Ukraine > NATO vs. Russia

[Childress]

As to Avatar I am just tired of a very stale plot where the colonial aggressor hero changes sides and has to lead the barbarian indigenous people to victory because they can't seem to get their act together. They are proud, honourable etc etc etc they just need a better leader who understands their opponent better.

Yeah, the greedy and militaristic white man tries to conquer the Na'vi tribe, aliens who have similar characteristics to African Americans and American Indians. They're oh so noble and pre-capitalist- at one with nature. In Hollywood fashion, the good whites, played by Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver, come to realize how evil the White Man really is and side with the natives. Sam Worthington even becomes one of them! Wow….heavy, man. Predictable propaganda in much the same Marxist spirit as Cameron's Titanic with its evil 1st class passengers vs the blameless prole from steerage.

[Battlefront.com]

I guess even two thousand years ago these was a domestic political need to concoct 'barbarian hoards' to be victorious against.

Some things never change! It's partly Human nature to overestimate your enemy's strengths when you're having a tough time of things. Because how else can you be on the rough end of the stick?

A "funny" opposite to this was the infamous Iraqi attack on Khafji in 1991. "Holy crap, we're being attacked by a brigade at least!". No, it was 3 divisions! Always better to have Marines chosen for their fighting skills over math skills

I didn't go to see it, but my 16 year old lad went to see it, and was not impressed. He recounted the plot to me and I thought - hang on, that's the plot of 'Midworld' by Alan Dean Foster (1975).

Worse, Cameron denies it completely and called Foster a hack and other really unflattering things. These guys did work together before and Alien was partly written by Foster.

If anybody likes science fiction its worth a read.

I have a well read original (though not first) edition paperback. Short read too.

Yeah, the greedy and militaristic white man tries to conquer the Na'vi tribe, aliens who have similar characteristics to African Americans and American Indians. They're oh so noble and pre-capitalist- at one with nature. In Hollywood fashion, the good whites, played by Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver, come to realize how evil the White Man really is and side with the natives. Sam Worthington even becomes one of them! Wow….heavy, man. Predictable propaganda in much the same Marxist spirit as Cameron's Titanic with its evil 1st class passengers vs the blameless prole from steerage.

Here's the funny thing. If Cameron had instead portrayed a benevolent corporation, or government, treating the Na'vi as equals and with the respect an intelligent species deserves the film would have been called "Dances with Aliens" and "Marxist". It would also be called "boring" and "intellectual masturbation" and other less than flattering things. I'd also have called it "stupidly unrealistic" given Humanity's track record.

So take your pick. Either Humans will behave in the future as they do now, ruthless and exploitive if they feel it's in their best interests. Or in the future they're going to be singing Kumbaya and talking about how we're long lost brothers.

The movie was a parable as almost all Sci-Fi is. I honestly wonder how much Sci-Fi you critics of Avatar actually dig into that can't be picked apart in similar fashion.

Steve

[Mord]

Most forms of fiction can and will be, picked apart by someone. The difference is some do have agendas and some don't. Tolkien always claimed he hated allegory yet that hasn't stopped people from trying to draw parallels to real world events in LoTR. LOL they used to say JAWS was a political story. To me most of it is mental masturbation...if a guy says it wasn't allegory than you have to take him at face value. I personally hate allegory too, if you are gonna write something political then WRITE something political...don't be a puke and hide behind something else.

As far as Cameron goes, I think he's an arrogant tool with a bloated ego...but he's made some pretty good movies.

Mord.

Mord.

[Childress]

The movie was a parable as almost all Sci-Fi is. I honestly wonder how much Sci-Fi you critics of Avatar actually dig into that can't be picked apart in similar fashion.

Yes, the best ones are parables. You're right. How about a film the depicts the insidious conversion of one's neighbors into dehumanized and conformist pods? One in which denial is rampant and that mirrors and, perhaps, justifies McCarthyism. I'm thinking of 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. Both the 50s and 70s versions.

If I sought to undergo flagellation by a horde of doctrinaire elites due to having been born in the US as a white man or having, in the past, committed capitalism I'd return to the university and finish that masters program.

[sburke]

Here's the funny thing. If Cameron had instead portrayed a benevolent corporation, or government, treating the Na'vi as equals and with the respect an intelligent species deserves the film would have been called "Dances with Aliens" and "Marxist".

Steve

Well sad thing is Americans have this knee jerk reaction in lumping communist political ideology with Marxism and have only a cursory understanding of how little there is of any systemic view of what constitutes communism even amongst the communists. Politics is politics communist politicians are no more nor less corrupt than politicians in capitalist socities, they just don't have to waste as much time trying to convince anyone they aren't corrupt. It is efficiently corrupt, or corruptly efficient.

Hell I'd have to consider myself a Marxist because I actually agree with the theory of dialectical materialism

- The universe is an integral whole in which things are interdependent, rather than a mixture of things isolated from each other.

- The natural world or cosmos is in a state of constant motion: "All nature, from the smallest thing to the biggest, from a grain of sand to the sun, from the protista to man, is in a constant state of coming into being and going out of being, in a constant flux, in a ceaseless state of movement and change." --Friedrich Engels, Dialectics of Nature.

- Development is a process whereby insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes lead to fundamental, qualitative changes. Qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, as leaps from one state to another. A simple example from the physical world is the heating of water: a one degree increase in temperature is a quantitative change, but between water of 100 degrees and steam of 100 degrees (the effect latent heat) there is a qualitative change. "Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into qualitative changes." --Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1.

- All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world. It is important to note that 'dialectical contradiction' is not about simple 'opposites' or 'negation'. For formal approaches, the core message of 'dialectical opposition / contradiction' must be understood as 'some sense' opposition between the objects involved in a directly associated context.

The movie was a parable as almost all Sci-Fi is. I honestly wonder how much Sci-Fi you critics of Avatar actually dig into that can't be picked apart in similar fashion.

Steve

That is probably true, but I promise you this. If you release CM:Avatar I will buy it.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the best ones are parables. You're right. How about a film the depicts the insidious conversion of one's neighbors into dehumanized and conformist pods? One in which denial is rampant and that mirrors and, perhaps, justifies McCarthyism.

Which, of course, brings 1984 to mind Anybody that tries to justify McCarthyism needs their heads examined. An anti-intellectual pogrom perpetuated by a megalomanic for his own, selfish pursuit of power should never be justified. Sacrificing liberty shouldn't ever be part of the equation.

I'm thinking of 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. Both the 50s and 70s versions.

Loved those movies! Just watched a show last night, in fact, that was an homage to the 2nd one.

If I sought to undergo flagellation by a horde of doctrinaire elites due to having been born in the US as a white man or having, in the past, committed capitalism I'd return to the university and finish that masters program.

Exploitation of others isn't a white man specific behavior. We white folks are just a bit better at it than most. Well, except for the Chinese perhaps. They do pretty well for themselves despite not being white

But a nice dodge of my primary point. So let's do this a little more directly. Please give us your vision of the future where a planet is found with a supply of something very, very valuable and the only thing standing in the way of extraction is the local inhabitants; a stone-age, but highly intelligent, species. Said species has some sort of silly attachment to the stuff and their privacy, so they actively oppose Humanity's presence. They just want to be left alone. How do you see things playing out?

Steve

[sburke]

Have some great stories of Chinese contributions to local development in Africa that once they get what they want turn out to not be such a great contribution.

[Battlefront.com]

I keep forgetting to move this thread to the General section since it is definitely not about Italy and has moved away from Shock Force too. Fixed!

Steve

[dpabrams]

I keep forgetting to move this thread to the General section since it is definitely not about Italy and has moved away from Shock Force too. Fixed!

Steve

Yes Steve, please move the thread and more importantly take note of ALL the interest surrounding a 1980's CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

Noted

Steve

[John Kettler]

I see the messages I'm trying to convey are meeting a great deal of resistance, some of which is, in my view, appropriate, because I can't remember everything when I post.

End of Cold War Discoveries

The East German side of the Fulda Gap did NOT have the space we thought it did, thus limiting the forces which could be funneled through it. This was learned when some of our officers went visiting to see how things looked like from the other side. I have NO explanation as to how this lack of room wasn't spotted using multiple overhead reconnaissance means.

A recovered TOP SECRET Russian attack plan for Europe, which was reported in ARMED FORCES JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL, envisioned delivering 200 tactical nukes on NATO targets and making the Channel in six weeks. The Russians, you should now, also had neutron bombs.

Things I knew, But Didn't Go Into

Am thoroughly familiar with the difference between the service life of an American tank versus a Russian one. Am familiar with the "use one tank at a time rule" for the latter's tank companies, in order to preserve limited service life, a condition made worse by failure to remove machining crud, to the amount of a quart, from the engine, as attested by the unhappy Czechs. I fully realize that the peep show Operation (or was it Exercise?) Dneiper effectively wiped out a lot of Russian tanks. I understand that Russian training time is minuscule compared to what our people get, especially live fire training.

Am well aware other allies had tanks, but almost everyone had the same 105mm gun and ammo as we did, so the same problem, except the British with their 120mm rifled Chieftains and Challenger 1s. The French were not officially part of NATO and wouldn't have intervened until the Russians got to the Strasbourg area, if then.

What Some of You Fail To Realize

Wire-guided ATGMs, such as TOW, suffer from real employment problems in the presence of bushes, hedges, power lines, phone lines, water obstacles and more. this was deliberately hidden in the SPI boardgame FIREPOWER, in which a Leavenworth exercise area map, representing Germany, was carefully sanitized of most such obstacles. Further, actual military analyses were always posited on long range shots, initiating attrition from as far away as possible. Problem! The Fulda Gap has only a few such locations, and the Russians can read maps as well as we can for this sort of stuff. Typical engagement ranges are more like Normandy than Russia, which works to the Russians' favor, since their tanks weren't really set up for long range gunnery (beyond 1500 meters). That's why the doctrine was volley fire at longer ranges, later supplemented by TLGMs for T-55s-T-80s.

Once I realized this book cooking was going on, I made myself thoroughly unpopular by suggesting we ought to analyze a whole new scenario in which the Russians blanket the long range firing positions with artillery or rocket fire, saturate our positions with broadband obscurants and scatterable mines, and now we're faced with a largely intact foe at, say, 500 meter range and can't simply retreat when pressed. Any takers?

We were so worried about the huge combined tank threat that we were developing deep strike systems to begin killing tanks way before they hit the battlefield: ASSAULT BREAKER (missile delivered SFW) and WASP (swarms of smart, tank hunting minimissiles with millimeter wave radar guidance), said swarms launched from pods carried by NATO aircraft. I worked on both at Hughes. Later, at Rockwell, I did considerable work on B-1B conventional weapon deep strike interdiction of Poland, with particular focus on the rail gauge switchover at the Russian/Polish border, taking out key bridges over the Vistula and killing power to the Polish rail system.

Did NATO have a superior Air Force? Absolutely! With the exception of the Harriers, though, it was confined to substantial runways and similar, because the aircraft used high pressure tires and were highly vulnerable to FOD intake. Many of the Russian planes could operate from rough fields, even earth, and battered runways utterly unusable by NATO.

The MiG-29 FULCRUM, though, took it to unseen levels, being able to close its intakes and operate through slots atop the intakes until clear of the ground. While we're on that, the AA-11 ARCHER and its helmet-mounted aiming system were revolutionary, and we've only now finally matched that one development. The Russians, as previously mentioned, had extensive runway and shelter attack capability, but we had marginal rapid runway repair capability for a very long time. I know this from months of research I did at Hughes. Russian runways were hexagonal modules and easily repaired.

I'll close for now, noting that Shan Hackett, who wrote the international bestseller THIRD WORLD WAR: AUGUST 1985, and served with the Paras at Arnhem, was arm twisted by Queen Elizabeth to change his book's outcome. Why? As originally written, NATO lost! She felt the narrowly avoided disaster model would be better for public morale and more of a goad to take the necessary steps. While we're on such things, I saw an interview with former KGB General Boris Kalugin. His blunt opinion regarding war in 1985 in Europe? "We'd have won." I've already listed the reasons.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

Please give us your vision of the future where a planet is found with a supply of something very, very valuable and the only thing standing in the way of extraction is the local inhabitants; a stone-age, but highly intelligent, species. Said species has some sort of silly attachment to the stuff and their privacy, so they actively oppose Humanity's presence. They just want to be left alone. How do you see things playing out?

How do I see things playing out? Now? The confidence of Western civilization has eroded, over the past 50 years, to the point that we'd probably- out of guilt- leave their stuff alone and spend billions in an effort to transform their land into Planet Switzerland. In healthier times we'd have, for example, appropriated Iraqi oil fields and exploited them to the max. We need the stuff.

Native Americans hadn't even developed the Wheel. They were driving the Buffalo to extinction in their own neolithic way as they did Wooly Mammoths and Saber Toothed tigers before our arrival. Europe was over-populated and their turn to exit as custodians of a vast continent was written on the wall. Would the world be a better place if Australia was left in the hands of the Aborigines? Their life expectancy was probably around 30. No race holds the deed to their property in perpetuity.

BTW, I, in the interest of full disclosure, have Indian, er, Native American ancestors on my father's side. Now, those French-Americans....

[JonS]

But a nice dodge of my primary point. So let's do this a little more directly. Please give us your vision of the future where a planet is found with a supply of something very, very valuable and the only thing standing in the way of extraction is the local inhabitants; a stone-age, but highly intelligent, species. Said species has some sort of silly attachment to the stuff and their privacy, so they actively oppose Humanity's presence. They just want to be left alone. How do you see things playing out?

That's kind of a strawman challenge.

What (well, one of the things) I didn't like about Avatar was that the characterisations were so black and white. The Na'vi were 100% good, and the Tyrell Corporation, or Weylland Industries, or whatever it was were 100% bad. Where's the complexity and moral ambiguity? Why couldn't unobtanium ( that's like a slap in the face, right there) have been cruicial for saving babies, or ending starvation, or sumfink? Or how about the Na'vi engaging in a little bit of exploitative squirrel sex on the side just for giggles, or the male Na'vi eating their young if left unattended, or one of the Na'vi tribe actively selling out the rest because they bought into the idea of the matrix or because they liked the look of those blankets and beads, or having them enslave those light fairies to power their village, or chipping bits off that tree to make tourist trinkets and kindling?

In the end I was rooting for the guys from Tyrelland Industries because the Na'vi were so bloody sanctimonius.

And I think that hints at a bigger problem with Cameron's films, although he's far from alone. It seems like he'd much rather spend $150 million on gltizy special effects and another $150 million on marketing than try to find $150 thousand for a really good scriptwriter. He can shoot a pretty and impressive scene, but I'm not so sure he can tell a good story. It's gotten to the point now were pre-release advertising emphasises the effects over the story, which personally rings some pretty strong alarm bells.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Am well aware other allies had tanks, but almost everyone had the same 105mm gun and ammo as we did, so the same problem, except the British with their 120mm rifled Chieftains and Challenger 1s. The French were not officially part of NATO and wouldn't have intervened until the Russians got to the Strasbourg area, if then.

Assuming all your technobabble is true, which I very seriously doubt, has there ever been a war that was decided by the superior ability of one side's tanks to frontally penetrate the other side's tanks? You are narrowly focusing on one of the least important factors in what determines the outcome of armed conflicts.

The MiG-29 FULCRUM, though, took it to unseen levels, being able to close its intakes and operate through slots atop the intakes until clear of the ground.

Depending on the year there would have been few if any MiG-29s. They did not enter service until 1984, the Su-27 in 1986. Even if every Soviet pilot was in a MiG-29 they would still have finished in 2nd place due to the fact that Soviet pilots got fewer flight hours.

I'll close for now, noting that Shan Hackett, who wrote the international bestseller THIRD WORLD WAR: AUGUST 1985, and served with the Paras at Arnhem, was arm twisted by Queen Elizabeth to change his book's outcome. Why? As originally written, NATO lost! She felt the narrowly avoided disaster model would be better for public morale and more of a goad to take the necessary steps. While we're on such things, I saw an interview with former KGB General Boris Kalugin. His blunt opinion regarding war in 1985 in Europe? "We'd have won." I've already listed the reasons.

I remember reading an account some years back of a tour given to a Russian general though a US army base in Kosovo. At the end of the tour the general remarked to his US counterpart that everything they had thought they knew about US army professionalism was wrong. Or at least that was the gist of it.

Your worship of the Soviet military juggernaut is embarrassing. You can say all you want about ERA and TOW missiles hitting power lines, but you can't escape the fact that the actual performance of the Soviet and Russian army from 1980 to present has been generally mediocre to poor. They were never as good as you thought they were.

[MG TOW]

I appreciated both POV's from vanir and JK. Not an expert, but served there in the day. Just wanted to add NATO's overall plan was dependant on a successful Reforger. Remember there was a defensive doctrine that would take NATO to the German/French border bases. All they had to do was hold that line until Reforger showed up, and the Norway (Norcon) contingents as well for a second front there. It was flawed, and extremely dependent on a few things, such as major airfields being intact, most of the Soviet Armor destroyed or at least equalized, and everbody playing nice, not tac nuking airfields. True, reserve air units flown from NA would have maintained air superiority. That is plausable. But it was expected Nato would have taken it hard on the chin in the first wave.

No question about the French. Although they were never in a position to be dictated to by a Nato command hierarchy, they were still allies, and would have jumped into the fight. Where and when would have been discretionary.

[sburke]

Noted

Steve

woohoo!!! CM:Fulda Gap right after space lobsters? (Hey even I am not stupid enough to get in the way of the game you'd prefer to do).

[gunnergoz]

Avatar: In space, no one can hear you pontificate.

It seems like SF films are often used to convey some sort of subtext; a semi-subliminal message warning of one dark future or another, which can be read by reading between the lines of dialog and viewing fairly unambiguous visible cues. Still, I enjoy the heck out of the better ones and especially love a good bug hunt or first contact story.

Next up: NATO/WP take on the Alien Invaders! Oh, sorry, that's been done already: Independence Day...

[Michael Emrys]

And I think that hints at a bigger problem with Cameron's films, although he's far from alone. It seems like he'd much rather spend $150 million on gltizy special effects and another $150 million on marketing than try to find $150 thousand for a really good scriptwriter. He can shoot a pretty and impressive scene, but I'm not so sure he can tell a good story. It's gotten to the point now were pre-release advertising emphasises the effects over the story, which personally rings some pretty strong alarm bells.

Well, that's pretty much the story across the board for "mainstream" movies and has been since at least as far back as the original Star Wars, if not even farther back. Yeah, we could all point to exceptions, but the thing is that they are memorable because they are exceptions. The movie industry is geared up to turn out as much least common denominator as the machinery can produce and it is rare for a movie to buck the trend. And the signs are that that is how things are going to be into the foreseeable future. The only thing I think we can do is to search out those exceptional films and give their authors all the support we can, including cluing our friends into their existence.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

I resent your characterization of what I said as "worship." It isn't and wasn't intended as such. When I wore my Red Hat it was with the intent of gaining as full an understanding as I could of the full spectrum of enemy capabilities, good, bad or indifferent via comprehensive study of anything and everything to do with the Russian military and its politico-scientific-techical-military context, philosophy, values, doctrine, policy, self view, world view, known deficiencies, whether self-identified or externally identified, perceived interests, competing interests and much more. The official threat data we got was wrong, not as in overstated wrong, but as in understated wrong. The real threat was the most advanced projection listed, what we called an excursion to the threat baseline. Contractually we had to meet the official threat, but we always ran excursions, which were pored over by knowledgeable customer visitors. Here is one such excursion, what we called the SA-X-15. Sum total of information available to me then (June 1989)? One paragraph! Here's what it looks like and does. Search on the move, back up TV camera or FLIR, integrated IFF, vertical launch, rapid fire thrust-vectoring SAMs. We have nothing even remotely like it in the inventory! This is operational in Russia as but a piece of a highly capable array of air defense and antimissile defense weapon systems. Later in the video, you see the SA-15 protecting an SA-10 GRUMBLE site, clearly evidenced by the pole mounted CLAM SHELL radar for detecting and engaging ground hugging threats. Our SAMs = Stinger and Patriot (several different models). That's it.

Did you know that the MiG-21 FISHBED performance was derated so it wasn't a threat to the B-!B? Did you know that in 1980 we were all but totally helpless against the AS-4 KITCHEN SSM (two per BACKFIRE bomber, one BACKFIRE Regiment per U.S. carrier). AS-4 hit IOC ~ 1962! In 1980, at the Naval Tactical Warfare Orientation Course for Industry, held at Fleet Combat Training Center Pacific, we were told and shown that the SM-2 MR (Standard Missile 2, Medium Range) had only fleeting firing opportunities before the KITCHEN came screaming down vertically at about Mach 3 with a one metric ton warhead, which might be nuclear. We had NO zenith radar coverage, so couldn't engage once it went into its terminal dive. Doctrine while we had a shot? "Fire until the deck plates glow!" Because of dedicated target illuminators, our ships could conduct a whole two simultaneous engagements each! The AS-4 was very difficult for even the AIM-54 Phoenix to engage, too.

I tell you and show you these things because the U.S. has almost ZERO experience with fighting front line Russian troops and equipment. Your perception is therefore heavily colored by the performance of inferior export model weaponry in the hands of oft inept Russian clients. The principal exceptions were air-to-air combat over Korea and Vietnam. Task Force Smith in Korea was eaten alive by T-34/85s its 2.36 inch bazookas were powerless against. MiG-15s shot down so many B-29s over North Korea that such operations had to be abandoned altogether. A bunch of those doing this were Russian. Export model SA-2s were averaging one kill for every two missiles launched before a CIA op called HABRINK got into Indonesia's identical SA-2 stockpile and got all the critical link frequencies. It was jamming the links and IRON HAND (Navy) and WILD WEASEL (Air Force) intimidation and hard kill that combined got the losses down to more manageable levels. Even so, with an all out effort in LINEBACKER II against the SA-2s and the MiGs, we still lost 15 B-52s, 13 to SAMs.

I know this isn't pleasant reading, but this is how it was and is. The Russian bear does NOT have to be ten feet tall to be deadly dangerous, especially given our parlous state then and now.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

How do I see things playing out? Now? The confidence of Western civilization has eroded, over the past 50 years, to the point that we'd probably- out of guilt- leave their stuff alone and spend billions in an effort to transform their land into Planet Switzerland.

If we Humans ever make it into space it will be because of corporate exploitation. I don't see any evidence of corporations today being benevolent. They wouldn't turn a resource rich planet into Switzerland, they'd turn it into South Africa. Well, that's if they didn't engineer the equivalent of Small Pox and seeded the planet with it first. Pretty cost effective, as has been proven already.

In healthier times we'd have, for example, appropriated Iraqi oil fields and exploited them to the max. We need the stuff.

You define "healthier" as misusing the resources at your disposal and then taking the resources of others by force because... well... because you can? That's a great attitude. I believe a little Austrian Corporal had similar concepts of dealing with living space out east his way. Guess you think we should have just left well enough alone, eh?

Native Americans hadn't even developed the Wheel.

If that isn't a valid justification for genocide, I don't know what else is! Can't wait to see you give the thumbs up to an alien race that starts killing everybody you know because we haven't developed a faster than light drive.

They were driving the Buffalo to extinction in their own neolithic way as they did Wooly Mammoths and Saber Toothed tigers before our arrival.

So the solution to this problem was for the US gov't to put out a bounty on Buffalos designed to make them extinct within a few years instead of hundreds? That's some solid thinking.

Europe was over-populated and their turn to exit as custodians of a vast continent was written on the wall. Would the world be a better place if Australia was left in the hands of the Aborigines?

I think the Aboriginals would say it would be. And what is your definition of "better" anyway?

Their life expectancy was probably around 30.

Average life expectancy in Europe at the same time was around 37. Not a big improvement. Plus, I don't think anybody knows what the life expectancy for Aboriginals was because I doubt anybody cared enough to ask them.

No race holds the deed to their property in perpetuity.

Sure, might makes right. Which means if the Chinese come to the US, commit genocide, and spread themselves out because they have completely f'd up the land they were born into... you're going to be OK with that, right? Even the part with military units purposefully raping, pillaging, and murdering those you love since it is "all for the greater good".

I dont carry any guilt about what happened before my time because I wasn't involved. The fact I'm benefiting from it now is something I can't change. What's done is done. An intelligent species learns new ways to tackle old problems. Since we have diminishing resources and exploding population, much of it armed with nukes, it seems rather a bad idea to continue on with the "might makes right" concept because it's always in the eye of the beholder.

That's kind of a strawman challenge.

How so? The premise of the movie was exactly as I laid it out. Since there was criticism of the "Marxist" plot of Cameron's vision, I asked for an alternative. Apparently Childless believes genocide is OK if it's got a good profit in it.

What (well, one of the things) I didn't like about Avatar was that the characterisations were so black and white.

I don't disagree. But as Emrys pointed out, it's hard to find a massively successful film with big shades of gray. Hell, look at the flak put up a couple of pages ago about the less-than-über-Marines in Aliens! There was gray, even if cheesy at times. And all that got was calls of anti-miltiary and marxist agenda.

The Na'vi were 100% good, and the Tyrell Corporation, or Weylland Industries, or whatever it was were 100% bad.

Actually, the latter is not accurate. While I agree it was tripe stuff, some of Tyrell's employees did rebel in the end. And the dude in the harvester did seem to be not entirely comfortable with what he was doing. Though your larger point is still there. And that is you wanted to see a different story completely. Fine, but it's Cameron's right to tell the story he wants to tell and make money, or lose it, based on his decision. Just like it is Battlefront's right to make the games it wants, over the objections of some and the applause of others.

In the end I was rooting for the guys from Tyrelland Industries because the Na'vi were so bloody sanctimonius.

I just kicked back and enjoyed the ride I was on. If I didn't want to go on that ride I would have saved my money for something else.

And I think that hints at a bigger problem with Cameron's films, although he's far from alone. It seems like he'd much rather spend $150 million on gltizy special effects and another $150 million on marketing than try to find $150 thousand for a really good scriptwriter. He can shoot a pretty and impressive scene, but I'm not so sure he can tell a good story.

Sure he can... you just don't like the story he's telling. There's a difference.

It's gotten to the point now were pre-release advertising emphasises the effects over the story, which personally rings some pretty strong alarm bells.

You are JUST starting to get to this point? You catch on slowly When I see an ad for "[adjective] [genre] movie of the [season]" I skip it. Been doing that for 20 years now and it's only rarely steered me wrong. Almost as a rule I don't go to see several entire genres because none of the movies that make it to the big screen are worth seeing.

It's just like with video games, is it not?

Steve

[JonS]

And that is you wanted to see a different story completely.

No, that's not true. I was quite happy with the story, but think it could have been approached with just a bit more subtlety than a brick between the eyes.

Fine, but it's Cameron's right to tell the story he wants to tell and make money, or lose it, based on his decision.

Sure. I have rights too.

Sure he can... you just don't like the story he's telling. There's a difference.

See above. I didn't like the way he told the story. There's a difference. "See Spot! See Spot run!" is a fine example of story telling for a certain demographic, but I'm not in that demographic anymore.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I resent your characterization of what I said as "worship." It isn't and wasn't intended as such. When I wore my Red Hat it was with the intent of gaining as full an understanding as I could of the full spectrum of enemy capabilities, good, bad or indifferent via comprehensive study of anything and everything to do with the Russian military and its politico-scientific-techical-military context, philosophy, values, doctrine, policy, self view, world view, known deficiencies, whether self-identified or externally identified, perceived interests, competing interests and much more. The official threat data we got was wrong, not as in overstated wrong, but as in understated wrong.

Unless there is a very large discrepancy in capability it is training and logistics that wins battles. Your focus on weapons stats misses the point.

I tell you and show you these things because the U.S. has almost ZERO experience with fighting front line Russian troops and equipment.

And vice versa.

Your perception is therefore heavily colored by the performance of inferior export model weaponry in the hands of oft inept Russian clients.

It would be more accurate to say that my perception is heavily colored by the unimpressive performance of actual Soviet and Russian forces against opponents significantly inferior to NATO.

The principal exceptions were air-to-air combat over Korea and Vietnam. Task Force Smith in Korea was eaten alive by T-34/85s its 2.36 inch bazookas were powerless against. MiG-15s shot down so many B-29s over North Korea that such operations had to be abandoned altogether.

IIRC, for the whole war Allied tanks had an exchange ratio of better than 2-1 against T-34/85 in Korea. US fighter pilots scored a 1.2-1 exchange ratio, in favor of the US, against Soviet pilots over North Korea (this from a post-Cold War RAND study with access to Soviet records.)

I know this isn't pleasant reading, but this is how it was and is. The Russian bear does NOT have to be ten feet tall to be deadly dangerous, especially given our parlous state then and now.

Given that you think the USMC has run out of tanks I don't think you really know how parlous a state we are in or ever were.

[JonS]

MiG-15s shot down so many B-29s over North Korea that such operations had to be abandoned altogether.

I understand why you prefer to refer to events vaguely, and so often point blank refuse to provide any kind of verifiable evidence. Whenever you do provide specific details, whenever you do, they're trivially shown to be laughably wrong.

[Michael Emrys]

But as Emrys pointed out, it's hard to find a massively successful film with big shades of gray.

Which is one of several reasons I was so impressed with Once Upon a Time, the series that ran last season on ABC (and presumably will return this fall). They weren't afraid to tackle issues of moral ambiguity, and when they did, not only did they do so courageously, but skillfully and with subtlety. It wasn't a matter of the bad guy flipping a switch and chameleon-like becoming a good guy now, most of the characters are crossing and recrossing the line and doing so in believable ways in response to plausible situations. If you missed this, I strongly recommend looking for it when it comes out on DVD.

I have to add that I view a second season with some trepidation. Their first season is going to be a hard act to follow. I expect there will be some pressure to make artistic compromises that might ruin the whole thing, as has happened many times in the past.

When I see an ad for "[adjective] [genre] movie of the [season]" I skip it. Been doing that for 20 years now and it's only rarely steered me wrong. Almost as a rule I don't go to see several entire genres because none of the movies that make it to the big screen are worth seeing.

Heh. And here I was thinking I was the only one who did that....Almost any movie whose poster shows one or more of the stars holding a weapon in a "See my gun" pose gets an automatic pass from me. There are other posters that tend to repel me in a more or less strong way. You can tell a book by its cover if you know what to look for.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

No, that's not true. I was quite happy with the story, but think it could have been approached with just a bit more subtlety than a brick between the eyes.

Oh, I totally agree with you there. The basic story could have been tweaked any number of ways, still had the basic plot and actions, but been a bit less "ham fisted". Buuuuuuuut... you and I like wargames, which means generally speaking we don't want our entertainment spoon fed to us.

I guess what I am saying is I went into that movie knowing I was going to be spoon fed. I made a decision ahead of time that I wasn't going to let it bother me. Similar to when Prince Caspian came out. A friend warned me ahead of time that they invented a mystical evil mist to give the story a single thread of evil, whereas the book didn't have one. And I know it didn't because I read the book probably a half dozen times since I was a fairly young kid. I was able to enjoy the movie despite this hideous dumbing down of the plot because I was at peace with it ahead of time.

I use this technique when watching 2.5 star Sci-Fi films. I know it's going to be weak, but hey... could still be kinda fun.

And for the record, this technique worked wonders for the Three Stooges movie that came out recently. Went to it for mindless slapstick and was VERY happy with it. No expectations of plot or character growth certainly helped

Sure. I have rights too.

Yup. You have the right to not spend money and time watching it. Just like CM haters have the right to not buy our games, not the right to tell us how to make them.

See above. I didn't like the way he told the story. There's a difference. "See Spot! See Spot run!" is a fine example of story telling for a certain demographic, but I'm not in that demographic anymore.

heh... I like to think I haven't been in that demographic since I was a kid

Which is one of several reasons I was so impressed with Once Upon a Time, the series that ran last season on ABC (and presumably will return this fall). They weren't afraid to tackle issues of moral ambiguity, and when they did, not only did they do so courageously, but skillfully and with subtlety.

TV is a different beast. They have the ability to develop characters over time and that allows them to make someone endearing or repulsive then pull a switcheroo that is not only interesting, but believable. It's very hard to do in a 2-3 hour single sitting movie where everything is new and fresh and has to be resolved by the end. It can be done, just like TV shows can completely screw it up.

In fact, this is why so few great books translate well into movie format. There just isn't enough time to get the necessary groundwork in for character changes to be believable. The more complex the story's characters and events, the more likely the movie will be a horrid abortion (or stupid fun like Starship Troopers). Lord of the Rings is one of the rare exceptions I can think of.

My wife and I are just about to finish up with the TV show Angel. There's tons of character development in there just as the other Whedon series (Buffy and Firefly, haven't seen Dollhouse). Moral ambiguity is a specialty of Whedon's works. LOST had a lot of it too, however it got annoying because the characters would grow a bit, then revert, then grow, then revert. It was annoying towards the end.

Steve