seen and represents a whole new way of filmmaking.  It just happens to be very, very poorly written.)

  65. 0
    SeanB says:

    I’m pretty sure Cameron doesn’t give a shit about the game. he licensed it to a developer, and makes no more or less money if the game succeeds or fails.

    Further, it looks like it’s already sold in excess of 670,000 copies. "because nobody will play his shitty game" doesn’t seem to apply here.

  66. 0
    Magic says:

    If he had said "some" gamers not caring for themselves over their avatars then fair point – I do think some people do that and spend far too much time on their gaming avatars to the detriment of their own health, grinding in Icecrown is obviously easier than jogging. Personally, I’ve always believed a healthy body equals a healthy mind (Not that I perfectly practice it ;).

    So I think he has a point but he was clearly not tactical about it. As well, we already got a vague "People play too many online games and ignore reality" allegory in Surrogates anyway.

    Also, what happens when my dwarf sits around smoking pipeweed in Lord of the Rings Online?

  67. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Honestly, if Cameron hadn’t come out and said this, I would had taken from it that she knew she was in a new body that woudln’t get the nic fits when she tried to quit smoking, so it made it much easier for her to get a fresh start without a cig addiction.


  68. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Call off the dogs, guys.. He might be stereotyping, but he’s got a bit of a point. The idea behind Grace’s Character Development is actually quite interesting. Unfortunately, there is also a bit of a paralell between her and a number of gamers, as well, including myself.

    Not ALL gamers are the stereotyped unhealthy, fat individuals he refers to, but like I’ve said before, Stereotypes exist because there is at least some kernel of truth in a part of the community being stereotyped. That includes gamers. I know that there are plenty of days where I sit down to play Dragon Age or whatever I happen to be playing at the time, and in the back of my head, I have a little voice saying "Go take a walk! Work out! Lose some weight!!" but I just ignore it, and continue playing.

    I’m not saying that I am so "addicted" to games that I am willingly harming myself, physically, but as far as making good choices, like the choice between eating something healthy over eating a greasy hamburger, I choose gaming over the healthier exercise alternative more often than I should. Cameron’s idea about Grace’s body and how she cares more about her Avatar than her own body paralells my own subconcious behavior regarding my own body, so I can see where he would get the idea.

     

  69. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    “I hate you, so watch my movie! It’s about how much I think you suck.” Sadly, a growing concept in Hollywood. That’s why I stick to games. Oh, and Cameron: Feeling’s mutual!

Leave a Reply