To start off, I'm a Christian turned Agnostic...or rather I should say a very poor Christian turned Agnostic. I was never any good when I claimed to be Christian. I didn't believe anything more than 60% of the 10 commandments and that God existed. And despite believing in God's existence I never really "loved" him. I was (and still am) more terrified of him than anything else.
Over time I just grew to dislike what I was being taught in church and Sunday school and decided (to my mother's great dislike) to not go to church anymore. So now I'm a self described agnostic who's still stuck with this awkward and irrational (or perhaps very rational...) fear and slight disdain for a being I'm not sure even exists. However, to me agnosticism is a pretty annoying to position to stay stuck in. A continual "I don't know" isn't a satisfying enough answer for me. I think that there is a single answer that exists for any objective question. And when it comes down to the existence of God the answer can either be yes or no.
So this will be set up with two separate lists of questions, one geared towards Christians and the other towards Atheists. It's a bit of an experiment if you will. A part of me wants to be convinced one way or the other and this is the best way that I can come up with. So before I set this up I must set up my rules for how this will be handled:
1) No flaming or harassing others on the basis of belief. I don't want to see ridiculous, unnecessary arguing or flame baiting among anyone. Any rude, hateful comments will be hidden immediately. Basically, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. Remember that there are human beings on the other end of the computer screen. Don't abuse your anonymity.
2) No sarcastic "cool story, bro" type comments. No one or two word comments. I'm looking for well thought out discussion based comments.
3) Atheists can answer the Christian questions and Christians can answer the Atheist questions so long as the answers aren't sarcastic and mean spirited.
Questions for Christians
1) In regards to hell, should it ever be someone's sole reason for wanting to convert to Christianity?
Now whenever I state that the only reason I have to consider converting is this idea of hell as a place of pure torture, I always get this "Oh, you shouldn't convert just because of that!" sort of answer. However this idea is very confusing. One thing that Christians are supposed to be doing are "saving" people from going to hell, yet they don't think that a person should convert solely because they're afraid of hell. Why? Is it somehow wrong to turn to God because you afraid of the punishment that might be suffered after death? So is it really that wrong to believe because you don't want to deal with the alternative?
2) Also in regards to hell, what is it? Is it a place of pure torture or is it just separation from God? Or perhaps some mix of both?
I've heard them both. That hell is this extremely painful place of physical and mental torture forever and ever. Or that it's a separation of God and a place for people to wallow in their sins for all eternity. If hell is a place of mental and physical torture then yes I admit that does scare me. If it's a separation from God and a place where people continue to sin for all eternity, well that really doesn't seem that different that now. It's not nearly as worrying to me. I don't understand what scares people so much about just that.
3) In regards to God's omniscience, power, etc., is he really?
I admit that I wanted to find a different way to word this question, however this is the best and simplest way I could ask it. I ask this question a lot because I never find the answers I get to be satisfactory for too long. I always end up reading something or thinking of something else that makes me question the previous answers I get to this.
I still question this concept. He created everything (including us) knowing that we were going to disobey him. He created Satan knowing Satan was going to disobey him. Why? None of this "because it's the only way that we could have free will..." jargon. I've read that and heard that time and time again. This just leads me to ask, why then is free will entirely necessary? I don't believe it is. It seems that free will was a personal choice on God's part. It isn't a necessity. If I were made to be without the ability to, would I even know it? Would I really care? Probably not.
Before creating the angels, He should've known that one (Satan) would betray him. Before creating Adam and Eve, He should've known that they would "betray" him (despite their lack of knowledge of good, bad, right, and wrong). He gave them free will so he should've foreseen that happening.
4) What is heaven?
I hear more about hell than heaven when it comes to details. Hell is this fiery pit of despair where sinners dwell in their sins for all eternity. It's dark, scary and you don't want to go there. But what about heaven? What's it supposed to be like? And what if you went there and saw no one you knew...? Would it be possible to be lonely even though God's there (my personal opinion is that it would be)?
5) Why are you right?
Pretty self explanatory question. However no "because the Bible says so" or "because I was taught so" sort of answers. What knowledge or experiences have you gained/had that says to you that this world view is the correct one?
6) On mixing politics and religion...
Christian beliefs seem to be the only ones that get pushed forward in political agendas. Why should your beliefs be pushed onto others? Do you feel like religion is ever used to push forward laws? I'll leave it at that.
7) Why are you a Christian?
Were you taught it? Did you convert after some event in your life? If that's the case, what was it in your life that made you convert? Did you convert during a happy period in your life or a sad one (only answer that if you want to...I know that sometimes the back stories can be tough and you may not want to say it)?
8) Any last words, thoughts, etc.?
Anything you'd wanna add extra to what you've said above.
Questions for Atheists
1) Why are you right?
Exact same question for you guys as for Christians. Only I wanted to start this off with this one. I generally have more questions for Christians than for atheists anyways because Christians have a lot of confusing doctrines to deal with. So why is your world view the correct one?
2) Do you find depressed or relieved thinking/knowing there's no afterlife?
Oddly enough, I've heard both views from Atheists on this. Some feel that it is a little bit of a depressing thought that there is nothing else after this life. Most feel relieved. That way they can treat this life with the utmost respect and live it to the fullest because they know that once this life is over with...it's over with.
3) If you are like this, why do you have such a disdain, bordering on pure hatred, for theists? If you are not like this then there's no need to answer this question.
I have a huge disdain for militant theists. But my disdain for militant atheists seems to be a bit stronger. I don't understand why there is a need for some atheists to call theists stupid, ignorant, and all other sorts of names because they believe something different than they do. The reason my disdain for militant atheists is stronger than that for militant theists is because theists are usually doing what they do because they are instructed to in some way by their god to spread the word. Atheists who do the same thing (I'm only talking about some if you do not fit into the "militant" category then this does not concern you) don't have a real reason. They come across as extremely self-righteous. So if you are like this, why are you? Why shouldn't someone who holds theistic beliefs be considered as smart as someone who doesn't? Admittedly, this question has nothing to do with anything...I'm just very curious about the attitudes some atheists seem to have towards theists/theism.
4) Why are you an Atheist?
Were you raised in an atheist home? Did you convert after some event in your life? If that's the case, what was it in your life that made you convert? Did you convert during a happy period in your life or a sad one (only answer that if you want to...I know that sometimes the back stories can be tough and you may not want to say it)?
5) Any last words, thoughts, etc.?
Anything you'd wanna add extra to what you've said above.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Last Airbender- Review and Critique (may contain spoilers)
I have posted a pseudo-review on my deviantart page however I will use this site to write up an in depth review of the film from multiple standpoints. I will used the most common critiques that people have offered on this movie:
1) Resemblance to the original series (Avatar: The Last Airbender/ATLA)
2) Effectiveness of story
3) Quality of animation/effects
4) Effectiveness of casting
5) Acting
Now it must be stated that I am a fan of the original series and thus I have my issues with M. Night's rendition of the ATLA universe from that standpoint. However I can also be objective in discussing the real issues with the film and why it is such a failure.
Point One: Resemblance to the Original Series
If you expect to see resemblance beyond character names (which can be debated) and bending styles, you'll be sad to know that for the most part this is all you get. Yes, Katara and Sokka discover Aang and Appa frozen in ice. But even the introduction to Aang as the main character, last airbender, and avatar was changed. Aang is released from the ice (not by Katara using waterbending but by Katara taking Sokka's boomerang and breaking the ice) and he doesn't say a word until they get back to the village. Personality wise the live action version of Aang is nothing compared to the original. Aang is a child. Regardless of his responsibilities or true age (112), he is still a 12 year old child and thus behaves as a 12 year old child. Aang is funny, joyful, and playful most of the time. In the film however we never get to see this nature aside from seeing him run away scared of the responsibility of being the avatar.
The biggest disappointment was however Sokka. Any fan of the series or person who's casually watched the series knows Sokka's character. He's witty and funny if not a bit corny at times. However he's always protective of his sister. This was the only aspect of Sokka's personality that was evident in the film. He wasn't funny. He wasn't witty. He told none of his corny jokes. His personality was completely lost. He lacked the charm that made him such a lovable character. Sokka was the clear comic relief character in the series but in the film he was completely serious. He seemed like a completely different person...he was a completely different person.
In terms of plot changes from the series, it was a give in that you cannot fit in every detail from 20, 22 minute episodes in 94 minutes. Thus a lot of detail had to be dropped. Unfortunately in the process they dropped characters and details crucial to the series. The Kyoshi warriors are never mentioned. Although Avatar Roku is mentioned, his presence is replaced by a spirit dragon that gives Aang all the advice he's seeking. You never meet Jet. These are not just filler characters. These characters are people who help shape the story and Aang's adventures and growth as the avatar.
Other major changes are that Katara does not give the speech that rallies the Earth Nation to defend themselves. All three (Aang, Sokka and Katara) are captured and Aang is the one that stands up, tells the earth benders that they are powerful, and introduces himself as the avatar. Perhaps this was something that was done to save time. I cannot truly say. Also the ending of book one ends on a very weak note where as in the animated series you see the power that Aang has as the avatar and it's this awesome power that helps defeat and drive away the fire nation.
Point Two: Effectiveness of Story
Two words: It wasn't.
That's the short answer to how effective the story of The Last Airbender was. Considering that the film was based off of a preexisting show, one would think that creating a film off of it would be simple. Editing down 20 episode is no easy task but the reality of it is that creating a film off of a preexisting story (whether that story be a game, TV series, preexisting movie, graphic novel/comic or book) is simple. Hollywood just does a terrible job at it. Hollywood tries to insert jokes, devices, concepts, and ideas that would never exist in the world/universe of said game, book, etc. in order to make it appeal to todays audience. A prime example of this would be the Alvin and the Chipmunk films where they use popular songs such as "Single Ladies" and dress the chipmunks in hip hop style. Something that would have never been done in the original cartoon.
This isn't the problem with Last Airbender. The universe was practically the same as it was in the series. Same names for the nations and tribes. Similar climates. No extra technology. The flora and fauna seemed plausible for the series. The problem with the story for Last Airbender was that it was rushed and badly plotted. Their biggest mistake was having Katara narrate nearly half the movie. That is a big no-no. Never should a movie have to be read to the audience. The story of a movie or TV series should be told through the actions of the character(s). You should be able to see their journey unfolding in front of them. There is a progression things should take. A misconception about film is that it is a primarily visual media. While what you're seeing is visual, the number one thing that will make a movie fail is the story. The behind the scenes work of writing out the dialogue, emotions, and/or actions of the characters is what really drives a movie. When the story of a movie is weak, no amount of effects or visual appeal is going to save the film. And that was all Last Airbender was...effects and visual appeal and even some critics will disagree on visual appeal).
Point Three: Quality of Animation/Effects
As an animation student I found the animation and effects for some parts of the film average. I could tell what was animated. Some of the creatures (primarily Appa and Momo) didn't blend in with the "real world" setting. You may not understand what I mean by this. Take a look at the 2D (drawn) Appa and Momo. They are highly stylized from what they are proclaimed to be. Appa is a flying bison and Momo is a flying lemur-bat. Any person who takes a look at a picture of a bison or lemur can tell that they don't have flat faces. Clearly design-wise they aren't supposed to be realistic because no bisons can really fly (nor do they have 6 legs or beaver tails) and there's no such thing as a lemur-bat. But you cannot take 2D designs and translate them to a real world context without tweaking the design a bit. Let's take Momo as an example since it is easier to explain with him. The base of Momo's design is a Ring-Tailed Lemur. That is what he looks like aside from the bat ears and wings. That should have been the base of Momo's CG design. But it wasn't. They started with his 2D design as the base. Which wasn't that bad. The fur looked good but his face was jarring in comparison to things. He didn't look convincing as a creature.
Now for the effects. In general the bending effects were good. Fire, earth, and air were all believable. Water was very unsteady though. When water was being used as tentacle like whips or droplets then it looked like water. When water was being used in a ball or sphere form it looked like a thick, sticky goo. I've heard people not want to describe waterbending as waterbending in the film but rather "sphere-bending" because the effect for water was just mediocre. It reminded me of work that a novice (maybe not beginner but certainly not an expert) CG animator would create. I find that unacceptable for anything that Hollywood wants to pass off as a "summer blockbuster". Or for anything that Hollywood wants to pass of as acceptable, professional work. Blending CG and live action can be done and is done well all the time. Harry Potter is a perfect example of beautiful blending between CG and live action.
Point Four and Five: Effectiveness of Casting and Acting
These two points will be combined because they are so closely intertwined.
Firstly, the casting. There are a lot of sour notes when it comes to casting. The worst of which came with the way characters were cast. Avatar: the Last Airbender was a preexisting series and thus the characters had their own preexisting nationalities that could have been verified either by looking at anatomical and physical details (skin color, hair texture, facial structure, eyes...yes even in animation these details can be distinguished) or by asking the original creators. However Paramount and M. Night Shamalayan wanted to go about things their own way which put across as poor message.
Even the choice of actors by race or gender count as a big decision. For example say you have one movie in which the main character is male. Does the story say the same exact thing if the same story is told with a female character? No it doesn't. The series of Avatar did not hint that any of the characters were caucasian. Depending on the character, their designs hinted at them being either Inuit (Sokka and Katara) or Asian (Aang, Zuko, Iroh, Toph). However the casting staff choose deliberately (their audition forms literally read "Caucasian...or other race") caucasian actors for their three main roles/heroes (Aang, Sokka, and Katara) and a darker skinned person (Indian) for their villain (Zuko). Had it just been Zuko this would not be an issue. The issue is that they deliberately chose to cast the entire Fire nation (IE all the villains) as Indians, Middle Easterners or Mexicans. In reality, they deliberately chose to cast the entire Fire nation as groups of people that many Americans currently have problems with:
~Indians- Our jobs are outsourced to India so the public may have some resentment towards this group of people. Also many Americans are ignorant and will mistake someone of Indian descent for someone of Iraqi or any other Middle Eastern descent thus evoking feelings of hatred and racism due to the events of 9/11.
~Middle Easterners- Doesn't matter what country they're from. Doesn't matter if we have a conflict with said country or not. Doesn't matter if they're American by birth or not. The feelings of anger and hatred from 9/11 are still alive and well. Some people are unable to distinguish a person from another person and therefore they don't take the chance to get to know a person. Middle Eastern (or sometimes Middle Eastern looking) equals terrorist in many peoples eyes (even if they don't consider themselves racist).
~Mexicans- Immigrant issues. Need I say more? We've been having immigrant conflicts for a long time now and many people are upset at Mexican (or Mexican looking/Spanish speaking...people can be ignorant and not realize that multiple countries speak Spanish and not all Spanish is really the same nor may it be Spanish) people for "taking" their jobs and living in the country illegally.
What message does it send to people when every member of this evil nation fits into one of these categories? Not to mention that they all have the same/similar skin color/tone? And what does it say when the heroes who are up against them are all Caucasian? It says white/light skinned=good and brown/dark skin=bad. Is this the message that we really want to send to our children? Not to mention that Aang (this world's "savior") is white and everyone else in the background seem to be of non-white races (check the background...you will find very few white actors in comparison with minority actors). It gives off an aura that he's the "great white hope" to these people who've allowed the world to fall into chaos in the midst of his absence. Again this is a bad message to pick up.
I will say though that most people will not pick this up right away. The messages given in the film are subtle ones. They're ones that usually won't be picked up unless one is really analyzing the film or researching the information on the film's process and decisions the director and casting directors made, but this isn't to say that some people won't notice it. Because of course if no one noticed it a site like Racebending wouldn't have been made. I believe that site can give a much better view of the controversy and the historical context behind the controversy. Unfortunately because I was unaware of all the deliberate decisions made I cannot boycott a movie that I've already seen and paid for. However I can talk about my view of this controversy and talk about my view of the film in general and hopefully this review will persuade people to not pay to see this film.
As for the acting it's just mediocre. There's nothing much to really say about it. It's corny and cheesy but not in a deliberate way that makes things funny. It's just...bad. Bad writing. The actors failed to make the characters relatable. The writing failed to make the characters relatable. The acting failed to make the characters likable. The only character that I feel has a resemblance to his character in the series is Uncle Iroh. Though he doesn't look nearly as old, he's still the same wise and kind-hearted man that he is in the series.
Bottom line...if you really want to see the film, there's nothing stopping you. I hope I didn't spoil too much for anyone with this. If you've seen the series and want to see the film, you will be let down. It's a poor representation of the series. If you have not see the series and want to see the film, you will also be let down. You won't completely understand what's happening because the story is so poorly written. This a forgettable film, a laughable excuse for a professional Hollywood project, a poor excuse for a summer blockbuster, a disappointing and angering excuse for a diverse cast, and something that should just be skipped over. Let's all hope that a film for book two will not be made.
1) Resemblance to the original series (Avatar: The Last Airbender/ATLA)
2) Effectiveness of story
3) Quality of animation/effects
4) Effectiveness of casting
5) Acting
Now it must be stated that I am a fan of the original series and thus I have my issues with M. Night's rendition of the ATLA universe from that standpoint. However I can also be objective in discussing the real issues with the film and why it is such a failure.
Point One: Resemblance to the Original Series
If you expect to see resemblance beyond character names (which can be debated) and bending styles, you'll be sad to know that for the most part this is all you get. Yes, Katara and Sokka discover Aang and Appa frozen in ice. But even the introduction to Aang as the main character, last airbender, and avatar was changed. Aang is released from the ice (not by Katara using waterbending but by Katara taking Sokka's boomerang and breaking the ice) and he doesn't say a word until they get back to the village. Personality wise the live action version of Aang is nothing compared to the original. Aang is a child. Regardless of his responsibilities or true age (112), he is still a 12 year old child and thus behaves as a 12 year old child. Aang is funny, joyful, and playful most of the time. In the film however we never get to see this nature aside from seeing him run away scared of the responsibility of being the avatar.
The biggest disappointment was however Sokka. Any fan of the series or person who's casually watched the series knows Sokka's character. He's witty and funny if not a bit corny at times. However he's always protective of his sister. This was the only aspect of Sokka's personality that was evident in the film. He wasn't funny. He wasn't witty. He told none of his corny jokes. His personality was completely lost. He lacked the charm that made him such a lovable character. Sokka was the clear comic relief character in the series but in the film he was completely serious. He seemed like a completely different person...he was a completely different person.
In terms of plot changes from the series, it was a give in that you cannot fit in every detail from 20, 22 minute episodes in 94 minutes. Thus a lot of detail had to be dropped. Unfortunately in the process they dropped characters and details crucial to the series. The Kyoshi warriors are never mentioned. Although Avatar Roku is mentioned, his presence is replaced by a spirit dragon that gives Aang all the advice he's seeking. You never meet Jet. These are not just filler characters. These characters are people who help shape the story and Aang's adventures and growth as the avatar.
Other major changes are that Katara does not give the speech that rallies the Earth Nation to defend themselves. All three (Aang, Sokka and Katara) are captured and Aang is the one that stands up, tells the earth benders that they are powerful, and introduces himself as the avatar. Perhaps this was something that was done to save time. I cannot truly say. Also the ending of book one ends on a very weak note where as in the animated series you see the power that Aang has as the avatar and it's this awesome power that helps defeat and drive away the fire nation.
Point Two: Effectiveness of Story
Two words: It wasn't.
That's the short answer to how effective the story of The Last Airbender was. Considering that the film was based off of a preexisting show, one would think that creating a film off of it would be simple. Editing down 20 episode is no easy task but the reality of it is that creating a film off of a preexisting story (whether that story be a game, TV series, preexisting movie, graphic novel/comic or book) is simple. Hollywood just does a terrible job at it. Hollywood tries to insert jokes, devices, concepts, and ideas that would never exist in the world/universe of said game, book, etc. in order to make it appeal to todays audience. A prime example of this would be the Alvin and the Chipmunk films where they use popular songs such as "Single Ladies" and dress the chipmunks in hip hop style. Something that would have never been done in the original cartoon.
This isn't the problem with Last Airbender. The universe was practically the same as it was in the series. Same names for the nations and tribes. Similar climates. No extra technology. The flora and fauna seemed plausible for the series. The problem with the story for Last Airbender was that it was rushed and badly plotted. Their biggest mistake was having Katara narrate nearly half the movie. That is a big no-no. Never should a movie have to be read to the audience. The story of a movie or TV series should be told through the actions of the character(s). You should be able to see their journey unfolding in front of them. There is a progression things should take. A misconception about film is that it is a primarily visual media. While what you're seeing is visual, the number one thing that will make a movie fail is the story. The behind the scenes work of writing out the dialogue, emotions, and/or actions of the characters is what really drives a movie. When the story of a movie is weak, no amount of effects or visual appeal is going to save the film. And that was all Last Airbender was...effects and visual appeal and even some critics will disagree on visual appeal).
Point Three: Quality of Animation/Effects
As an animation student I found the animation and effects for some parts of the film average. I could tell what was animated. Some of the creatures (primarily Appa and Momo) didn't blend in with the "real world" setting. You may not understand what I mean by this. Take a look at the 2D (drawn) Appa and Momo. They are highly stylized from what they are proclaimed to be. Appa is a flying bison and Momo is a flying lemur-bat. Any person who takes a look at a picture of a bison or lemur can tell that they don't have flat faces. Clearly design-wise they aren't supposed to be realistic because no bisons can really fly (nor do they have 6 legs or beaver tails) and there's no such thing as a lemur-bat. But you cannot take 2D designs and translate them to a real world context without tweaking the design a bit. Let's take Momo as an example since it is easier to explain with him. The base of Momo's design is a Ring-Tailed Lemur. That is what he looks like aside from the bat ears and wings. That should have been the base of Momo's CG design. But it wasn't. They started with his 2D design as the base. Which wasn't that bad. The fur looked good but his face was jarring in comparison to things. He didn't look convincing as a creature.
Now for the effects. In general the bending effects were good. Fire, earth, and air were all believable. Water was very unsteady though. When water was being used as tentacle like whips or droplets then it looked like water. When water was being used in a ball or sphere form it looked like a thick, sticky goo. I've heard people not want to describe waterbending as waterbending in the film but rather "sphere-bending" because the effect for water was just mediocre. It reminded me of work that a novice (maybe not beginner but certainly not an expert) CG animator would create. I find that unacceptable for anything that Hollywood wants to pass off as a "summer blockbuster". Or for anything that Hollywood wants to pass of as acceptable, professional work. Blending CG and live action can be done and is done well all the time. Harry Potter is a perfect example of beautiful blending between CG and live action.
Point Four and Five: Effectiveness of Casting and Acting
These two points will be combined because they are so closely intertwined.
Firstly, the casting. There are a lot of sour notes when it comes to casting. The worst of which came with the way characters were cast. Avatar: the Last Airbender was a preexisting series and thus the characters had their own preexisting nationalities that could have been verified either by looking at anatomical and physical details (skin color, hair texture, facial structure, eyes...yes even in animation these details can be distinguished) or by asking the original creators. However Paramount and M. Night Shamalayan wanted to go about things their own way which put across as poor message.
Even the choice of actors by race or gender count as a big decision. For example say you have one movie in which the main character is male. Does the story say the same exact thing if the same story is told with a female character? No it doesn't. The series of Avatar did not hint that any of the characters were caucasian. Depending on the character, their designs hinted at them being either Inuit (Sokka and Katara) or Asian (Aang, Zuko, Iroh, Toph). However the casting staff choose deliberately (their audition forms literally read "Caucasian...or other race") caucasian actors for their three main roles/heroes (Aang, Sokka, and Katara) and a darker skinned person (Indian) for their villain (Zuko). Had it just been Zuko this would not be an issue. The issue is that they deliberately chose to cast the entire Fire nation (IE all the villains) as Indians, Middle Easterners or Mexicans. In reality, they deliberately chose to cast the entire Fire nation as groups of people that many Americans currently have problems with:
~Indians- Our jobs are outsourced to India so the public may have some resentment towards this group of people. Also many Americans are ignorant and will mistake someone of Indian descent for someone of Iraqi or any other Middle Eastern descent thus evoking feelings of hatred and racism due to the events of 9/11.
~Middle Easterners- Doesn't matter what country they're from. Doesn't matter if we have a conflict with said country or not. Doesn't matter if they're American by birth or not. The feelings of anger and hatred from 9/11 are still alive and well. Some people are unable to distinguish a person from another person and therefore they don't take the chance to get to know a person. Middle Eastern (or sometimes Middle Eastern looking) equals terrorist in many peoples eyes (even if they don't consider themselves racist).
~Mexicans- Immigrant issues. Need I say more? We've been having immigrant conflicts for a long time now and many people are upset at Mexican (or Mexican looking/Spanish speaking...people can be ignorant and not realize that multiple countries speak Spanish and not all Spanish is really the same nor may it be Spanish) people for "taking" their jobs and living in the country illegally.
What message does it send to people when every member of this evil nation fits into one of these categories? Not to mention that they all have the same/similar skin color/tone? And what does it say when the heroes who are up against them are all Caucasian? It says white/light skinned=good and brown/dark skin=bad. Is this the message that we really want to send to our children? Not to mention that Aang (this world's "savior") is white and everyone else in the background seem to be of non-white races (check the background...you will find very few white actors in comparison with minority actors). It gives off an aura that he's the "great white hope" to these people who've allowed the world to fall into chaos in the midst of his absence. Again this is a bad message to pick up.
I will say though that most people will not pick this up right away. The messages given in the film are subtle ones. They're ones that usually won't be picked up unless one is really analyzing the film or researching the information on the film's process and decisions the director and casting directors made, but this isn't to say that some people won't notice it. Because of course if no one noticed it a site like Racebending wouldn't have been made. I believe that site can give a much better view of the controversy and the historical context behind the controversy. Unfortunately because I was unaware of all the deliberate decisions made I cannot boycott a movie that I've already seen and paid for. However I can talk about my view of this controversy and talk about my view of the film in general and hopefully this review will persuade people to not pay to see this film.
As for the acting it's just mediocre. There's nothing much to really say about it. It's corny and cheesy but not in a deliberate way that makes things funny. It's just...bad. Bad writing. The actors failed to make the characters relatable. The writing failed to make the characters relatable. The acting failed to make the characters likable. The only character that I feel has a resemblance to his character in the series is Uncle Iroh. Though he doesn't look nearly as old, he's still the same wise and kind-hearted man that he is in the series.
Bottom line...if you really want to see the film, there's nothing stopping you. I hope I didn't spoil too much for anyone with this. If you've seen the series and want to see the film, you will be let down. It's a poor representation of the series. If you have not see the series and want to see the film, you will also be let down. You won't completely understand what's happening because the story is so poorly written. This a forgettable film, a laughable excuse for a professional Hollywood project, a poor excuse for a summer blockbuster, a disappointing and angering excuse for a diverse cast, and something that should just be skipped over. Let's all hope that a film for book two will not be made.
Friday, February 5, 2010
This.
How to Share the Gospel with a Pagan
It's an article on Everything Under the Moon's forum entitled "How to Share the Gospel with a Pagan". While I may not be pagan (I'm more agnostic for the moment), I feel that the same statements could apply if you were to switch out "pagan" with any other religion/belief. Everything covered under this subject is for how to share the gospel with anyone.
Don't treat the other party as less than human.
Don't become defensive when you're confronted about the negatives about your religion.
Learn about the other person's beliefs before making assumptions about what they believe.
Don't tell people what they really believe.
Don't attack the other party.
And many other things. I just simplified what this piece of writing elegantly said. To get the entire message I would suggest reading the post.
It's an article on Everything Under the Moon's forum entitled "How to Share the Gospel with a Pagan". While I may not be pagan (I'm more agnostic for the moment), I feel that the same statements could apply if you were to switch out "pagan" with any other religion/belief. Everything covered under this subject is for how to share the gospel with anyone.
Don't treat the other party as less than human.
Don't become defensive when you're confronted about the negatives about your religion.
Learn about the other person's beliefs before making assumptions about what they believe.
Don't tell people what they really believe.
Don't attack the other party.
And many other things. I just simplified what this piece of writing elegantly said. To get the entire message I would suggest reading the post.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sorry I don't update this much...
I have a tendency to keep a lot of what I think to myself and find it odd to put my personal stuff out there for people to read...so typically I don't say anything even though I really want to or really have something to say. I'll attempt to write more stuff here (not that anyone reads it anyways...).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
