(On Avatar )
(On Avatar 2 )
14 comments
It also ridicules the military and large businesses.
Oh the humanity! No one should ever ridicule poor, defenseless big businesses!!
Oh, wait, except y’all if they start supporting things you don’t like…
Conservapedia’s description of Target Corp
Target Corporation
All that and they don't even give a good critique of it. You just say "it ridicules the military and corporations' without saying why how they portrayed it was bador inaccurate or lame. And oh man, protecting the environment is so.. destructive? How?
Like sure, it was a particularly forgettable film that cribbed a lot of points from other things, but you don't mention that. Only thing I can agree with is that if James Cameron does endorse environmental terrorism that's a terrible thing. But then endorsing any terrorism is.
And no, having a romance between a pair of mixed sapient species has never been considered bestiality in fiction. What, would elves and humans from LoTR committing bestiality? Would a Turian and Asari? Or, how about a Star Wars "human" with a Earth Human? They are separated by being from a place a long time ago in a galaxy far away, so they obviously aren't homo sapiens as we know them.
Can't comment on the second one, after the disappointing first never had an inclination to see the sequel.
@Tilver #172699
Eh, I agree that the plot of Avatar 1 wasn’t particularly original, but it’s not that bad. Plus, I actually found the second one to be better.
Aside from that, I agree with your points.
@Creativerealms #172697
The sad thing is that it’s not even the US government that’s the bad guys in the Avatar films. It’s the RDA megacorp, which has its own private army. The fact that conservapedia sees a “savage, children-torturing military” and immediatly associates it with the USA says more about them than they’d think.
iberal atheist James Cameron's sequel to his highly overrated movie.
Wait, was Avatar really “overrated”?? Yeah, it did ridiculous box-office numbers, but as I recall, the reviews of it were pretty much along the lines of “good but not really great.” (and I’d agree with that assessment based on my memories of seeing it one time years ago, lol) Or am I remembering that wrong?
@TheKingOfRhye #172707
No, you’re right. That pretty much seemed to be the consensus amongst most moviegoers and critics, afaik. It wasn’t a bad film at all, and certainly a visual spectacle, but the plot (good but not great) was arguably the weakest part.
As if the sequel wasn’t successful enough, your BS will only result in people wanting to buy the Blu-Ray, nay, stream the film even more. [/@Titania ]
Ever hear of the concept of the ‘Streisand Effect’…?!
James Cameron thanks you for your help in filling his coffers further, thus ensuring he’ll be even more the auteur.
Not bad for an Atheist .
@PMSFKS #172727
I’m guessing it would be the latter, and then they’d unironically go straight from that to writing a different article saying that white women need groups of white men to protect them from Black men.
The inconsistency, it hurts!!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
